moppet2003

Rule 68 Thrown At Me- what to do

Recommended Posts

Hello,

Been a while since I've posted, and I'm not savvy at adding links, but this is in regards to my lawsuit against Tele Check. The case was filed earlier this, and it's progressed slowly. But now, last week the defendants sent my guys a Rule 68 offer and they think I should take it. It's awfully low-ball to me.

I have particulars pdf's of my case as I signed up for a pacer account if anyone is willing to look at anything and maybe help point me in a good direction.

The other side hasn't offered up much information, but they did file with the court and order of protection, so I'm wondering what they're afraid of coming out.

Again, please look up my past posts and I'll try to answer anyones questions. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have actual damages? Usually they throw the 68 at you when there is no actuals

If this is a federal case, you can accpet the 58 offer PLUS attorney fees. If tis is a state court action with a parallel 68 provisoin, ask your lawyers

If you have little or no actual damages you can prove, you are foolish to object to teh offer, IMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my lawyer thinks it'll be a hard sell on my emotional distresses/humiliation as I didn't consult with my doctor on it. I had to wait an entire year (2-1/2 months after I sued them) for the hold on my account to be released so my checks would process electronically as contracted for with merchants.

Many hours of me trying to fix a problem I didn't create, found out about 30 plus more phone calls than we knew about trying collect on a debt I don't owe.

It's been an exhausting and frustrating experience and I've come to the conclusion that I'm thoroughly disgusted by the legal process.

So now that I'm forced to bend over and take it up the tail pipe, I have a couple of questions about some language they put in their Rule 68 letter.

The last 2 paragraphs have "defendant denies all liability" and "plaintiff suffered no damages" and that I can't bring future claims against them.

So, am I allowed to put any of my own statements/demands in a letter back to them?

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have actual damages? Usually they throw the 68 at you when there is no actuals

If this is a federal case, you can accpet the 58 offer PLUS attorney fees. If tis is a state court action with a parallel 68 provisoin, ask your lawyers

If you have little or no actual damages you can prove, you are foolish to object to teh offer, IMHO

Well, I was foolish and rejected the offer only to settle for more than their offer with no attorney fees or costs to me. I should have the check soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I was foolish and rejected the offer only to settle for more than their offer with no attorney fees or costs to me. I should have the check soon.

Were they originally offering to pay the underlying damages plus pay the attorney's fees and costs? Is this saying that now you got a higher underlying amount paid to you, but you are going to have to pay attorneys fees and costs from that amount?

I am confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Were they originally offering to pay the underlying damages plus pay the attorney's fees and costs? Is this saying that now you got a higher underlying amount paid to you, but you are going to have to pay attorneys fees and costs from that amount?

I am confused.

I thought, with rule 68, that if you didn't get awarded higher than their offer, then you had to pay both sides costs after the offer? Either way, a win is a win!! Congrats!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Were they originally offering to pay the underlying damages plus pay the attorney's fees and costs? Is this saying that now you got a higher underlying amount paid to you, but you are going to have to pay attorneys fees and costs from that amount?

I am confused.

I got more than the underlying amount, plus I don't have to pay attorney fees or costs out of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.