Search the Community

Quick Question. I am behind the eight ball and late in the game but need some solid input. Upcoming trial in Texas with JDB within 30 days. They have forward flow, bill of sale, affidavits, a couple of individual statements and personal account info extracted from their mass buy. No signed agreement with original creditor and obviously no complete sales agreement for the JDB's mass buy. I did answer complaint with general denial but that is all. Trial is within 30 days and I have yet request discovery. My impression is that I should be asking for things like alleged original credit application, credit card agreement, JDB's sales agreement, etc... I also understand discovery works both ways. The issue is that if I request discovery from the JDB (judge has to approve), they will have 30 days to produce and the trial will be before then so it would be a moot point. So, the primary specific question is: At this point, am I better to... A. Request a continuance from the court to have appropriate time for me to demand discovery, motion to strike affidavit, etc...? or... B. Requesting an extension may be a tactical error and better to go into trial with no discovery on either part and just argue the issues of their lack of those items? I would really appreciate hearing possible Pro's versus Con's. Sincere thanks.

Johnson v Law Offices of Farrell & Seldin et al in the US District Court, District of New Mexico. "The Defendants have filed their motions to dismiss without bothering to set out the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint that relate to each claim for which they seek dismissal. As the moving party asserting an affirmative defense, the Defendants bear the initial burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to dismissal because “the specific allegations in the complaint [do not] plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2007). Here, the Defendants draw legal conclusions without referring to the specific allegations in Johnson’s Amended Complaint that support his claims for relief, causing the Court to have to do their work for them." That was just a footnote. The judge was pissed off and handed them a 23 page smackdown over a simple MTD. Judicial notice has also been taken of how Citibank produces its affidavits, and in a federal court to boot! "Johnson attached an affidavit and several exhibits to his Amended Complaint, including the letters he received from Citibank, its Attorneys, and the UCB; letters and some filings from the state-court collection action; and copies of entries from Shayna Gier’s personal blog in which she documents her activities as Citicorp’s employee. See Am. Compl., Exs. A-I. Johnson’s affidavit states that his research of the state-district court’s database shows that the four attorneys licensed in New Mexico who work for Farrell & Sheldin filed over 3000 collection cases in the three-month period of February 1, 2011-May 2, 2011, which he contends shows that the Attorneys could not have diligently reviewed the information it used to prosecute Citibank’s collection efforts against him. See Affidavit at 3-4. His exhibits demonstrate that he asked Citibank to admit that Shayna Gier had a quota to meet in preparing affidavits for collection purposes. See Am. Compl., Doc. 1-2 at 6-7. Ms. Gier’s October 2009 blog discussed how Citicorp required her to meet a daily quota in “verifying as many affidavits as I possibly could,” and that when she did not make the quota, she was placed on an “overtime freeze.” Id. Doc. 1-3 at 5. She stated that she had prepared “close to the highest number of affidavits” but that she still had not been able to meet the quota. Id. Her November 4, 2009 blog stated that the quota was 37 affidavits per hour, but she had been able to prepare only “30 per hour.” Id. at 12. She stated that her failure to “mak[e] goal” also meant that she “gets no raise next year,” and that she earned less that “9 dollars an hour.”" As a side note: The judge did dismiss one of defendant's claims against Farrell & Seldin. She said defendant could recover emotional distress damages under the NM Unfair Trade Practices Act or the FDCPA, and that the tort of IIED was simply redundant. The IIED claim against Citibank stands, and defendant has a doctor, medical records and prescriptions to back it up.