Jump to content

Case Dismissed, then Notice of Hearing - Recieved same Day

Recommended Posts

To make it short, had a hearting 7/18/06.

Dismissed with prejudice.

Got home to a Motion for Plantiff to appear by phone.

Two days later a Motion for Rehearing arrives.

I file a Memorandum in opposition to rehearing.

Today, an Order of Dismissal dated 7/25/06 and a Notice of Hearing dated 7/26/06 scheduled for 8/22/06 arrive.

According to the online records, case is closed.

So... do I have a hearing on 8/22, or will they have to appeal to have another hearing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you have to appear, they will try to UNDO thier screwup not appearing on 7/18. You need to get your ducks in a row with a clear understanding of the rules. You need to oppose thier attempt to re-open the case.

No doubt the rules said they had to act by X, and file the "by phone" motion considerably earlier, etc. So you need to make sure you can convince the judge they had thier day in court, prosecuted thier case they way they CHOSE to and screwed up. oh well. Plaintiff (not the atty) has recourse... SUE HIS OWN LAWYER for incompetence, "that is what malpractice insurance is for".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a dismissal, but any judgment/dismissal/order can be VACATED for just cause, this would be in your rules of civil procedure under "vacate".

So the plaintiff will try to use the ability to motion to vacate to reopen the case. You need to read the rules, especially about what THEY must do and have done to enable them to get a vacate, and counter as best you can, thier efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hearing is still set for August 22, 2006 at 9:15.

So now I have two weeks.

Alright, so now I have to present my points as I did in my memorandum opposing a rehearing, where were:

Plantiff violated Fl. R. Civ. Pro. 1.090(d) by not filing motion in a resonable time.

Plantiff failed to comply with Fl. R. Civ. Pro. 1.420(B) by not sending a written response within 30 days to a request for Production of Documents.

Evidence supplied with the summons is insufficient.

All that was supplied with the summons was a Cardholder Agreement, and no account numbers were listed, and the principal balance is FAR overstated, with no mention of INTEREST.

Unfortunately they are pushing the limit of overcharging interest, but arent there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.