Goody_Ouchless

Recall the erroneous reference to "Discover." Probably safe to assume that the entire motion was copied from another case and slightly edited. I wouldn't read anything sinister into mention of AAA.

Haa - eventually their case management system will dismiss for lack of prosecution.

Still missing my point. I don't care about 3K or 22K or 1,000,000K. I am only talking about AAA's costs and fees. It is clear that Unifund's lawyer is under the impression that the costs and fees of arbitration, regardless of claim or case, will be recoupable in the final award. As Harry had said, this is a very dangerous state of affairs if Unifund pursues a case to completion that they otherwise would have folded. Since it's clear Unifund does not understand the cost/fee allotment, I'm asking if it would be in OP's best interest to request another call, or formal written clarification, so that Unifund knows, in no uncertain terms, that the money they have paid (and will pay) to AAA is a total loss and will NEVER be assessed to the OP?

It's boilerplate verbiage that resulted from a Supreme Court case that basically says they can't force you into arbitration if it's just to collect money. They will twist it to be mean that no claim for debt collection can be arbitrated, but that has been successfully argued against.

It's like their whole argument is that to be contractually compliant, you need to initiate. If they've been down this road before (which is seems like they have, the way they talk about costs,) then it's like they somehow feel like their only hope of recouping is if it's "your" arbitration. Also funny with the Discover reference, since they will arbitrate - it's like they found an old boilerplate Discover motion and just decided to toss that at the wall. PRA will just fold, so it's pointless for them to argue some long shot aimed at recouping costs PRA will never pay.

So now it's worth checking everything they quote from the contract to see if that matches. So what's their main point - that if you are forced to "demand" (and initiate) arbitration that they won't get stuck with a big bill? It makes no difference, under Consumer Rules, does it? EDIT: HAAAA - they quote that fee schedule as if the Consumer and Business lines are the costs, depending on who initiates. Idiots either don't realize that those are the costs to each party, regardless, or they are blatantly trying to mislead the court.

Notice where they say "To be clear, Discover does not oppose..." Discover? They copy/pasted this from another case!!!!

I also misunderstood @Harry Seaward's point, but he is exactly right. The goal is to get them to lose by folding. rather than lose by winning. They will lose, either way, with the bill, but if they follow through, they could win the case. Not sure it makes a difference in this case, as it seems limited to the alleged FDCPA violations - nothing else. In the 22K case, if that gets to arbitration, you don't want her going all the way to final judgement. But to Harry's point - it seems important to clarify, even if that means another call, that Unifund is not getting their money back - lawyer needs to understand that in no uncertain terms.

This is just more evidence that she thinks this proceeding is under jurisdiction of court. At some point I'd expect her to go off on arbiter for not looking at the same court system that she is, but she won't do that because she thinks he's a judge.

I'm not referring to the cases, I'm referring to the final allotment of arbitration fees and costs. As @Harry Seaward pointed out, she is convinced that you are getting stuck with whatever they have paid to AAA, thus far, and you don't want to take the chance that the arbiter figures that's something you expect. You need it clearly on the record that, as a Consumer Arbitration, Unifund is not going to see a dime of what they have paid, regardless of outcome.

Is this something that should be brought up now, perhaps for it's own call/hearing - something to get "on the record," that this is a Consumer Arbitration, with no further financial exposure to said Consumer? Just to avoid the Discover fiasco? Seems highly unlikely. Isn't this akin to taking Best Buy to arbitration over violations to a service agreement for a TV and having Best Buy try to use that proceeding to go after late payments on a toaster oven?

Yes, but this isn't court. Arbitration exists for the purpose of Dispute Resolution and I suspect they are bound by some code of ethics that prevents them from knowingly proceeding when it's clear one party is unaware of the Dispute that is being Resolved.

What happens when the arbiter finally realizes, as he may already have, that Unifund doesn't know where they are or what they are defending? Can they continue the proceedings, with that realization?

I would argue that another bill from AAA to Unifund may trigger an accounting review that results in "WTF ARE YOU DOING???!!!" (and if Unifund is laboring under that delusion, perhaps OP can have arbiter confirm to both parties what the final tally will look like, under terms of Consumer Minimum Standards - or AAA's equivalent verbiage.)

Right - you know that, we know that, but Unifund doesn't know that. I would probably play dumb and say "I'm concerned about how adamant Unifund is, so let's get together and hash this out." Your only goal in arbitration is to cost them so much money that they give up. The sooner this gets cleared up (which it will) the better it is for Unifund. Frivolity goes out the window, because the only reason the case will get dragged out is because of their own mistakes.