It is appropriate in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to consider public records associated with an underlying action that is central to a complaint, even when the complaint itself does not make explicit reference to the underlying action. See Cain v. Thompson, No. 3:19-CV-00181, 2020 WL 42897, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2020) (“Plaintiffs cannot rely on their own vagueness, however, to avoid a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds....
In fact, there is a Circuit split regarding whether the FDCPA statute of limitations begins to run when allegedly improper lawsuit is filed in state court or when the defendant is served with that lawsuit. Cain v. Thompson, No. 3:19-CV-00181-GNS, 2020 WL 42897, at *3, n.5 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2020) (citing Ruth, 604 F.3d at 914); see Langendorfer v. Kaufman, No. 1:10-CV-00797, 2011 WL 3682775, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 23, 2011) ("it is clear to this Court that other courts have come to different conclusions as to whether the FDCPA statute of limitations is triggered by the filing of the debt collection action or the service of such action"). "This Court has previously dealt directly with this issue and found that, although some courts from other jurisdictions have come to differing conclusions on the issue, . . . the FDCPA statute of limitations begins to run at the time of service [of the state court complaint]."