GTHMHNL

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GTHMHNL

  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...
  16. Doesn't Midland stating that it is Closed with Explanation mean Midland has closed this case? I read everything on the CFPB page over and over, it's all the original responses, nothing relevant to the Closed with Explanation. Should I pursue the actual explanation since there is not attachment? This is what I was thinking, that I need something more official in order to consider this over with. I just came from the courthouse with the accepted MTC A and the Motion to Shorten Time which allowed the MTC A officially filed within an acceptable time. I'm just about to send the original st
  17. Holy Moly - I just received this note from Midland via CFPB portal. It mentions an extended explanation in the attached response, but there wasn't any attachment other than their very first response back in June. Response disputed MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC said:Explanation of closure Thank you again for your inquiry through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As indicated in your complaint, your desired resolution was to have the suit dismissed. Midland Credit has investigated the claims brought forth in your complaint as outlined in its summary response. As a result of Mi
  18. This is what was confusing about their issue with the MTCA packet I filed last week - I attached the court-generated Notice of Pretrial Conference received by both me and Dang at the last appearance with time/date of the next appearance. It essentially has all the information required in the Notice of Hearing page that I had to generate today. Whatever - it's done, and according to their specs so hopefully things work out this time...
  19. Update... I went to the courthouse this morning just to pick up my stamped, filed copy of the Motion, or so I thought, only to find it was not approved and 'stricken' because it was missing the 'official' 'Notice of Hearing' section. In fact, I did include 'Verification by Affidavit' and 'Certification of Mailing (to plaintiff)', as well as the court-generated notice of hearing from the previous trial with date/time/courtroom written on it, and copy of the registered mail receipt, but this specific section of the Motion for some reason needed to be submit as a single page containing all
  20. Filed it with the very 1st desk I went to - 'Legal Documents' within the civil claims department. The supervisor worked for that desk as well. I wasn't able to retrieve the copy of the filed paperwork because they didn't call until 10 minutes before they closed yesterday, closed over the weekend, Monday is a holiday so Tuesday morning it is. I should receive some kind of CFPB from Midland and Chase response this week - it's over a week, and as i've learned from you and subsequent reading, they are required to respond whether they want to or not. This will be interesting...
  21. Done, and on time. It wasn't as simple as going down to the courthouse and submitting it to the clerk as i'd expected. Turns out, here in Hawaii it's so unusual for a defendant to file a MTC A they didn't quite know how to proceed. Initially, they said they were the wrong department (Legal Documents) and referred me to Claims. I asked why, the sneery clerk said they didn't think this kind of document was processed at their desks. Considering the general area wasn't very busy and Claims was at the next counter, no problem. That clerk said I had to process my motion at Legal Documen
  22. So, I just spoke to the executive office woman from Chase. She told me they are not authorized to release card agreements on cases that have been charged off. I got some info from her - that the account was opened 6/12/2002, 'credit revoked' on 9/9/09, last payment on the account was 8/25/10, sold to Credigy 1/20/2011 with a collectable balance of $12199.61 - which isn't an exact figure that appears on any other doc I have. She had no (sharable) info about another transfer from Credigy to Midland after that, nor any indication of other correspondence with them after it was sold. When asked
  23. Understood. I'm trying to make cautious decisions based on facts I can collect, including the original cardmember agreement directly from Chase, vs the one found on cardmemberagreements.org. Since the core of this motion is based on this specific information, shouldn't I be sure the agreement from the time of Midland's purchase of the debt includes the arbitration clause? I can't find these supreme court rulings on google scholar. Can you provide - it would be great to include it in the MTC Arbitration doc.
  24. I did specify private arbitration per cardmember agreement, also mentioned agreement survivability clause. He also looked through my MTC Arbitration doc where it's clearly specified as well.