• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


PSteele last won the day on January 29 2018

PSteele had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10 Good

About PSteele

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. In the end, the amount that I'd have spent on defending and / or travel to defend it myself was more than what the settlement wound up being, so I just went and settled. That said: (1) yes, block billing was a thing. There was almost $12,000 worth of block billing. (2) yes, the rate charged was not the rate shown in the contract, for a couple hundred hours. (3) There was a little bit of partner time, but it wasn't partners doing work. Status meetings, etc. Of course, some of that time occurred after the case was adjudicated in my favor and the final orders were filed, but
  2. No, I'm not trying to argue that they charged the incorrect billing rate. I'm saying that the contract they're presenting does not describe the dealings that occurred, which, combined with the fact that they never signed it indicates that no true meeting of the minds took place. I don't actually care what the bill rates are, just that they demonstrate that THIS sheet of paper is not a valid contract. (And, regardless, the fact that I supposedly breached it BEFORE my signature appeared on it would also argue against this being the ACTUAL contract.)
  3. No, not exactly. I'd be arguing that the alleged contract presented is invalid, nothing more. Plaintiff didn't sign it, plaintiff didn't follow it, and plaintiff claims I breached it a week before my signature appears on the sheet. Therefore, this alleged contract cannot possibly be valid. Plaintiff's own actions and allegations indicate that the alleged contract in the record couldn't be the one that governs any business between us.
  4. The problem is the work logs: almost 10,000 dollars are disposed of simply with the note of "manual entry." There's only about 5k that actually has anything attributed to it, and a big chunk of that is at the wrong bill rate. edit to add: I'm not against paying the deserved amount... the problem is, the deserved amount is NOWHERE NEAR what they're claiming. Attacking the contract is more an attempt to get rid of the interest than to get rid of the bill as a whole.
  5. A law firm that I had previously retained in an unrelated matter. An attorney employed by that law firm, though for purposes of this case he's operating under his own shingle rather than theirs. Started off at ~25k, reduced to ~15k, plus interest Plaintiff Served In person It appears to meet the requirements, yes Some years back they presented me with a rather padded bill for blatantly (and I think in part intentionally) incompetent service, and I told them they were insane. I live in California, but I
  6. Yep. Plan to do that for sure. And of course, it's not like I'm out of the woods on this one yet myself: I think I really pissed off their attorney on this one, and there's still some months left on the SOL. When I get the trial brief redacted, you'll see why and how, but short version is that if things had gotten that far and the judge was in a good mood, she'd have had to self-report to the bar association.
  7. Dismissed w/o prejudice today against Portfolio. I could have had dismissed with prejudice... but I would have had to sign a mutual release of claims, and I plan to at least get my fees and costs back so I declined. Filed an opposition to the request for dismissal, but the major case that I relied on had been depublished and I hadn't noticed that. Judge took the time in court to go through the underlying reasoning with me, though, and he stated both before and after the proceedings that he'd found my depth of research and knowledge, as well as the quality of my legal writing, to be
  8. Thanks! I guess I should probably do that right now, actually!
  9. Welp, just got home from court. I always knew that the opposition to the dismissal was a long shot, and in the end I didn't get what I wanted out of it, mostly because the main case that I was using was depublished, as it turns out. But, the judge and I had a solid 5-8 minute discussion on the underlying precedent and the differentiation between those cases and this one, and it was pretty good. And the case is, of course, still dismissed. At both the beginning and at the end he complimented the depth of my research, the quality of my writing, and my level of knowledge, describing my
  10. In this case, the relief sought in my motion in limine includes a final adjudication. Plaintiff failed to object to the motion. Therefore, under the local rules, they have essentially waived their objections to my motion and created an inference of meritoriousness. Even without my notice of non-opposition (which was still filed before Plaintiff's request to dismiss), that means that a motion for final adjudication on the merits of the pleadings has been submitted to the court. Because Plaintiff waived their ability to object or offer arguments against it, the only thing that remains is for the
  11. Okay, good. I just wanted to make clear that the portions that I'm leaning on the hardest on are the ones that won't expire, and which tie a specific practice to a specific piece of law. That said, I'm not really relying on even those, though. And they definitely blew off 98 here, for sure. As well as the 1271 exceptions: they made not even the slightest pretense at showing any of it wasn't hearsay. I know that I'm going to get it dismissed, at a minimum, if only because Plaintiff has already filed a request for dismissal without prejudice. Thing is, I don't want it dismis
  12. ... re: settlement v. law, maybe. I don't have time to argue the whole thing right now, nor do I want to air that particular bit of laundry before Monday, on the off chance that this does turn out to be a trial. Regardless of the nature of a thing being truly a violation of the FDCPA or not, though, when there's an order that says "Don't ever again do this specific, exact, thing" and then the subject of that order goes and does that specific, exact, thing... it's hard to argue that PRA didn't violate the order, if nothing else. Even if the court declines to enforce it. I mean, in my case
  13. I'm not relying on the consent order. I have plenty of other things to go on as well. I do, however, want the judge to see it, and--ideally--to note that they are violating it, whether or not he can enforce anything. That will make the net stages easier, when I go to the CFPB.
  14. I pretty much stopped posting publicly for a while, and kept everything in private messages for a bit, due to an appearance--possibly mistaken, but irrelevant at this stage--that Portfolio was reading this thread and may have identified the specific case being described. Doesn't really matter now, though: trial is on Monday. 3 days from now. No, 2 days- it's after midnight, and technically Saturday already. Everything's been filed that can be. So. Filling in the past several months. (1) I filed and served my discovery demands back in July. I received no response of any kind.
  15. I strongly suggest you have a look through this, too. It's pretty interesting, if you're dealing with Midland or any of the other subsidiaries of Encore Capital Group.