Jump to content

Defamation, Libel, IED in a lawsuit?


Recommended Posts

I am filing a Federal Lawsuit on FCRA/FDCPA violations and also would like to claim defamation, IED and libel. How would I write those into my complaint? Looking at examples of other lawsuits, I have my Count 1:, Count 2:, etc. for all the FCRA/FDCPA violations, now I want to add Defamation, Libel and IED as well. Can someone give me or point me to an example of what my counts 16, 17, 18 would read like if they were for Defamation, Libel and IED?

I'm suing a CA and an OC together. I don't think my FCRA/FDCPA violations that I'm claiming against the OC will get very far, but I definitely want them in the lawsuit and claim defamation, IED and libel against them. Any help would be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont mean to hassle and post in all of your threads, but it seems to me that all the questions you are asking are related to the exact same subject and require some sort of professional legal help, I dont think you can find the answers to your specific questions on these boards, so there is no need to keep rewording your question and posting new threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your claims arise out of common law rather than statutory law.

Since you are not aware of that, nor are you aware that libel is a form defamation, not a separate claim, I question whether or not you know which sections of the FCRA even provide for a private right of action for your claims.

If you insist on pursuing such a daunting task without assistance of counsel, and to minimize your risks of facing claims of filing a frivilous suit, possibly subjecting yourself to paying the defendant's cost of defending the suit, I suggest you do some extensive research.

Reviewing some complaints filed in similar cases would be a good place to begin. I'll even help you get started ---->here.

Since you're a New Yawkr, you might ask RA to handle this pro bono :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your claims arise out of common law rather than statutory law.

Since you are not aware of that, nor are you aware that libel is a form defamation, not a separate claim, I question whether or not you know which sections of the FCRA even provide for a private right of action for your claims.

If you insist on pursuing such a daunting task without assistance of counsel, and to minimize your risks of facing claims of filing a frivilous suit, possibly subjecting yourself to paying the defendant's cost of defending the suit, I suggest you do some extensive research.

Reviewing some complaints filed in similar cases would be a good place to begin. I'll even help you get started ---->here.

Since you're a New Yawkr, you might ask RA to handle this pro bono :)

I'd be delighted with that. You intested RA? Not Pro Bono, but I'd split any recovery with you.

The problem that I've had with most lawyers is that they're too busy (read only interested if there is class action possibility) or they want up front fees far exceeding the debt itself and also want to drag it out with more disputes in order to trap the CRA's into violations and raising the amount of damages sought. Or just in speaking with them, I can tell that they aren't familiar with FDCPA or FCRA laws at all.

I am seeking a lot of damages, but I'd like to keep it on the violations/conduct so far. I have actual damages being denied credit (I have 2 letters) as well as my inability to purchase a home and get a new job.

Thanks a lot for the case. I was reading a lot of complaints on Pacer regarding FCRA/FDCPA violations, but didn't see any for defamation. Seems like you can only claim defamation if the underlying debt is not owed. So I've spent lots of time and money reading a lot of cases that were strictly FDCPA/FCRA and no defamation wording for me to look at because it appears that the validity of the underlying debt wasn't really at issue, whereas I think it would in a defamation case. I may be wrong, though. That's why I was seeking advice.

I still don't understand why everyone says that an OC cannot be considered a data furnisher under FCRA if they don't report but the CA they hire does. I would really think that law of agency would dictate that they were just as responsible. I mean why do you think that they call them collection AGENCIES if they're not an agent of the OC? And if the OC has not empowered them to be an agent of theirs, how could they claim to collect money on the OC's behalf? By writing letters, making phone calls and conducting other collection activities on behalf of and under the direction of the OC (assuming the OC still holds the debt), then the OC should be responsible for their agent. Who would pay any money whatsoever to a anyone that wasn't an agent of the OC?

Isn't that one of the most important aspects about the DV process? Finding out of the CA is collecting on behalf and authority of the OC and that they are legitimately the OC's collection "AGENT"?

Based on the research that I've done into law of agency, it would seem to tell me that the OC is absolutely responsible for the actions of the CA. I'd love to get a ruling on it. It could really change the way that OC's go about selecting which CA's they hire. The shady CA's may no longer be able to find work without buying the debt outright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you went to law school, you'd know there are no statutes for such things.
Just think, if he'd paid the fee to that lawfirm, they'd be handling all this for him right now. I told him to calculate how much time his money is worth and he has to start from the very beginning to figure everything out.

Thrill, if you really have tort claims, you are leaving lots of money on the table trying to do this yourself. You'll be lucky to get the full statutory $1k. By the time you are up to date, the SOLC will have expired on your FDCPA claims.

In fact, I'd place a wager on you folding once the CA and OC file their responsive pleadings. Who wants in?

Pay the $700 and let your attorney handle this. Think of it as an investment. You're gonna get what you pay for. Guess what you get if you don't want to pay anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take that bet. I've had TERRIBLE experiences with attorney's in the past. Just horrible. If I don't feel very comfortable with someone, I'm not going to work with him/her.

Just think what you said: "If you really have tort claims on this, then you're leaving A LOT of money on the table." That's what I'm telling the attorneys. If they are really committed to this case and they are really going to fight to get that money, fight THEM, not me. I even said I'd pay the filing fees. Or I'd pay the "consultation" fee. But when they want me to pay everything, then no, I won't do it. I'm an intelligent person. In fact, I'm a member of MENSA. I can do the research myself. I can look at other successful cases similar to mine and see how they filed the complaints. I can also read the FDCPA and the FCRA.

I know that everyone is telling me that only the direct furnisher to the CRA is the "furnisher" under FCRA. But I'd like to hear a judge or a jury tell me that. Nowhere in the FCRA that I can find does it define "furnisher". I'm still waiting for someone to point me to the portion of the statute that does.

If an OC, through it's agent, knowing that the information it is providing will be put on a person's credit report and that information is wrong. Then when an individual disputes that information to the CA and the CRA and the CA GOES BACK TO THE OC and the OC verifies the incorrect information again. I'd say that they are the furnisher of the information. I think that a judge might as well.

Also, as far as the FDCPA claims go, I'd also like to argue that as an agent of the OC, the OC is responsible for the actions of the CA. This is an agency agreement/arrangement if I ever saw one. There is a lot of case law regarding the principle being responsible for the actions of it's agent. OC's have a responsibility to protect consumers and their financial data.

Shady CA's break the law because they collect more money by doing so and thus make more money for themselves and their clients. The cost of allowing that to happen is not only placed upon the consumer. The CA's that DO FOLLOW THE LAW are at a disadvantage now. It practically forces the honest CA's to break the law in order to remain competitive.

If the OC's have no standards in how they select CA's other than what their collection rate is, then consumers and honest CAs lose. That is exactly the opposite of what the FDCPA and FCRA are all about.

OC's should be held accountable for what their collection agents do. If so, then they would select their collection agents more wisely and the shady ones will either go out of business or start conforming to the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think, if he'd paid the fee to that lawfirm, they'd be handling all this for him right now. I told him to calculate how much time his money is worth and he has to start from the very beginning to figure everything out.

Just think that if I'd hired that firm, I'd be writing yet another round of disputes to all three CRA's and waiting for the responses yet again. Nothing would be handled except me writing more letters. They already told me that was their plan of action so that they could hook the CRA's into this as well. I don't have green cards for the CRA's and that's what they want me to start collecting next. Trust me. They would be handling NOTHING for me right now if I had hired them. I'd still be writing letters for the next few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say it was about the $700??? I can't believe that you haven't gotten the point of all this yet. I haven't been comfortable with the only two attorney's that haven't been "to busy to take on any new cases". It's been a lot of double-talk from them. They say I have a "fantastic" case, but then don't want to put any of their own money into it. They say that the "consultation fee" is "only to show that I'm serious" but then say that once I've paid that, I also need to pay all the costs associated with it. "Well, if I pay all the costs associated with it wouldn't THAT "show that I'm serious"???

It just didn't seem that they were interested in actually fighting for me or my case. You've got to have an attorney that you can trust. That's fine. I don't expect them to be as interested as I am in this. I'm actually looking forward to this. It will be fun. I know a lot of people on here have filed Federal Lawsuits Pro Se. I believe that I can too. If you don't, then that's your opinion and your welcome to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just didn't seem that they were interested in actually fighting for me or my case.

No attorney will care as much about your credit cases as you do. Many attorneys do take (and are successful litigating) cases they don't personally hold a position in or personally disagree with the position they have to take for the case.

An attorney's shot at a case will depend on how well it's argued. Some of that is pleadings and motions (typically with the help of paralegals), but some of that is how they argue in court, too.

When I was taking paralegal classes, the most interesting case we read (and the one that opened my eyes about arguing cases) was Barbara A. v. John G. (145 Cal.App.3d 369), which can be found on findlaw.

Each case has a set of problems that need to be solved during litigation. A lawyer could be honest without being good. Around here, lawyers typically want to see up-front commitments of $3000-5000 before filing. Of course, most cases don't actually get to filing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No attorney will care as much about your credit cases as you do. Many attorneys do take (and are successful litigating) cases they don't personally hold a position in or personally disagree with the position they have to take for the case.

An attorney's shot at a case will depend on how well it's argued. Some of that is pleadings and motions (typically with the help of paralegals), but some of that is how they argue in court, too.

When I was taking paralegal classes, the most interesting case we read (and the one that opened my eyes about arguing cases) was Barbara A. v. John G. (145 Cal.App.3d 369), which can be found on findlaw.

Each case has a set of problems that need to be solved during litigation. A lawyer could be honest without being good. Around here, lawyers typically want to see up-front commitments of $3000-5000 before filing. Of course, most cases don't actually get to filing.

I understand that and agree with you. However, my last experience with an attorney was a DUI case that I had. I spoke with an attorney who was supposed to be very good. He told me that He wins "97%" of his DUI cases and that's all he practiced was DUI law. I asked him what he considered a "win"? and he told me that it would be pleaded down to less than DUI, dismissed altogether or won at trial. That was a win to him.

I paid him $17,000 up-front (much more than other were charging) because he really sold me well. Anyway, when we got to court, the judge was laughing because he had my name right on the papers, but wrong address, county and case number. He just said "Sorry, don't you just gotta love 'find and replace'?"

I did a lot of research on DUI defenses and the motions that he filed were the bare minimum. I had to send him about 6 more motions that related to my case and circumstances for dismissal or exclusion of evidence and he filed those too. At the hearing, the judge ruled outright against all of his motions saying that he's ruled on those many times before and wasn't even going to waste time talking about them. MY MOTIONS were the only ones that even got argued in the hearing. The cop got on the stand and lied, so I lost those. But still, I felt like I was doing all the work.

After we lost the motions at that hearing, he basically told me that if I didn't plead guilting to the DUI and take a deal that he'd have to charge me another $30,000 to go to trial. I had no choice but to take the deal if my attorney wasn't even on my side.

I'm not going through that again. If I don't think my attorney will fight as hard (that includes spending A LOT of time looking up cases and presenting the best argument possible on each and every motion and claim) as I would do for myself. Then there's no point using him. He would only hurt my case.

I've read on here of a lot of people having a lot of success on their own. I think that I can too. I'd love an attorney, but I'm not going to pay for worse representation that I feel I could get on my own. They've got to convince me that they're competent and dedicated. I haven't seen that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who keep asking "What's your time worth?" Well, how is this not more productive than watching TV, surfing the internet or going out to the bar? Who's to say that this won't be a very rewarding and growth experience for me? I'll say this once more... this is not all about the money. It's about fighting back for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The catch is, credit cases are far more individual than DUIs are and therefore require more research on average (and more motions on average) than a DUI case.

As for the "what's your time worth?" questions, I did take paralegal classes and spent hundreds of hours working on the legal research both for my cases and for the classes I took. I'm about halfway through a paralegal program, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've researched several dozen cases on Pacer so far. The defenses and motions don't seem to be that varied from the ones that I've seen so far. As far as the ones that my CA has been involved in, they've alll been settled before the cases go anywhere at all. I don't expect much of a fight from them unless I wanted to get very greedy.

But actually, every day that goes by and the more research that I'm doing, I'm actually getting very excited about what I can do with BellSouth. I consider it a personal challenge at this point to get them on FCRA/FDCPA charges even though they didn't report directly to the CRA's. I contend and believe that I can make a good arguement that they are the furnisher and also are responsible for the actions of their agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've researched several dozen cases on Pacer so far. The defenses and motions don't seem to be that varied from the ones that I've seen so far. As far as the ones that my CA has been involved in, they've alll been settled before the cases go anywhere at all. I don't expect much of a fight from them unless I wanted to get very greedy.

If you spent as much time researching cases as you have posting threads on this forum, you may be ready to go by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've spent much more time researching cases and writing my complaint than I have posting on here. Thanks for the support (if you were serious).

I'm sure he was. However, reading cases isn't the be-all end-all. There's also a good foundation of law, as well, and something that this thread shows is lacking.

Unfortunately, the most useful class I took in college was business law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure he was. However, reading cases isn't the be-all end-all. There's also a good foundation of law, as well, and something that this thread shows is lacking.

Unfortunately, the most useful class I took in college was business law.

Why do you say "unfortunately"? I found Business Law very interesting in college as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.