31, 33 (2d Cir.1978)). II, A. ’ In support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff first claims that the defendant has violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(2)(A) and 1692f by attempting to collect a debt barred by the state statute.of limitations, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-576. The plaintiffs argument, however, is devoid of merit. In Hubbard v. National Bond & Collection Associates, 126 B.R. 422 (D.Del.), aff'd without opinion, 947 F.2d 935 (3d Cir.1991), the bankruptcy court held that the plain language of Section 1692e “was intended to prohibit only knowing or intentional misrepresentations by debt collectors,” and that this interpretation was “consistent with the FDCPA’s purpose and structure.” Id. at 427; see also Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c) (providing that “[a]
holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action holding that a violation of a state statute regarding the swearing of criminal complaints does not give rise to constitutional liability holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims holding that a state agencys violations of its own internal regulations did not establish a due process violation or otherwise give rise to a constitutional claim holding that an unintentional bona fide error did npt give rise to a violation of the fdcpa