Bill: Since your post is so long (not that thereâ??s anything necessarily wrong with that) Iâ??ll only go into portions, because to do otherwise would be getting off-topic too much. Nonetheless, youâ??re talking apples and oranges here to certain extents; Iâ??ll explainâ?¦ Albeit not a strict violation of FDCPA for a collection agent to file suit, while still within the 30-day window following a first dunn or validation notice. Filing and serving the complaint is widely thought in the collection industry to be prone to triggering litigation for alleged violation. Correspondingly, if a collection agent were to threaten litigation in writing within the 30-day validation period; such would fall under the US Supreme Courtâ??s ruling in Hientz vs. Jenkins, as absolutely being a violation. Therefore competent collection agents (meaning those that have their act together, by staying informed of industry trends) do not file for this reason, as well as cost-related ones. Not filing within the validation period has nothing to do with summons dates, nor first hearings or the like. Well youâ??re not wrong, per se, just confusing the issues a bit (again, apples and oranges). What Squawk, others, and myself were referring to are letters FROM consumers TO collection agents demanding performance (from the collection agent) within 30-days. i.e., Records and contracts proving legitimacy of the debt. What I am referring to by the 30-day validation period stems more toward first communications, initial dunns that provide for the written validation notice to consumers per Â§809 of FDCPA. Because threatening to engage suit or demanding any money within this period, is definitely a violation of the Act. Would be glad toâ?¦ Checkout Miller vs. Payco General American Credit. Inc. if the collection agent in your case asked for or even remotely demanded payment within the first dunn (letter from the agent). Essentially the court ruled words such as â??immediate payment in full,â? â??call us todayâ? and even â??nowâ? â?? within the first written communication â?? constitute violations of FDCPA. In short if any payment was requested, demanded, inferred, or suggested via the first collector letter? Threaten them with a suit for violation of FDCPA, and see if that doesnâ??t shake their tree a bit (quoting the legal cite of course). I have a strong feeling, if your case qualifies; that youâ??ll get some needed attention and cooperation.