punctured

Members
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Excellent

About punctured

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    AZ

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Raul, On some excellent advice, I took the same course of action as you are and came out guns a blazin with a MTD based on DE SOL. Your motion to dismiss uses much of the same arguments, case law, and opinions that I used. In my case, the judge said nope, and that was that. What it did for me though was get my mindset right from the start, and also let them know I was going to fight with no holds barred. I'm curious if anyone has had success with this tactic in AZ, or heard of anyone who has. I'm pretty sure that what's going to have to happen is that some cases are going to have to go to
  2. I don't know but in most cases by that point there's already been discovery and most likely an MSJ, so the evidential issues have probably been laid out. In most cases. I had a motion in limine to preclude deposition testimony heard and ruled on before trial, without any such hoo ha.
  3. I've been saying it for a while: the money is funny. If the money was just money, then there would nothing wrong with it. Money is a great invention. But it's being messed with in a big way. Something ain't right with it. Most of us have at least suspected this for a while. I don't really want to turn this into that kind of discussion, but the big banks (international) don't even make their real profit from late fees and overdraft fees. With the way that the fractional reserve system works, they pretty much just pull money out of their a$$. Well it's not sustainable that's one thing for sure.
  4. "The long standing standard of the least sophisticated consumer does not apply;an individual that can type up and file a conforming complaint with the Federal Court should not be considered a least sophisticated consumer for the purposes of litigation." My understanding of the "Least sophisticated consumer" standard is that it doesn't matter how sophisticated the actual plaintiff is in any particular case. It's irrelevant because the standard by which the collector's behavior is to be judged as to whether they broke the law is that involving a hypothetical "least sophisticated consumer" E
  5. Thanks! and it really goes to show that you don't have to take whatever bones they try and toss you when they realize they can't win. Sure, a part of me was going hey you should count your blessings and just take the dismissal quietly. And yeah that's true it is a blessing but.. no. Cause you know what? They are lucky that I didn't get a whole lot more money from them. That might sound like empty vanity but the truth is if I had known what I was doing at all when this started, then that would be a very real possibility. And they need some checks on their business model of just running over peo
  6. Well Flyerfan, I think we know that I am prepared for that. But I talked to them today and.. they're going to cut me a check.
  7. The stipulated dismissal mentions each party to bear it's own fees and costs. I guess that's normal but I want muh costs. How do I get them?
  8. Ironically, the document is a perfect example of the kind of underhanded psychological manipulation tactics of guilt, shame, and veiled threat that midland engages in regularly.
  9. Continued from http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/316441-grand-canyon-discovery/#entry1193961 Got that Call from the plaintiff today, a week before trial. They want to dismiss! Big thanks to everyone who helped and continues to contribute. This board is one of the gems of the Internet, there is no doubt. It's a golden age of empowerment through knowledge and thanks to you all here on this board I was able to make the system give me my due process. Now I have been through the whole thing and have an overview of it, and you can bet that next time there will be counterclaims and more
  10. Yeah but guys his wife's a paralegal. That makes him legit, don't you think? The best way to deal with a summary judgment, is to discourage the JDB from filing one.. by showing them you know your stuff with discovery. That way they won't even bother filing MSJ.
  11. I got another motion for telephonic appearance from the plaintiff. It's the exact same boilerplate motion as the first one that was denied, with no new arguments or information. This after they were told at trial that they needed to have their custodian of records appear in person. The judge literally said "You're going to have to fly them from California, so you need to decide if you want to do that in light of that the case is only for $1600." Needless to say I've filed an objection, and an objection to having to object again on the same motion, and a motion for sanctions per ARCP 11(a). M
  12. I would like to note that the judge disallowed the deposition based on ARCP 30(b )(7) "The parties may stipulate or the court may order that a deposition be taken by telephone. For the purpose of this Rule and Rules 28(a), 37(a)(1), 45(c )(3)(A)(ii), and 45(e), a deposition is taken in the county where the deponent is to answer questions propounded to the deponent." He actually retired to look at the issue for a few minutes. He also let the attorney know that had they motioned for leave to take the telephonic deposition like they were supposed to, instead of just noticing it and going ahead a
  13. Why thank you! Case continued for 1 more month, but MAJOR VICTORY in that my motion in limine was granted and NO deposition testimony will be allowed. The judge gave them the option to fly in their witness, and that's it. They must appear in person. I feel bad for them if they actually do bring that person from CA. They must realize by now that even that guarantees them NOTHING in this case.
  14. Here also is my objection to and MIL to preclude that testimony, submitted on or about Feb. the 5th: Statement of Facts On December 20th, 2012 Plaintiff motioned to have their "custodian of records", Ivan Lavinsky, appear by telephone at trial. That motion was denied by the court on December 31, 2012. On January 14, Defendant received a letter from Plaintiff giving notice of their intent to depose by telephone the same witness, Ivan Lavinsky, at the office of Hameroff Law Group in Tucson, AZ. Defendant objects to this deposition as excessively burdensome and unfairly prejudicial. Legal
  15. Bumping with the Plaintiff's reasoning for allowing their deposition (received today): MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSITION IN LIEU OF TESTIMONY Plaintiff, by, and though undersigned counsel, hereby submits its memorandum in support of use of deposition transcript in lieu of testimony as allowed by Ariz. R. Civ. P. 32, JCRCP 123, and Ariz. R. Evid. 803(25). This motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities. I. BACKGROUND This lawsuit arises from a contract between Punctured (hereinafter Defendant) and Chase Bank (hereinafter "Original Creditor"). Plaintiff a