Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Johnson Mark LLC'.
Found 2 results
I really need a General Strategy of how to fight Midland represented by Johnson Mark. I understand majority of documents and their purpose, but I'm worried that if I do not see the whole picture beforehand, I won't be able to react appropriately or prepare in time. Can anyone direct me to some sort of flow-chart of how the case moves through civil court. Maybe a TO-DO list and what-to-expect list and appropriate time limits. I'm a little confused on timelines and all necessary requests and filings. I'm worried if I do not file or answer some document in a timely manner then I will be basically surrendering my rights and/or missing requested paperwork to support my case. Here is my TIMELINE: 2006 OPENED WF CONSUMER CREDIT CARD AS OVERDRAFT PROTECTION 2011 CC ACCOUNT WAS CHARGED-OFF BY WF in 2011 (CC limit was $4,500 but I'm being sued for almost $10K) 2011-2016 RANDOMLY RECEIVED STATEMENTS FROM MIDLAND (amounts varied from $7K to $13K) 11/12/15 JOHNSON MARK LLC SERVED COMPLAINT ONTO MY SPOUSE (I was not present on premisses, but it's still legal in UT) 11/18/15 COMPLAINT WAS FILED WITH 3RD DISTRICT COURT, UTAH 11/24/15 FILED MOTION TO DISMISS (based on SOL; as it is not an "instrument in writing" and falls under 4 years) 12/2/15 FILED 1st REQUEST TO SUBMIT FOR DECISION 12/10/15 RECEIVED PREMATURE FILING MINUTES 12/10/15 RECEIVED OPPOSITION TO MOTION (was dated 12/7/2015) 12/15/15 FILED REPLY TO OPPOSITION 12/15/15 FILED 2nd REQUEST TO SUBMIT FOR DECISION 2/16/16 RECEIVED ACCOUNT STATEMENT FROM JOHNSON MARK LLC IN THE MAIL (very basic info stating the whole acct #, ownership, balance, but no charge-off date) 2/16/16 CALLED JUDGE's CLERK TO INQUIRE ON STATUS OF REQUEST 2/23/16 RECEIVED NOTICE FROM COURT ON MOTION TO DISMISS (ruling scheduled on 3/07/2016) 3/7/16 JUDGE DECLINED THE MOTION AND EXTENDED 21 DAYS TO FILE THE ANSWER (SOL was denied, as judge agreed it falls under "instrument in writing"; 6 years instead of 4) 3/22/16 SENT LETTER SELCETING ARBITRATION TO JM AND MIDLAND 3/28/16 FILED THE FOLLOWING: ANSWER AFFIDAVIT MTC PROPOSED ORDER 3/28 - 3/31/2016 RECEIVED MULTIPLE PHONE CALLS FROM JM (to stop any phone calls, file CEASE & DESIST) 4/1/2016 AGREED ON SETTLEMENT - my original offer was $1500 when complaint was filed; JM's lowest was $7.5K - JM offered $2K, saying it's a stretch from original $7.5K - countered with $500, pointing out ARB fees and legal expenses - JM declined - JM called 30 minutes later accepting the offer 4/1/2016 RECEIVED SETTLEMENT PAPERWORK - JM lawyer sent AGREEMENT LETTER to my email (upon my request) - called JM lawyer directly to request: dismissal with prejudice, no transfer of debt, no 1099C - agreed upon everything but 1099 - as it is regulated by Federal Law - ordered cashier's check and went to meet up with JM lawyer - received SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and SATISFACTION LETTER in writing - both parties have signed MOTION TO DISMISS (with prejudice) - received ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE - all docs mentioned: with prejudice, and each party bearing its own costs and attorney fees - received payment stub Thank you to everyone. This has been the best resource.
HELP NEEDED, PLEASE! Asking for Security Costs in Utah seems to be relatively uncharted territory and I feel we need to fight this as best we can to set a precedent for future cases against the JDB's. I filed my Motion for Security Costs on March 13th and JM for Midland Funding was served on March 14th. (These were posted on another thread). As per the Utah Rules , a response in opposition needs to be filed within 10 days and if they are served via USPS mail add 3 day for a total of 13 days. On March 28th, (15 days after Plaintiff was served w/ Motion), I filed my Request for a decision and the Plaintiffs attorneys were served with the request on March 29. On March, 29th, Plaintiff mailed opposition to security costs and I was served with it today, April Fools Day. Here is their answer: Argument - "Defendant has requested a cost bond to be filed by Plaintiff but has failed to show or allege what costs (not attorney fees but costs) he might incur in this case. As such, without even alleging what costs might be incurred, Defendant cannot have shown any "reasonable necessity" for any such cost bond. Furthermore, the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure have recently been amended with the specific goal of keeping costs such as this one down to a reasonable amount. Finally, Defendant cites a number of cases about attorney fees, however, Defendant in this case, is pro se and as such he cannot at this time be awarded attorney fees. Until or unless Defendant can show the reasonable necessity for a cost bond, his request should be denied." First of all the Plaintiff's response was late, although I am beginning to believe this is just another tactic for the JDB, should I still provide the Court an answer to the Plaintiff's opposition. I have 5 days to do so. Regarding the formulation of an answer, it seems the Plaintiffs answer seems to be simply that since I am Pro Se, I won't have any attorney fees. This certainly does not mean I will not have costs involved in dealing with these wretched creatures. It is not possible to know in advance, what costs I might have. I am a Pro Se Defendant, and this is all new to me. Plus according to Utah Law, a Pro Se Defendant may be entitled to Fees if the Defendant wins its case. In my Motion I mentioned we were in the early stages of Discovery. It is interesting controlling costs is only important for the Junk Debt Buyers, since they have to file so many lawsuits!!Any help would be greatly appreciated!! I also received in the same packet from JM, Plaintiff's Statement of Discovery Issues. Plaintiff had asked for 6 years of bank statements in initial discovery. My answer was "After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no such documents are in the care, custody or control of the Defendant. Defendant has not maintained a bank account foe over 3 years". Which I have not. Here is their Statement: Plaintiff sent Discovery to the Defendant. Defendant provided a response. However, Defendants responses to Plaintiff's Discovery were incomplete as Defendant failed to provide any of the requested documents. Based upon the Defendants defective responses, Plaintiff requests the Court order to fully resond within 14 days. Said requests are proportional as the information is needed for this case, the burden is minimal as the requests are for information in the Defendant possession or control or the Defendant can respond indicating that it is not, the discovery is not cumulative and the information is for the Defendant knowledge or understanding of the facts. ( this is actual wording) Defendant's bank records are relevent and discoverable in this matter because they are business records identifying creditors to whom Defendant. As such they are likely to identify creditors to whom Defendant has recognized an obligation to make payments. Further, such bank records are likely to evidence Defendants failure to make payments that were due. ( again exact wording)Any help would be greatly appreciated.