I was under the impression/assuming because I had done a similar notice on 4 other different collection attempts and they all stopped collecting.
All that means is that they decided not to validate, so they stopped collecting. The FDCPA allows them to forego validation if they stop collection efforts.
I was under the impression/assuming because I had done a similar notice on 4 other different collection attempts and they all stopped collecting. I could be wrong!! But it appeared to me that if they did not complete in 30 days with a validation, which they did not other than a computer print out.
They're not required to validate in 30 days. It's the consumer who must request validation within 30 days of receiving a collection letter that contains the 30-day notice.
Also copy of the original was establihed in Fields v. Wilber Law Firm, Donald L. Wilber and Kenneth Wilber, USCA-02-C-0072, 7th Circuit Court, Sept 2004
You're not in the 7th Circuit. You're in the 9th. A copy of the original what? I don't understand.
4/15/13 they filed complaint with notarized affidavit signed by a Tim O'Dor representing CITIBANK. but
They delayed service with 3 requests for extension to serve until ... what is the SOL on these requests?
Unless the rules dictate otherwise, a court has discretion to allow extensions. As long as they filed the requests to extend before the previous extension was up, and the court granted them, I don't know that you have a claim. The rule doesn't seem to limit the number of extensions that can be requested.
Could this be used as a defense? Why would they do these delay tactics? To get beyond the FDCPA SOL?
An FDCPA counterclaim would toll the SOL (stop the SOL clock from running). If you didn't file a counterclaim, then you're out of luck for any possible violation that occurred more than a year ago.