until July 2013, although plaintiff believed that a payment or two of less than the minimum amount owed tolled the running of the statute. Plaintiffs opposing submissions never raised any other issue as to why it failed to file within the appropriate limitations period, other than its contention that the six-year statute applied. It did not plead “bona fide error” as an affirmative defense, nor did it raise any issues as to what procedures it had in place to avoid its error or what reasonable inquiry it made into the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff simply operated under the wrong impression as to the applicable statute of limitation and became liable to defendants under the FDCPA, entitling them to damages, counsel fees and costs. See Jackson, supra, 754 F.Supp.2d at 715 (<HOLDING>). To the extent we have not expressly addressed
holding that when the department of insurance acknowledged that it had received an accident report of a claim within the statute of limitations  it was thereafter estopped after the expiration of the statute of limitations to deny receipt of the claim holding that the filing of a complaint in a class action suit suspends the statute of limitations but a denial of class certification reactivates the statute of limitations for potential plaintiffs holding statute of limitations should not be equitably tolled for taxpayer who filed a refund claim after the applicable statute of limitations holding that where the violation of the fdcpa was the filing of a lawsuit the statule of limitations begins to run on the date of filing holding creditor liable under the fdcpa for filing suit after expiration of applicable states statute of limitations