GTHMHNL

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About GTHMHNL

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Hawaii

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I meant, 1st and 2nd pre-trial conference. I believe if it's the 1st, it's meant only to enter a plea. It doesn't allow for motions, etc.
  2. I'm not sure how that works, to push for MTC A at your 2nd pre-trial conference, if it's as straightforward as that. Something to consider, there's a 14 calendar day period prior to your trial date where you're supposed to submit the MTC A papers to the court clerk for processing and approval, and a verified (court stamped) copy sent to Dang. If you're already within this timeframe, you'd have to file a Motion to Shorten Time with the MTC A with reasonable explanation of why you're eligible for the shortened time, which allows paperwork submission to be recognized and accepted by the court
  3. Hey AM - I just went through something similar, though with Chase / Midland, so possibly different terms. What worked for me was finding a relevant card member agreement that happened to have an Arbitration and Arbitration Survival clause. This is what ultimately helped steer the case to a dismissal with prejudice ('with' is what you want though instinctively it's easy to feel 'without' might be better - 'with' means the dismissal is finite. 'without' means they have the option to reopen the case at another time). It sounds like you're still to appear at your 1st pre-trial conference.
  4. Oh, so he was the first to speak, initially providing a quick history about offering an ID theft option that I declined, then they offered dismissal without prejudice that I followed with faxing them a dismissal with prejudice. He didn't mention the MTC A that likely pushed them into dismissal at all. He then said they didn't receive my DWP prior to yesterday's appearance because I only faxed it on Friday (I actually sent Thursday night) and he didn't see it until yesterday morning (even though the fax cover I made for it was marked in 200pt letters at the top "URGENT - TIME SENSITIVE"). He
  5. Thanks! No, no contact before being called before the judge - he came in late and sat in an area that kept us separated. No eye contact either, at all, even when we were before the judge. The only time he looked at me was when we both walked out of the courtroom at the same time when he gave me a bit of a sneer... so much for our mutual friend connection - hah.
  6. Dismissed WITH Prejudice!! It wasn't without a condition - the attorney asked for it to be entered as 'without finding on merit' which I agreed to assuming it was more for their records vs effect on me because the way I saw it, dismissed with prejudice is dismissed with prejudice. From there the judge told me I was free of the following scheduled appearance, and free to leave. No problem. Could not have gotten here without all your help, especially @CCRP626. Thank you all very much!
  7. They've been pretty 'no contact other than PO Box and general phone', no biz card or email - I think they're the only JDB firm here so likely get a lot of not-too-pleasant contact - it's an accessible community. So no email, but i'm going to fax them tonight, ask that they confirm by EOD tomorrow otherwise i'll see them in court come Monday.
  8. I've already completed a new form (same as the one they sent) and changed 'without' to 'with'. 3 copies for them, judge and me. I'm half tempted to just send them a signed copy of the modified version to see if they don't notice and sign themselves out of my life. (but I understand your instructions above and see it's the best path to go)...
  9. Update - in the mail today was a Stipulation For Dismissal without Prejudice from Dang's office! Not exactly what I was hoping for but close - it's a dismissal. It highlights a line i'm supposed to sign, and i'm assuming to send back to Dang's office since they included a return envelope postage paid. It says i'm still to show up to court next Monday at the later appearance time - the original time - not the the half hour earlier to hear whether the Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. I think i'm supposed to be pretty happy about this. Do I sign and mail back to Dang, then sho
  10. Understood. I'm just exploring opportunities that, yes, I thought might affect the course of this case and am realizing that my best tactic is to keep focused on the upcoming appearance for the time being.
  11. I asked the CFPB guy about this, he said to file a new complaint that might have carryover information but addresses a different topic - in my instance, not responding with the information originally requested - there are no time specifications... Or at least, that's how I understood it.
  12. Yesterday's Midland CFPB response has been bothering me, I called CFPB again today to ask about how they get away with not responding to the points in my dispute to their 1st response. He said CFPB doesn't get involved in mediation as much as provide a venue for consumer/business interaction, and consultation on what could be done. He suggested I file a new complaint about not finding their yesterday's response adequate because it did not address specifics details in the dispute. He said there is no time frame for it to be done in or around, but just make sure it doesn't appear as a dup
  13. Nope - no response to this. They still have some time to respond. It may not be critical information for the MTC A hearing, and if I don't get it within 30 days from the complaint, i'll pursue again through CFPB. I'll start to organize these docs as well.
  14. No - it was the exact same response letter they sent the 1st time. The CFPB woman said by using the same one means that they're probably sticking to their initial claims, whether I find it incomplete, inaccurate or otherwise.
  15. Just got off the phone with CFPB. As you specified, they explained that Midland's response to my last dispute, with the 'Closed with Explanation' comment, is indeed to specify that Midland has closed this correspondence with CFPB, not with me. So the lawsuit remains. Very misleading... I'm headed to the post office to mail these docs to Dang withOUT the copy of the CFPB response. It was just too good to be true...