BENJAMIN NAZMIYAL LAW GROUP, P.C.

209 Main Street, Suite 2

Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Direct: (201) 377-3403
Fax: (201) 849-5074
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Edgar Villanueva and
All others Similarly Situated
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
EDGAR VILLANUEVA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

v.

THE BRACHFELD LAW GROUP, PC,

ERICA LYNN BRACHFELD
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

2:13-cv-02489-JLL-JAD
Hon. Jose Lineras

DECLARATION OF GOOD CAUSE

I, Prabhkaran S. Bedi, Esq., hereby declare as follows:
1. I am an associate at Benjamin Nazmiyal Law Group, P.C., plaintiffs counsel,
in the above captioned matter. I am also an attorney at law admitted to practice before
this Court. Plaintiff provides this affidavit in support of good cause for why the instant
action should not be dismissed.
2. The instant action is a putative class action filed by plaintiff on behalf of a
statewide class for redress of defendants violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act. Plaintiffs complaint was filed on April 17, 2013.

3. On April 22, 2013 plaintiff served defendant, a California law firm and debt
collector, with the subject Complaint, Summons and Request for Waiver of Summons via
First Class United States Mail.
4. The April 22, 2013 mailings were never returned undeliverable to Plaintiff.
5. Defendants have to date, failed to execute the waiver of service, even though
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) imposes a duty on defendants to
cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons and complaint.
6. However, at sometime after April 22, 2013, due to internal administrative
error, the defendants waiver of summons was marked as received in plaintiffs paper and
electronic case files.
7. Plaintiff did not move for an enlargement of time to effectuate service prior to
the expiration of the 120 day period because counsel falsely believed that defendants
returned executed waivers of service.
8. Defendants ability to defend would not be prejudiced if the time for service is
extended because the subject litigation involves basic FDCPA claims that are premised
on demand letters sent by defendants to plaintiff and members of the putative class.
9. However, plaintiff and the putative class would be severally severely
disadvantaged and left without redress if the instant action is dismissed because the one
year statue of limitations on plaintiffs FDCPA claims against defendant expired on April
17, 2013.
10. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant a
one month extension of time to effectuate service and allow the instant action to continue.

In the alternative, if this matter is dismissed, plaintiff requests that the statue of
limitations on plaintiffs FDCPA claims be tolled to allow plaintiff to file a new action.
11. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: August 28, 2013

s/ Prabhkaran S. Bedi
Prabhkaran S. Bedi