Compel arbitration

[roflcopter]

Also, a question on arbitration (mostly for TrueQ, but I'll take advice from anyone) - if the lawyers don't have any compelling reason to produce a contract until the trial date, if they have one at all, how can I attempt to compel arbitration? I have a strong feeling that any attempt to go that route will be denied on the trial date, but if I suggest arbitration without knowledge of if/what type of contract the attorney has I feel like I'm assuming that they have a valid contract and may shoot myself in the foot regarding winning the case outright.

Since IL law doesn't allow discovery and it's likely any motions to compel them to produce documents pre-trial will be denied, what can I do, basically, to know what I'm up against prior to the trial date?

See ref thread: http://debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=297511

Edited November 20, 2009 by admin

[trueq]

lawyer, law firm, and plaintiff for denying your right to arbitration and fraudulently hiding a copy of the contract from you, denying those rights.

Not informing you of available litigation waiver, via arbitration exercise, is a violation of FDCPA.

If you exercise and continue to litigate, they are false state court pleadings. False state court pleadings are punishable under FDCPA.

from Edelman FDCPA 2009...

VIOLATIONS: CONDUCT OF COLLECTION LITIGATION

A debt collector’s misrepresentation in a pleading that it is a subrogee is actionable.

Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp., 233 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000).

The representation that a demand has been made when no demand has been made

violates the FDCPA. First Nationwide Collection Agency, Inc. v. Werner, 288 Ga. App. 457, 654

S.E.2d 428 (2007).

Other decisions holding that filing false pleadings or affidavits in state court

collection litigation is actionable include Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg, & Reis Co., L.P.A., 434

F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2006); Blevins v. Hudson & Keyse, Inc., 395 F. Supp. 2d 655 (S.D.Ohio 2004),

later opinion, 395 F.Supp.2d 662 (S.D.Ohio 2004); Hartman v. Asset Acceptance Corp., 1:03-cv-

113, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24845 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 29. 2004); Jordan v. Thomas & Thomas,

C-1-04-296, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71404 (S.D.Ohio September 26, 2007); Foster v. Velocity

Invs., LLC, 07 C 0824 and 07 C 2989, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63302 (N.D.Ill., August 24, 2007);

Matmanivong v. Unifund CCR Ptnrs., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36287 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2009);

Ramirez v. Palisades Collection LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48722 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2008);

Guevara v. Midland Funding NCC-2 Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47767 (N.D. Ill. June 20,

2008); Parkis v. Arrow Fin. Servs., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1212 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2008); Jenkins v.

Centurion Capital Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85218 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2007); Chavez v.

Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, 07 C 670, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61936 (N.D.Ill., August 22,

2007); Delawder v. Platinum Fin. Servs. Corp., 1:04-cv-680, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31174

(S.D.Ohio, April 27, 2007), earlier opinion, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40139 (S.D.Ohio March 1,

2005); Lee v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 484 F. Supp. 2d 816 (S.D.Ohio 2007); Collins v.

Sparacio, 03 C 64, 2003 WL 21254256 (N.D.Ill., May 30, 2003), later opinion, 2004 WL 555957

(N.D.Ill. Mar 19, 2004); Griffith v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 1:04cv238 (S.D.Ohio, July 8,

2004); Gionis v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, 405 F. Supp. 2d 856 (S.D.Ohio. 2005); and Stolicker

v. Muller, Muller, Richmond, Harms, Myers & Sgroi, P.C., 1:04-CV-733, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

32404 (W.D.Mich., September 9, 2005), later opinion, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36000 (W.D. Mich.,

June 2, 2006). This is commonly alleged to be done by bad debt buyers, whose employees have no

knowledge of the underlying debt and usually no records, in order to obtain default judgments.

Gearing also holds that misrepresentations are actionable regardless of intent. 233

F.3d at 473. The "FDCPA is a strict liability statute," and "proof of one violation is sufficient to

support summary judgment for the plaintiff." Cacace v. Lucas, 775 F. Supp. 502, 505 (D. Conn.

1990).

However, it is not necessary for the debt collector to write pleadings that are

intelligible to the “unsophisticated consumer.” Beler v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore,

LLC, 480 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2007).

The FTC has stated that it “may take law enforcement action to address conduct

related to debt collection litigation and arbitration to the extent that such conduct violates the FDCPA,

the FTC Act, or other laws the Commission enforces.” “Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges

37

of Change: A Federal Trade Commission Workshop Report (February 2009),” p. 66.