Harry Seaward

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Harry Seaward

  1. I don't know that it really matters all that much. Fist says the fees in JAMS are higher for the business, so if the point is to make it as uncomfortable as possible, I think JAMS is your best bet. If you were to withdraw your JAMS case and open it in AAA, you know PRA would go back to court and raise heII about it.
  2. Not if they're trying to send the message that they will follow debts of any amount. My bad. The point is the same which is it seems they get a 100% refund if the case is withdrawn. Right. OCs following isn't news.
  3. According to the image you posted, they also get a 100% refund if the case is withdrawn within 30 (or 60) days before the hearing. Then you're missing the bigger picture. They don't care about "your" individual debt. They have walked away from debts 10x the amount of yours. But *that* has become the point. They can't keep doing that now that it's common knowledge on an internet message board.
  4. Is the 100% refundable fee policy new? I thought it was 50% refund if cancelled within a certain period and then 25% within a later period. If the 100% refund is a newish thing, that could explain why we are suddenly seeing several cases of them paying the filing fee. They could pay the filing fee trying to bluff us and then balk at the arbitrator fee deposit, and still get all of their money back. It doesn't explain the two other cases where they have paid the arbitrator deposits, on sub-$5,000 debts, though.
  5. The problem with counterclaims is that if PRA makes a successful argument that your claims are frivolous (probably not very likely), it opens you up to the fees. Beyond that, JAMS has allocated fees back to the consumer in at least one case. It was being appealed, but that member went radio silent so we really don't yet know how the upper echelons of JAMS arbitrators interpret the combination of the consumer arbitration rules with the consumer minimum standards.
  6. What kind of cases? PACER is only going to show cases filled in Federal Court. And you pay for each "page" in a search result, which can get very expensive if you search for every PRA lawsuit filed. PACER's only real advantage is to let you see actual documents filed in specific federal cases. Below that, each state/county/etc usually has their own website to view cases that have been filed in that jurisdiction. If you want to see how courts of record (federal courts, state appellate courts, etc.) have ruled on various questions of discretion and law, http://scholar.google.com
  7. If you search though the site, you'll find dozens, and possibly hundreds of people that have been sued by PRA. The trend 20 years ago was they (JDBs in general) would drop the case when a defendant would simply file an answer. When they started losing too much money, they started scaring people into settling or default with discovery requests. A few people stuck it out and revealed that they didn't actually have the goods to win a trial. These days, they buy actual account records from the original creditors, and most courts have established policies of applying Adoptive Business Records Doctrine (ABRD) to the records that a JDB brings to court. If the witness can testify the OCs records were incorporated into the JDBs records, and relied on for day-to-day business activities, most courts will allow the records in. So now the SOP for debt buyers is file a complaint, wait for defendant to answer, file an MSJ citing whatever applicable & binding ABRD caselaw, then sit back and wait for the court to enter judgment in their favor. There are a handful of individual hold-out judges, and even entire jurisdictions, that still think computers are too unreliable to run a business, despite the fact their entire financial world would cease to exist without computers. If you live in one of these 'blessed' locations, thank your lucky stars. Otherwise you'll need a Plan B.
  8. Is there an accounting for the $5,000? I thought it was only $2,500 for the arbitrator deposit.
  9. Not all cases are created equal, and any dismissals you see are, in the best case purely anecdotal, and in the worst case, the result of a settlement agreement wherein the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiffs a lump sum. If you're just asking general questions, the most we can provide are general answers. YMMV, as they say.
  10. @tvaughn did the plaintiff ever ask for an award of their arb fees?
  11. Rule 26.1 disclosures are required to be sent by both parties within 40 days following your answer. If you have nothing do disclose, you don't need to send anything. And going to arbitration renders this requirement null. "Served" just means they sent it via postal mail on that date. You should have it in a couple of days.
  12. They only need to show the transfer to them from whatever statements you last made payments on.
  13. I saw that, but then later there was the part I quoted that said service on an attorney was good enough, so I wasn't sure if the 'good enough' was only in those certain exceptions.
  14. I'm not sure what I'm reading here.... In sum, section 98(a) is concerned with types of process through which a party can summon a person to appear at trial and inherits rather than alters the basic framework of rules governing service of these forms of process. With a civil trial subpoena ad testificandum, personal delivery upon the subpoenaed person is generally required for effective service. (See § 1987, subd. (a).) Thus, when an affidavit is submitted by someone who can be directed to appear in person at trial only through such a subpoena, a local address at which the affiant is personally present for pretrial service is necessary — unless, of course, the person fits within a recognized exception to the personal service rule, in which case an address that permits proper service upon an appropriate representative will suffice. When an affiant also can be summoned to appear at trial through a notice to attend served on an attorney (§ 1987, subd. (b)), however, either a local address where the affiant will be personally present for service of a subpoena or a local address of the attorney will suffice. Are they saying that any witness can be served at their attorney's office, or only if that witness falls into one of the "recognized exceptions"?
  15. Exactly. They aren't going to sue for only $950 when the total amount owed is $6,400. They will sue for the whole $6,400. And Discover doesn't bluff. If you got a notice of intent to sue, they will sue if you don't work something out.
  16. There area a lot of California cases here about using CCP98 to win in court. The other option is using arbitration to 'encourage' a dismissal. Them suing two different OC accounts under one lawsuit could be interesting in arbitration. I don't know that we've ever seen that happen.
  17. Are these two different lawsuits, or are they suing both accounts under the same complaint?
  18. Yeah, there were two other dismissals also. But 3 have paid the initial fee and one of those has also paid the hearing fee (total paid is more than the value of the debt), so at least one of them appears to be taking it to the end. If it were just two, i could dismiss it as a coincidence. If it were several from the same lawfirm, i could dismiss it as ignorance. Several from different lawfirms concerns me. For now, i just don't know what to make of it.
  19. Possibly. I'm no tax expert, but this is potentially opening a huge can of worms as far as your taxes go. Your current employer would be paying your 'business' at an employee tax rate, and your 'business' would be paying you, possibly at a much higher 'self employment' rate. I'd talk to a tax professional before i did anything like this. It would be easier to set up a checking account with an online only bank (like Capital One, for example). It takes time and resources to locate bank accounts, and most judgment creditors only look for accounts at banks in your state. Have they gotten an order to levy your bank accounts yet? They have to do that before they can take anything from your accounts.