Christine

Members
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About Christine

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Fields

  • Location
    AZ high desert
  1. Got a quite favorable appeals court ruling, except for the discovery issues. Going for reheaing / en bank. Order to join Equifax was part of case management plan Equifax refused to waive service and it took a long time for them to appear Equifax never provided initial disclosures I made countless requests, finally Equifax agreed to extend discovery deadlines when I was ready to file motion to compel initial disclosures Court denied the timely filed JOINT request and later granted summary judgment for Equifax Appeals court affirmed, discretion of district court. There MUST be some favorable rulings out there, but I haven't had internet for almost the last month -- appreciate any cases with either affirming or overturning discovery decisions such as this one. Unfortunately the appeals court did NOT provide anything meaningful in the memorandum.
  2. Thanks so much, kraftykrab, Simkus is exactly what I was looking for, although I don't like the dismissal of the FDCPA claims regarding the collection letters since IF the interest was deemed waived, they attempted to collect amounts illegally charged. I just read all three Simkus opinions on Google Scholar and the many cites are a goldmine. Once you found one relevant case, there seem to be hundreds. Re. DLA: The judge grasped at anything Equifax offered in its reply to its msj, it just floored me, as if he never read what I wrote. Well, sometimes he referred to my arguments, but stated that I "misunderstood" the law or the facts. Midland's own exhibits clearly showed the date of last payment, but the judge just didn't think it matters. So I'm looking for some cases that discuss the DLA or TU's date to delete. It is complex, but Simkus gave me everything I need to establish that 1) HSBC waived the interest (credit reporting, my testimony regarding their collection letters with balances not increasing, and MCM's collector's settlement offer), so it's a pretty sure thing that HSBC waived the interest. However, too bad that it's a matter of jury decision in AZ (according to Simkus), although I'm prepared to take it to the jury. I've never read of any AZ FDCPA or FCRA case making it to jury trial or any trial and there's probably several reasons, attorneys not good, don't have the money for many thousands in costs for depos, expert witnesses, etc. and last but not least, several hateful anti consumer judges and conservative jurors. I've been at it for so many years, I'd take it anywhere it needs to go if the case is remanded. Simkus also explains EXPRESS waiver of charges and I'm sure that applies to the the waived interest by Midland when they sued me. I'll be spending a lot of time going through all the cites, and I think at worst, it'll be another issue for the jury to decide. If you have some spare time, please do read my opening brief. I have not been able to look at it again since I filed it, read it so many times and then the day before filing LOST a bunch of revisions -- I really wish I'd had a couple more days to organize it better. It was hard because I followed the judge's order dismissing my claims and he mixed up my claims against Equifax and Midland. In my reply brief I want to make sure to address anything that might not be clear to someone not as involved as I am and I appreciate any pointers. I've been using Scrivener to organize my research and lots of case law from Google and if you actually sue, I'll be glad to send you my Scrivener file, you can use the software for 30 NON consecutive days and there's only one nag screen when you start it up. It's not perfect and I wrote the brief in Word (in several different docs due to the number of issues), but it sure helped to organize and summarize the cases I'd seen.
  3. I recently filed my opening brief in the 9th circuit court of appeals because I once again got railroaded in kangaroo court (Phoenix federal court). The brief is posted at http://creditsuit.org and involves numerous FDCPA, FCRA and discovery issues. I worked on it for 2 weeks straight and bought the NCLC FCRA and FDCPA subscriptions, but just ran out of time and am still looking for case law on several issues for my reply brief. 1) The importance of Equifax's date of first delinquency (aka date of last activity or DLA). My claim got dismissed because they argued that as per FCRA they could have reported 6 months longer and the judge decided that the additional 1 month was insignificant. However, my claims were NOT against Equifax for reporting too long, but against Midland / MCM because they verified the incorrect DLA and against Equifax for lack of procedures. Of course the more RECENT the DLA, the greater the damages as the most RECENT delinquency determines one's credit worthiness. It would be nice to have some cases about that. I can't afford depositions and if remanded, will obviously do written discovery with Equifax, but they will claim no knowledge regarding creditors' underwriting practices and I can't pay for expert witnesses. So I need case law. 2) Midland WAIVED pre-judgment interest in state court, but verified the balances including the waived interest. They argue that they can continue to report waived charges just like cases re debts dismissed for SOL. I agree with regards to SOL dismissal, but this is different. Many consumers negotiate settlements either pre suit or during litigation and I have NEVER seen a waived charge reported to a credit bureau. Midland had added interest on the account PRIOR to its purchase of the account from the date of charge-off. Under AZ law they are entitled to 10% interest and it does not specify from what date, presumably from the date of purchase. HSBC had stopped charging interest when it charged off and the Midland documents all state the charge-off balance as the purchase balance. Most credit card holders receive credits for late fees, interest etc. for one reason or another from the original creditor and I don't see why a subsequent purchaser of the account could add these charges. The justice court dismissed my FDCPA counterclaim and denied my motion to amend because Midland stated in its motion for summary judgment that it WAIVED all pre-judgment interest. I haven't found any cases about that, but am aware that creditors can "assign" an account with the chargeoff balance + interest, but nothing of that sort was ever provided by Midland and I recently found a collection letter from a collector on behalf of MCM with a settlement offer based on the charge-off amount / purchase balance without any mention of interest. So there are TWO issues, one regarding the WAIVED interest during the Midland litigation against me and the other regarding the legality of Midland adding pre-purchase interest when creditors such as HSBC and Chase chose to not charge interest after the charge-off and the account is sold with a BALANCE = to date of chargeoff . How specific does a CRA dispute have to be? The district court judge reasoned that my balance disputes were NOT specific enough and that I was supposed to provide the correct balance according to my calculations. I had checked the Equifax online dispute form option for "incorrect balance." Of course I argued that in my NUMEROUS court filings and discovery docs I had already provided Midland / MCM with the exact nature of the disputes and that it's not up to me to calculate the interest, but the judge didn't care. I'll be doing a lot of research over the next couple months once I got caught up with planting etc., but greatly appreciate any relevant cases.
  4. The SOL for FDCPA violations is 1 year from DISCOVERY of the violation.
  5. Does anybody have any cites on hearsay exceptions for credit reports and CRA investigation results? In 2006 I lost a case because my exhibits were ruled to be hearsay as per Capital Funding v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 2005 U.S. Dist LEXIS 2212, no. 01-6093, *6 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 11, 2005) (affirming exclusion of credit reports as hearsay). And what is the effect of the "NOT PRECEDENTIAL" on the appeals court ruling? http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044355np.pdf Now I got lucky because Equifax authenticated its investigation results, but I'd like to know whether Capital Funding is still the law of the land.
  6. Does anyone have the recent NCLC FCRA book and no longer needs it? My responses to the Midland and Equifax motions for summary judgments are due in couple weeks and I don't have an extra $250 right now. Could possibly trade for the current FDCPA books as I doubt I'll need them until I appeal, which will be a while if their motions for summary judgment are denied.
  7. It's been almost 2 months ... very busy. Judge Logan was very kind and actually denied the Midland motion for protective order before I got to submit my opposition. People like "Clydesmom" shouldn't be allowed to post here at all, she is clearly working for the OTHER side. I had asked Midland several times to submit the discovery motion to the judge, and they kept promising docs. It wasn't until the eve before the 8/19 settlement conference that Midland finally provided some documentation and as expected, it proves that Midland reported an incorrect DLA to Equifax. They STILL refuse to correct the reporting. As expected, the settlement conference was a sham. Midland and Equifax refused to reschedule it again, so I had to waste a few hundred dollars and two days to travel to Phoenix while the defendants attended by phone and only their local counsel was present. FYI, Midlands local attorney is William Fife and that's noteworthy because he also is a bankruptcy lawyer. From http://www.williamfifelaw.com/: He even offers "credit restoration" and he fails to disclose that he represents debt buyers. And of all the attorneys I've dealt with, he is one of the most unpleasant people I've met. Recently IGNORED an email regarding amendment of my complaint for a week. Very UNprofessional!I don't even understand how he can represent consumers while simultaneously representing debt buyers, seems like a conflict of interest to me if a consumer looking for bankruptcy has a Midland account. Anyway, I'm currently working on amending my complaint to join Trans Union as Midland continues to deny incorrect reporting and we didn't settle. I'm also asking to extend the discovery deadlines, Equifax hasn't even provided its initial disclosures yet. I'd love to depose Dominique Williams, the Midland rep who signed their obviously false discovery responses. I can't afford to pay for depositions, but maybe some people will chip in a few bucks and I set up a GoFundMe page. I'll let the people vote on where I'll take this. I'm going to try to upload the discovery docs, but it's a lot of work redacting since so many docs have my personal info. Hopefully soon ...
  8. Paramountlaw, you made an excellent points and that's what I mean by not being able to "win." A consumer without an attorney can't win because the financial and emotional damages of fighting these bastards is completely ignored. I think that all consumer protection laws need to be significantly enhanced and this case proves it. I'm not looking for damages due to declines, but because I've been in court with Midland for 2 years now. For Acarta it was 3 years and I got $1001 -- what a joke! Back in the early 2000s few creditors or collectors were stupid enough to not delete the accounts as soon as they got sued. In fact, this forum is full of sue for deletion type stuff. I also find that there is absolutely NO regulatory enforcement and the big corporations like CRAs, the too big to fail banks and major debt buyers like Encore / Midland couldn't care less about the law. Their strategy is to ensure that debtors can learn from my cases -- just pay up and don't bother complaining about credit reporting. Consider that Midland sued for less that $4,000 and at only $10/hr, it cost me MUCH MORE to get the case dismissed just in time. Not to mention the stress and the fact that my roommate moved out because I was not in a good mood. So why should anyone consumer bother to fight them? Also, I have made a LOT of bad case law. However, due to my failed and highly publicized litigation, class actions were filed and Capital One DID finally report the credit limits. I know I've made a difference before and I hope that someone will take my stuff and run with it. I'm not happy that the class action lawyers make millions and we get NOTHING (except for worthless fako scores or credit monitoring, etc.) It is frustrating that I'm always the ONLY person putting up a fight and sharing my experiences. Litigation is so EASY when you have sample filings, but I don't even have an AZ or at least 9th circuit case to pull filings from. (Update: found a case against Encore in VA with discovery disputes, so that's a good start.) And, Midland now has until next Friday to review my discovery responses and to submit their portion of the discovery motion. They wore me out, all week, idiotic emails every day, making me angry. I need a few days to organize my files and upload filings.
  9. I totally agree with you about the protective order and I should just file my motion to compel. It truly sucks that my day has only 24 hours and I don't have that "fixed income" that so many of retired neighbors complain about. I sure wish I had the NCLC FCRA manual, but the FDCPA manual has some discovery material too, so maybe that'll help. Appreciate your feedback!
  10. Well, as you mention, they don't want this case and their business practices to be publicized. However, that IS the primary purpose of this litigation. I know that I'll never "win", but if I can find the time to make this THE case to get consumer laws enhanced and/or regulators to step in, I'll be very happy. I don't want a protective order, I want the docs for the world to see and they have yet to provide me with a single example of what they want to protect and why they want to protect it. I keep asking for their portion of the joint discovery dispute motion and they send me idiotic questions regarding the protective order, claiming that they don't understand my questions. Has anyone actually READ their proposed protective order? Since they won't explain to me how this works, can you or anyone else explain it? Must have spent at least 25 hours on my discovery responses to them (due today) and I'm beat.
  11. Both, I just uploaded my amended complaint: http://creditsuit.org/litigation-forum/baker-v-midland-funding-mcm-and-bursey-associates/101713-draft-proposed-amended-complaint/#p20
  12. Victor, I contacted EVERY AZ NACA attorney twice when I was sued by Acarta and Midland, but nobody would represent me. Ended up prevailing in both cases (3 years of litigation including successful appeal to the AZ court of appeals) and for the last year I've been suing Midland, MCM and their attorneys. It looks like I just don't have the resources (time and money) to be able to prevail against them.
  13. Thanks, that's quite helpful, much appreciate your info. You may have noticed how different the protective orders are. Midland's atty Gabriel refused to answer my questions, so I just informed her that I won't be signing it, they'll file their motion for protective order and they'll provide me with their portion of the joint motion re. the discovery dispute. I'll have to do a lot more reading on federal rules and local federal rules.
  14. Does anyone have the case(s) stating that a pro se litigant's work product is not subject to discovery? Have to respond to their discovery requests by tomorrow.
  15. Pretty standard requests, all docs relating to my accounts and credit reporting. I'll post their actual responses tonight, but for now I posted the protective order and our emails since Friday. I've seen protective orders before, but nothing like this: http://creditsuit.org/blog/2014/07/15/midland-funding-demands-protective-order-prior-to-providing-any-docs/