• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


kittycat last won the day on May 21 2020

kittycat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About kittycat

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
  1. Ask your attorney if the automatic stay created by your 11/11 bk filing should have prevented the court from entering judgment on 11/15, or if the case should have been stayed instead. Also ask your attorney if the judgment created a statutory lien on any real estate you might own. If you do own real estate, and the court didn't have the authority to grant the judgment on 11/15 (given the automatic stay on 11/11), then ask your attorney if she can move to have the judgment order vacated. In certain circumstances, it is better to have as few judgments as possible as you file bankrupt
  2. When did pra file to confirm the arbitration award in court? Was it after your attorney sent notice of the bk to pra? Never mind, I see reading your prior post that they filed to confirm two days before you filed bk.
  3. Oh good, you have a lawyer. I thought you may have filed the bk yourself. If you provided your lawyer with a list of all your debts/creditors, and information about all pending court cases, then your lawyer should have handled everything. If you filed bk before the court granted the judgment, your lawyer may even be able to get that judgment vacated (although in some jurisdictions, bk stays everything). Not that it matters all that much. If you have trouble, your lawyer can handle it. Unless you paid your lawyer for bk filing services only, and not for complete representation through the disc
  4. You can file a notice of bankruptcy in the court case if you haven't already. Doing so will stay the case and prevent execution of any judgment (since the court has already granted the judgment). Even if you don't file a notice of bankruptcy in the court case, they shouldn't be able to execute the judgment but you might have to give notice about the bk if they attempt to execute with bank, employer, property lien, etc. Debt buyers like pra are independently notified about bk filings (via services to which they subscribe) even if you don't send them a notice about the bk. It is probably still
  5. Does the ruling by the appeal panel change anything for anyone else going forward? If it does, how does it do so? It seems what you're saying is that the error made by the first arbitrator in your case was so egregious that any other arbitrator would likely not commit the same error, assuming such arbitrator read and understood the plain language of the CMS. If this is true, it was also true before the appeal panel in your case made any ruling.
  6. Even under exactly the same facts, all that some future consumer can point to is the rules and the agreement. No reference can be made to the appeal panel review in your particular case, even if some future consumer was lucky enough to know that it existed. The rules are not clear enough on their own, so the appeal panel review in your case only helps future consumers if JAMS updates their rules in light of the appeal panel review. Otherwise, the interpretation of the rules by the appeal panel in your case will stand entirely on its own. It can't be used or even read by anyone else. Th
  7. "With prejudice" as compared to "without prejudice" is pretty different, as you say. One way they demonstrate consistent intention is that both were done at the time that PRA was sending draft release agreements to dispose of the claims in their entirety. So, if PRA had filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice (perhaps even the exact copy that they had sent Billy with the settlement agreement document), they what PRA would have filed would've been entirely consistent with Billy's case. The "lawfirm" handling the case is PRA themselves. All of the attorneys l
  8. You had noted my references to “voluntary”. I explained why I included that term. It was a voluntary rather than involuntary dismissal. Then you state that it wasn’t entirely voluntary. Well, according to AZ rules of civil procedure, voluntary dismissal includes a motion to dismiss after an answer is filed. My response was only in regard to what is considered a voluntary dismissal. That’s all. It had nothing to do with the court’s discretion or anything else. Let's set aside whether or not an action that cannot be completed without the intervention and approval of an
  9. It can matter. Jurisdiction to vacate can be lost if the dismissal is done by notice rather than motion. See: Goodman v. Gordon, 447 P. 2d 230 - 1968 - ‎Ariz: Supreme Court google scholar or justia I'll resist the temptation to set in boldface the key passages in the above. The gist is that because a dismissal by notice is self-executing and involves no discretion of the court, the court loses jurisdiction upon its filing. Whereas a dismissal by motion is discretionary, and therefore jurisdiction for modification is retained. This can be important when sol is clo
  10. Because my last few replies to you involved addressing questions that you had just posed but that I had already asked Billy previously in the thread, and that Billy had already answered. For example, in your most recent reply, you stated: "This is why i want to see the wording of the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Vacate" But I had already asked Billy about the contents of those motions on the same day that he posted about them. And he replied with the details of the contents of those motions shortly thereafter. So, I added emphasis when I copy and pasted those prior foru
  11. This is why i want to see the wording of the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Vacate. OP said the Motion to Dismiss didn't say anything about the court case or arbitration, which would be very odd if the MTD was intentional. Inadvertently filing a MTD in the wrong case wouldn't be unheard of and is a perfectly justifiable reason to request a Motion to Vacate. In your above quote from Billy's "5/18/2020 at 3:34PM" post, the rest of that sentence makes it less mysterious: In the run-up to the filing of the motion to dismiss with prejudice, all of their other
  12. You've typed "voluntarily" in boldface in several of your prior posts. Do you mean to imply that retraxit (or voluntary dismissal with prejudice, if you like) is somehow not equivalent to a verdict and judgment on the merits of the case, and doesn't bar another action for the same cause between same parties? That somehow the "voluntarily" nature of the motion to dismiss with prejudice is lesser than a verdict and judgment on the merits of the case? It isn't entirely voluntary in az, at least in the sense that PRA had to make a motion to the court. They couldn't do it unilaterally with
  13. No. That's in the May 12th "Motion to Reinstate Dismissed Case" (Motion to Vacate), not in the Feb 11th motion to dismiss with prejudice. All of the information below appeared earlier in this thread. Billy filed a motion to compel arbitration sometime between September and December 2019. The court granted the motion in December 2019. PRA's original in-house attorney filed the motion to dismiss with prejudice on February 11th, 2020. (in the interim between Dec. and Feb., PRA apparently also sent settlement correspondence). There was no reference to arbitration in the Feb. 11th
  14. When they filed the motion to dismiss with prejudice. My reasoning is based on the modern law interpretations of the effect of filing such a motion (as explained in the previously linked pdf), combined with the common law definition of retraxit, some of which has been incorporated into modern civil jurisprudence.
  15. Consider the follow hypothetical: 1. PRA brings claims against Billy in az justice court. 2. Billy prevails at bench trial in az justice court. 3. PRA doesn't appeal to az superior court within the time allowed, but instead files a case for the same claims in arbitration. 4. Billy ignores all of the correspondence from the arbitration forum, believing that the court adjudication was final. 5. PRA could file its own "MTC arbitration" in order to get Billy to participate in the arbitration proceedings, but since PRA has paid all of the arbitration costs, the arbitration