Anza01

Members
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Fields

  • Location
    California

Anza01's Achievements

CIC Member

CIC Member (4/6)

10

Reputation

  1. A card member agreement starts off with the following, Upon demand, and except as otherwise provided below, you and we must arbitrate individually any dispute or claim between you, any joint cardholder and/or any additional cardholder, on the one hand; and us, our affiliates, My question is using the least sophisticated consumer interpretation I would like to make sure I have the correct meaning of the follow clause (1) However, we will not require you to arbitrate: I see "not require you" to arbitrate as being an option that I can choose if I want regardless of what their terms are for not requiring a matter to be arbitrated. (2) However, you may not arbitrate: I see this as ARB not being an option at all. Similar to the "Mother may I?" game. Am I correct on the legal interpretation of the two?
  2. I am filing a motion to compel ARB, I have already served the opposition my motion with valid proof of service more than 30 days out from the hearing date. I have not actually filed the motion as I wanted to give the opposition time to dismiss their alleged claim. Instead what they have done is filed a opposition to my motion (no-merit, I have them on each of their arguments) I am not finding anything on the time to file the motion. The hearing is less than two weeks away and now I know I have to file my motion and pay the associated costs. I am a little worried I waited too long. From what I remember being told by a clerk once before I had to file my motion before the hearing but there I can't see anything on the actual date. If I file Monday should I be OK with less than two weeks to go?
  3. I served my cross-complaint within 20 days of being served in March, 2012. The process server did do it twice though, once for the OC and again for the law firm. The process server also filed proof with the court and it was accepted by the court. I am going to the court today to see if anything has been submitted once again. I believe the opposition is going to see if I show up and if I do, ask for another continuance. What I can't figure out is if I can object to further continuances over their claim that they want to file a motion to quash? They had their chance over the past 60 days to do so, right? About a week left to my next CMC...
  4. I am about two weeks out on the 60 day extension granted to the local counsel who appeared for the OC. At the CMC, the opposition stated they are going to motion to quash service and my cross-complaint. I did follow through with a M&C and the opposition has not responded at all to my demand. Their response to my original BOP was not complete and the opposition of course reserved the right to complete the BOP at a later date... So now we have about two weeks to go and nothing from the opposition. Any ideas on what to expect at the upcoming CMC? I will be submitting a CM-100 and I'm not sure if I can object to any late motions at this point? Can the opposition try to surprise me at the CMC? If so, what card do you think they would play?
  5. So doing nothing and perhaps waiting for something to arrive in the mail from Nationwide is better than going on the offensive? I understand what you and BV80 are saying, there are no provisions under the FDCPA. However, doing nothing means more phone calls and the OP is asking how to proceed. I see two options for this... 1. Do nothing because there are no provisions allowing the CA to continue with the never ending phone calls. 2. Send a CMRRR DV with all calls being inconvenient. The CA will then either stop collection efforts until they validate or continue to violate after the CMRRR DV. I see no benefit with doing nothing. If what the OP states is fact, the OP is not getting any type of dunning letter and nothing but calls. A DV should stop the calls or provide a official timeline to go after Nationwide for FDCPA violations. What would you (or BV80) do in this situation? If you would do something better than what I would do, I TOO would like to know
  6. As far as I know BV80, there are none and I have not really looked for any, yet. The thing here with the OP and Nationwide is that Nationwide can call all they want with no initial dunning letter and the consumer will have to prove there was 1st contact and have a hard time doing so with the he said she said claims. 15 USC § 1692g - Validation of debts Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing— -- There is nothing in this statute that says initial communication has to be by the debt collector. If the OP sent a DV there is now a paper trail and Nationwide will either continue to violate or validate. One thing I didn't say with my initial response was stating all calls to the OP's was that he/she should also state are inconvenient to stop the calls. My bad on that. To ewing8888 - You state you keep getting calls from Nationwide, how many days has it been now? Have you verbally asked for anything in writing? What was their answer? If this were me, I would ask for some type of letter from Nationwide over the alleged claim. I would also ask for their address so I could send my own debt validation letter. In that letter I would state all calls are inconvenient and that any communication with me must be done by USPS.
  7. Nationwide can call and call and call without sending anything and Nationwide can then say they never called... blah blah blah, yes that is true. But if the OP sends a DV without 1st receiving a dunning letter it will be 1st contact and force Nationwide to send a dunning letter within 5 days of receipt. The OP needs to force Nationwide into doing something more than just calling the OP, the DV will do so.
  8. You need to sand a debt validation letter. Dispute their claim to preserve your FDCPA rights.
  9. Well, I have beaten OC in arbitration and I am going up against a OC with violations and a smarmy law firm out of the Bay Area right now and guess shows up, CASH, LLC! CASH bought an account from on OC that has an arbitration clause and Utah as the governing law. DOFD is well over a year so I am considering the little known 1 year SOL Utah has as a defense... don't know if it will fly. Looks like CASH is doing what they do to everyone else that I have read... out of state lawyer sent the 1st dunning letter. I will dispute and elect ARB, I am definitely excited to see where this one goes!
  10. JAMS minimum consumer standards state the consumer must have a in-person hearing in their hometown area or federal district... So I wouldn't worry so much about the hearing location. Ultimately it will be up the arbitrator but chances are very good it will be an in-person hearing.
  11. While Kutuzoy response letter is good, I would not say "In regard to the account I use to have with HSBC, later purchased by Capital One, I do have a written confirmation that the balance owed is $0.00" because you have no real proof CapOne owns the debt and as far as you are concerned you owe CapOne absolutely nothing. I would dispute their claim and demand validation without acknowledging any other company I may or may not have had an account with. It is not my job to provide info to another and help their case....
  12. +1 Don't lose the war trying to fight a small side battle. The two are different animals and going after the process server can be done later on. Right now you appear to have a valid case against the process server but that does nothing to help your real issue, the complaint filed against you. Focus on that first!
  13. A little clarification, this virus redirect has been around since 2007, when the government took over the servers that would have caused the havoc. What is happening now is that it is time to shut the servers down. Those who are *still* infected after all this time will have an issue...