• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About digdeep

  • Rank

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I think I'm pretty much anticipating the same outcome. I believe I'm finding a SC appeal to circuit doesn't make it any less of a SC case. We'll see. They actually stated to the Commissioner in SC they didn't have a copy of the agreement they purchased, but won on "account stated". I dug up the agreement I attached to MTC and wondered about the SC exemption. That's their affirmative defense for dismissal. I've argued they haven't provided the agreement they purchased and how could anyone know that arbitration isn't a provision? I don't think that dog is gonna hunt, but I don't have much else.
  2. Any thoughts on kind of a side note? Obviously, I can't MTC the 2 Cap 1 accounts. However, if I MTC arb on the Synchrony contract and it's granted, if JDB didn't want to proceed would they have to drop the entire suit? I suspect they'd want to do this without prejudice and re-file the Cap 1 accounts, but I'm just trying to figure out how to use that arb strategy in this instance. Thanks!
  3. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, especially in light of the fact I've never seen such "consolidation" before. I guess I'm simply questioning how one would arbitrate a "portion" of the complaint. I suspect it's possible, but kind of strange. But, what isn't in these situations.
  4. Being sued by Midland through their attorneys and currently in small claims. The complaint has "lumped" 3 accounts that total under $10k, the SC threshold. 2 of the accounts are Cap One, which takes arbitration out of the picture. However, 1 of these is Synchrony Bank with an arb clause. Would you find it plausible to state that because they combined all 3 accounts in the complaint that they're effectively "inextricably intertwined" and arbitration can be compelled for the entire complaint?
  5. Manitowoc. Could you point out the Dane County case? I have to respond by today. The judge didn't necessarily rule per se. The Plaintiff's expert witness testified in SC that are not physically in possession of a contract and/or agreement. The Commissioner kind of shook his head, but ruled in their favor anyway. I dug up the card agreement on line and questioned whether the SC limits would apply, but filed the MTC under the pretense (personal thought process) the arbitration limits didn't apply because the case had been moved from SC to Circuit. The Plaintiff filed a response to the MTC Arb w
  6. Agreed, but the court doesn't always "get that". Like to have a few hands to play. While you're unquestionably correct, and I appreciate the input, sometimes you have to play both ends against the middle.
  7. Hey Texasbbj, Unlike TX, I've confirmed in WI that moving a SC Case to Circuit is considered an appeal of a SC Case and adjudicated under SC Statutes. Kind of OK, because they intend for it to be a lot more lax than Circuit in terms of standards for filings, pleadings, testimony, etc. That said, are you (or anyone here) aware of how one would go about finding a Citi Agreement specific to the year stated to be the year you opened the account? I'm not sure when Citi injected this SC verbiage, but it could be a twist for me. Thanks.
  8. I'm on kind of a short leash, but I'll try and hit the "high points"... JDB Plaintiff, Cavalry SPV I, LLC and through their attorneys, filed 2 small claims complaints on 02/20/2020 for CitiCards they acquired for amounts of $3,097 and $7,266 respectively. I went through my arguments in small claims and Plaintiff was awarded Judgement(s). I effectively anticipated this and, as is allowed in WI, I timely filed a demand for trial, which elevates this to Circuit Court to be heard by a Judge as opposed to a Commissioner. This drug out with the COVID thing, but no biggie. Prior to the hear