issue of material fact showing that defendant knew that it was attempting to collect a time-barred debt); Martinez v. Albuquerque Collection Serv., Inc., 867 F.Supp. 1495, 1506 (D.N.M.1994) (denying summary judgment motion regarding plaintiff's claim that defendant attempted to collect on a time-barred account because genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant contacted plaintiff about time-barred debt); Beattie v. D.M. Collections, Inc., 754 F.Supp. 383, 393 (D.Del.1991) (explaining that "threatening ... a lawsuit which the debt collector knows or should know is unavailable ... by reason of a legal bar such as the statute of limitations is the kind of abusive practice the FDCPA was intending to eliminate”); Kimber v. Fed. Fin. Corp., 668 F.Supp. 1480 (M.D.Ala.1987) (<HOLDING>). 5 . In Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s
holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred  is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt holding that debt collectors have no obligation to warn a consumer that her debt may increase over time holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or holding that plaintiffs allegation that debt collectors attempted to collect on a debt to a condominium association notwithstanding their knowledge that plaintiff did not really owe that debt to the condominium was sufficient to state a claim under the fdutpa