1. Who is the named plaintiff in the suit? Midland Funding
2. What is the name of the law firm handling the suit? (should be listed at the top of the complaint.) Kevin Mortell
3. How much are you being sued for? 3.6K
4. Who is the original creditor? (if not the Plaintiff) Capital One
5. How do you know you are being sued? (You were served, right?) Served
6. How were you served? (Mail, In person, Notice on door) In Person
7. Was the service legal as required by your state? Yes
8. What was your correspondence (if any) with the people suing you before you think you were being sued? None
9. What state and county do you live in? Illinois, Cook
10. When is the last time you paid on this account? (looking to establish if you are outside of the statute of limitations) 06/17
11. When did you open the account (looking to establish what card agreement may be applicable)? 11/15
12. What is the SOL on the debt? To find out: 5 Years
13. What is the status of your case? Served
14. Have you disputed the debt with the credit bureaus (both the original creditor and the collection agency?) No
15. Did you request debt validation before the suit was filed? No
16. How long do you have to respond to the suit? 3/06 is first appearance, claim is for account stated
17. What evidence did they send with the summons? Rule 280.2 Affidavit, last couple of statements
18. How did you find out about this site? Google results midland lawsuit.
I'm not sure what to do or what my options are from here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your help in advance.
The problem is that we don't know why the judge denied the summary judgement in the first place. Trial court judges rarely do eloquent reasoning for their decisions unless they know that their decision will be appealed. This might be a judge that will accept any reasonable opposition that shows the slight inclination that there is a trialable fact as enough to deny the summary judgement. To deny a summary judgement is easier to grant in that case, especially for a judge who might have been too quick in the past only to get the case handed back to them by an appeals court. It does not mean that the plaintiff did not have enough evidence to win. It means that the judge felt it would be better to do a trial just in case there was an issue at hand.
As for this plaintiff, the attorneys never intended to go to trial. Once the SJ was refused, they simply carried on waiting for trial on the off chance that something would happen to the defendant and the defendant would not show up. They hired a rental lawyer with the charging orders of settle or dismiss, enough case paperwork to do only either, and a sum so low it would not be worth the rental lawyers time to do anything other than the charging orders. A attorney local to the OP might have been more willing to go to trial, even with the SJ denied.
And then here's an alternate take. Different stimuli, same outcome.
"That is consistent with a second theory, familiar from other studies, that decision making is mentally taxing and that, if forced to keep deciding things, people get tired and start looking for easy answers. In this case, the easy answer is to maintain the status quo by denying the prisoner's request."