happymom44130

Help! Being sued and need help with my answer.

Recommended Posts

send off your answers to their stuff, then get your discovery ready to send.  Be sure and mark on the calendar when theirs is due to you.  If they don't send it, you have see what your court rules say, either a meet and confer, or motion to compel/preclude.  They are NOT going to want to send you that purchase agreement, and many jdb's will dismiss if forced to do so. 

 

The affidavit from the OC is untimely.  It can be objected to, and should be thrown out.  It was made over a year after the accounts were bought.  So  that one should not be a problem.

 

The 2nd one is by the litigation manager? well if that isn't self serving.  You will get that one tossed to by subpoenaing him, then tearing down his facts with the questions we have to ask---if it ever gets that far.  

 

Oh add on to your requests for documents "produce the name and address of everyone you plan to call as a witness in in this lawsuit that is the subject of this complaint"  

and Produce the name and address of each person giving an affidavit in lieu in the subject of this complaint so they may be depositioned, or subpoenaed for trial"

 

If they don't produce, the affidavits can be thrown out on that merit alone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shellieh, am I able to send both my discovery requests and the responses in the same envelope? Or must these be separate? I have both ready to go.

 

I want to hear more about subpoenaing these affiants and getting this bill of sale thrown out. That's all addressed in my responses (at least questioning the validity of them, anyway). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I sent these off today. We'll see what happens. 

 

Quick question: what is the dispositive motion? My docket says I have a dispositive motion deadline of 8/1 (discovery ends 7/1). What does this mean? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a Motion to end the suit.  Legal terms it is a motion seeking a trial court order entirely disposing of one or more claims in favor of the moving party without need for further trial.  If the Plaintiff files one it would be a MSJ, or motion for summary judgement.  If you look at all their evidence and say "they don't have crap", you can file a MSJ also.  There are some great samples around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update: the law firm called today and told me they would not accept my offer of $500 as a lump sum. They offered to take $500 down and $100 a month until the entire debt was paid. 

 

Should I counter again? I really don't want to end up being on the hook for this entire amount. 

 

Also, no matter what, should I wait until they respond to my discovery stuff? Also, am I still able to send a follow up discovery request? I realized I never asked them to produce a copy of a bill of sale specifying that it was my account that was actually sold in the transaction, as none of their paperwork mentioned my account specifically. Am I still able to send this request for the production of this document?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no don't wait to send your answers to their discovery.  Did you use the request for documents on that list I posted on page 4?  The bill of sale stuff is included, here is what it said.

 

13. A complete copy of the agreements that constitute the chain of title for the alleged account at issue in this lawsuit starting with the agreement between the originator of the account and its assignee and including each agreement between an assignee of the account and another assignee of the account and/or CACH, LLC. This is a request for the entire agreement, not just the bill of sale or exhibit to an agreement and includes master or "flow" agreements whose terms relate in any way to or are incorporated by an agreement transferring rights to the account at issue in this lawsuit.  In order to protect the privacy of other debtors whose accounts may be included in such agreements, CACH,LLC may redact or otherwise omit information identifying any debtor other than the defendant. 

 

14. Complete and unredacted Credit Card Purchase Agreement between Bank of America, N.A. and CACH, LLC including all of its Exhibits.

 

15. All documents and tangible things CACH, LLC received from any assignee or assignor in connection with the account that is the subject of this lawsuit. 

 

16. All documents containing any warranties or representations made by the originator or any assignee of the account at issue in this lawsuit to CACH, LLC or any other assignee of the account

 

 

That would cover any and all bill of sales, everything included in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update: the law firm called today and told me they would not accept my offer of $500 as a lump sum. They offered to take $500 down and $100 a month until the entire debt was paid. 

 

Should I counter again? I really don't want to end up being on the hook for this entire amount. 

 

Sadly, you sound desperate. They know if you offer them $500 that it is definitely your debt. Who would offer $500 on a debt that is not theirs? You need to show them that you are the type of person who will go down swinging until your last breath. 

 

Think about it. Who would you rather fight if you were a JDB attorney? 

 

A)  I am not paying you a dime. I want to go to court and kick your a$$. I'm going to hit you with well thought out discovery, spend hours upon hours searching for case law (see all the case law I put in my opposition to your MSJ) that fights every angle you try and maybe hit you with some motions of my own. I'm going to make it very clear that you better fly in witnesses because I am going to destroy every affidavit you file. Then I'm gonna get court costs out of you after I whoop up on you in court.

 

or

 

B) Would you be willing to take half? I can't afford any more than that. I just want this to go away. Here's a discovery request that I found on the internet. It's titled wrong and there are a lot of misspelled, mispell... whatever, words and the case law doesn't even apply and it's from another state. My opposition to your MSJ was late and talks more about how I can't afford this than why you haven't proven and can't prove anything. I just want this over!

 

These cases are won in the details and in the paperwork before trial. It is a lot of work, I know. Not everyone is up to it. But know which one you are, an A or a B. I don't think I've ever seen a B successful on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no don't wait to send your answers to their discovery.  Did you use the request for documents on that list I posted on page 4?  The bill of sale stuff is included, here is what it said.

 

13. A complete copy of the agreements that constitute the chain of title for the alleged account at issue in this lawsuit starting with the agreement between the originator of the account and its assignee and including each agreement between an assignee of the account and another assignee of the account and/or CACH, LLC. This is a request for the entire agreement, not just the bill of sale or exhibit to an agreement and includes master or "flow" agreements whose terms relate in any way to or are incorporated by an agreement transferring rights to the account at issue in this lawsuit.  In order to protect the privacy of other debtors whose accounts may be included in such agreements, CACH,LLC may redact or otherwise omit information identifying any debtor other than the defendant. 

 

14. Complete and unredacted Credit Card Purchase Agreement between Bank of America, N.A. and CACH, LLC including all of its Exhibits.

 

15. All documents and tangible things CACH, LLC received from any assignee or assignor in connection with the account that is the subject of this lawsuit. 

 

16. All documents containing any warranties or representations made by the originator or any assignee of the account at issue in this lawsuit to CACH, LLC or any other assignee of the account

 

 

That would cover any and all bill of sales, everything included in it.

 

 

I did use this. For some reason I didn't recall it being in there, but it is. Whew. Sorry, and thank you. I have already responded to their discovery--just waiting for their response now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, you sound desperate. They know if you offer them $500 that it is definitely your debt. Who would offer $500 on a debt that is not theirs? You need to show them that you are the type of person who will go down swinging until your last breath. 

 

Think about it. Who would you rather fight if you were a JDB attorney? 

 

A)  I am not paying you a dime. I want to go to court and kick your a$$. I'm going to hit you with well thought out discovery, spend hours upon hours searching for case law (see all the case law I put in my opposition to your MSJ) that fights every angle you try and maybe hit you with some motions of my own. I'm going to make it very clear that you better fly in witnesses because I am going to destroy every affidavit you file. Then I'm gonna get court costs out of you after I whoop up on you in court.

 

or

 

B) Would you be willing to take half? I can't afford any more than that. I just want this to go away. Here's a discovery request that I found on the internet. It's titled wrong and there are a lot of misspelled, mispell... whatever, words and the case law doesn't even apply and it's from another state. My opposition to your MSJ was late and talks more about how I can't afford this than why you haven't proven and can't prove anything. I just want this over!

 

These cases are won in the details and in the paperwork before trial. It is a lot of work, I know. Not everyone is up to it. But know which one you are, an A or a B. I don't think I've ever seen a B successful on here.

 

I totally understand. I'm just worried I'm going to end up owing the whole thing if they do go to court. Even with everyones' help (and thank you), I still feel like i don't understand any of this. I'm having a rough time. Perhaps their answers to the discovery will help.

 

I am terrified the day of court will come and I won't really know what I'm doing and they'll win everything. I would rather pay $500 than $1700. Of course, I'd also rather pay $0 than $500. I'm just worried I'm too ignorant to truly know what to do. Like I said, if it weren't for you guys, I wouldn't have gotten this far. I really appreciate your help and I hope you can continue to help me fight. I just want to make sure I don't wind up over my head on this. If they win the full amount, I have no idea what I'll do. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally understand. I'm just worried I'm going to end up owing the whole thing if they do go to court. Even with everyones' help (and thank you), I still feel like i don't understand any of this. I'm having a rough time. Perhaps their answers to the discovery will help.

 

I am terrified the day of court will come and I won't really know what I'm doing and they'll win everything. I would rather pay $500 than $1700. Of course, I'd also rather pay $0 than $500. I'm just worried I'm too ignorant to truly know what to do. Like I said, if it weren't for you guys, I wouldn't have gotten this far. I really appreciate your help and I hope you can continue to help me fight. I just want to make sure I don't wind up over my head on this. If they win the full amount, I have no idea what I'll do. :(

 

Understood. The problem is, if they don't get the impression that this will cost them money to fight, they have no reason to settle with you. They settle when they think that litigation will cut into their profits. I.E. They are suing you for $1700. If you fight, file motions, etc. It may cost them $1000 to get it. If they see that up front, they will settle with you for less to save that $1000. Get it?

 

Everyone at first is overwhelmed. It is a lot to learn and takes a lot of time. I will give you the "throw the stick".

 

In slave days the slaves would go out to cotton fields to pick cotton. If you want to know what overwhelmed feels like, stand in a cotton field and look around where you cannot see the end in sight in any direction. Now get to work. To get past this feeling they would literally pick up a stick and throw it. Their goal that day was to pick cotton until they reached the stick. It made the daunting task seem more manageable each day.

 

Pick one thing to learn each day.We'll help you with the order of importance but don't feel like you have to get it all in one day. Focus and "throw the stick" and learn one specific rule of procedure a day. Many have done it here who thought they never could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am terrified the day of court will come and I won't really know what I'm doing and they'll win everything.

 

I had many sleepless nights over the 6 month period of my case for exactly the same reasons. Yes, this whole legal process is extremely overwhelming and just like you I wanted to make it go away as fast and easily as possible. Short cuts though don't get the job done and you'll end up disappointed at every turn. @Flyerfan gave you some really good advice as far as how you should proceed. Learn a little at a time and don't give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are truly awesome. I'll wait for their response and hopefully that'll help. If once I have their response and it's what i think it'll say, I believe I can make a motion to have certain things thrown out -- such as the bill of sale and affidavits-- right? 

 

I feel like I'm wasting too much time waiting and like I don't have a real game plan. I really think I can get those items thrown out, though. However, they have until 7/2 to respond, so I suppose I'll see when they respond. Pretrial isn't until October, so I think I have time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also add : I just talked to my husband and he is all for me going to court and fighting this. He will pay the bill if I lose. I feel a little better now. Dumb question, but in the event that I lose, am I on the hook for a ton of other fees in addition to the prayer amount?  I want to know what I'm up against here. I don't want to end up doubling what I owe them.

 

I AM, however, up for making this a giant PITA for them. I think this is what you guys are suggesting. :) So as of right now, my goal is to have bits and pieces of their 'proof' thrown out of court until they no longer have a claim. I need to prove that I have no contract with them, yes? And to do this, I need to have their documents--or at least some key ones-- thrown out. 

 

I just want to make sure I'm taking the right steps here. I have no idea what the timing is on this. After discovery ends, I can begin attacking their stuff, right? I mean aside from what I've already done with my responses. Hope I'm making sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO you don't need to prove anything, they need to prove it.  You are not going to help them along the way.  It is really a big waiting game.  If they come up with any proof, you will post what their so called proof is, and we will tell you what we would do if it were us.  (we are not allowed to tell you what to do, but we can tell you what we would do)  It is like a game of poker.  Yes you could be on the hook for alot more with attorney fees, blah blah blah, but it is also a very good chance they will dismiss.  Some wait up unitl 5 minutes before trial, where they will say "this is your last chance to settle,  and you will be liable for a lot more if you dont"  Then you say see you in the court room, and he goes in and says we dismiss.  Happens all the time for people who fight these.  We will try to show you how we got them to dismiss our cases, and sometimes before entering the court room. :)

 

(waiting was the toughest part for me, I thought I should be doing something)  The only thing you need to be doing is studying, learning the rules of the court, and how you would object to the standard evidence most seem to throw at you-- affidavits, bill of sales, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shellieh98 is right. It is definitely a war of attrition. Fortunately this is not a large amount of money (I know it is to you and me but not to them). They will only put so much work into it. You on the other hand will fight tooth and nail for it. That's why we win.

 

As Shellieh98 said, post the docs they give you (redact your personal info and specific $) and we'll help you poke holes in it. It will be a long fight but one worth fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for standing by, everyone. I got my response from the law firm today. I wrote this out by hand (all 6000 words-- gah!), so excuse any typos. Below the responses is a list of the documents I received from them as well.

 

 

A quick question, btw: The cover letter on the response now states that I owe $2,285.50. Is this them asking me to pay for the time it took the lawyer to fill out these responses? Ugh-- I'm so worried right now. I'm terrified that number is going to continue to grow....

 

 

OK, here are the responses. Please let me know what to do next. Thanks in advance. :)

 

 

 

 

General Objections:

 

1.     Defendant seeks information that is not relevant to the issues raised in the action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

2.     Defendant seeks information protected by Rule 26(B)(3), the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine or any other protection recognized by law.

3.     Defendant seeks to impose burden on LHR Inc., beyond those required by Rules 26, 33, 34 or 36, inclusive of the definitions presented by Defendant.

4.     A full and complete answer to the interrogatories and requests would subject LHR, Inc. to undue burden and expense.

5.     LHR Inc’s response to each interrogatory and request is based on documents currently available and obtained after a reasonable and diligent search. LHR reserves the right to supplement its responses to the interrogatories and requests as additional information or documents come to light in the course of discovery in preparation for trial.

6.     The interrogatories and requests are vague, ambiguous or overly broad in scope.

7.     The interrogatories and requests do not set forth the documents requested with reasonable particularity as required by Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

 

 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS :

 

 

 

1.     The original signed application establishing the account.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the instant request as it calls for documentation already within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff also objects as the instant request is unduly burdensome and irrelevant.

 

2.     Charge slips bearing the defendant’s signature, which establish use of the account.

 

ANSWER:  Plaintiff objects to the instant request as it calls for documentation already within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff also objects as the instant request is unduly burdensome and irrelevant and is intended merely to harass and not to lead to discoverable evidence, and goes far beyond the needs for legitimate discovery in this case.

 

3.     The original written agreement which defendant allegedly assented to the terms of the account.

 

ANSWER:  Plaintiff objects to the instant request as it calls for documentation already within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff also objects as the instant request is unduly burdensome and irrelevant. Plaintiff additional objects to the extent that this documentation request has already been appended to or set forth within the pleadings filed in the case at the bar. Subjects to an notwithstanding said objections, please see the attached Terms and Conditions and account statements (statements are attached)

 

 

4.     A complete history of the account from day one, establishing the legitimacy of the balance sought.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the instant request as it calls for documentation already in the Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff also objects to the instant request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous, especially in regard to the use of undefined phrases such as “day one” and “complete history.” Plaintiff additionally objects to the request to the extent that the use of the phrase “establishing the legitimacy of the balance sought” implies that anything less than a “complete history” of the account in question, which has been left undefined by the defendant, undermines the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s claims. (Statements are attached).

 

5.     Any document setting forth the choice of law provision.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the instant request as it calls for documentation already within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff also objects as the instant request is unduly burdensome and irrelevant. Plaintiff additional objects to the extent that this documentation request has already been appended to or set forth within the pleadings filed in the case at the bar.

 

6.     Any document Plaintiff intends to introduce at trial which establishes the exact day the subject account went into default.

 

ANSWER:  Plaintiff objects to the instant request as it calls for documentation already within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff also objects as the instant request is unduly burdensome and irrelevant. Plaintiff additional objects to the extent that this documentation request has already been appended to or set forth within the pleadings filed in the case at the bar.

 

 

7.     Any document produced by plaintiff in the normal course of business which states and defines the exact number of statutes the choice of law provision seeks to enforce.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the instant request to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous, and nonsensical. Plaintiff additionally objects to the extent that the instant requests calls for information protected by the attorney work product doctrine and further calls for legal advice/assistance.

 

 

8.     Any recording or transcript or any recording of telephone calls in which defendant disputed the alleged amount owed.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the instant request to the extent that it is intended merely to harass and not to lead to discoverable evidence. Plaintiff also objects to the instant request to the extent that it is oppressive and onerous.

 

 

9.     Any cancelled checks or copies of cancelled checks or other verified payments on the account plaintiff intends to introduce as evidence at trial.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the request as it calls for documentation already within the defendant’s possession. Plaintiff also objects to the extent that this request is vague and ambiguous, failing to define “other verified payments. “Plaintiff additionally objects to the extent that the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, onerous and goes far beyond the legitimate needs for discovery in this case.

 

 

10. Proof of mailing of monthly statements.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the instant request as it calls for documentation already within the Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff also objects as the instant request is unduly burdensome and irrelevant. Plaintiff additional objects to the extent that this documentation request has already been appended to or set forth within the pleadings filed in the case at the bar. (Statements attached)

 

 

11. Any documents evidencing that defendant retained monthly statements for an unreasonable amount of time.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the request as it is vague, ambiguous and nonsensical. Plaintiff also objects to the request to the extent that the plaintiff would have no knowledge as to the amount of time defendant retained monthly statements. Plaintiff additionally objects to the request as it calls for documentation already within the defendant’s possession, custody or control.

 

 

12. Any document produced by plaintiff in the normal course of business defining “unreasonable amount of time.”

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the request as it is vague, ambiguous and nonsensical.

 

 

13. A complete copy of the agreements that constitute the chain of title for this alleged account at issue in this lawsuit starting with the agreement between an assignee of the account or another assignee of the account and/or LHR, Inc. This is a request for the entire agreement, not just the bill of sale or exhibit to an agreement and includes a master or “flow” agreement whose terms relate in any way to or are incorporated by an agreement transferring rights to the account at issue in the lawsuit. In order to protect the privacy of other debtors whose accounts may be included in such an agreement, LHR. Inc. may redact or otherwise omit information identifying any debtor other than the defendant .

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the extent this this request is vague, ambiguous or nonsensical and further fails to delineate “assignees” on which it is requesting information. Plaintiff also objects to the request to the extent that it has an would have no knowledge of as to the records of other persons/assignees. Plaintiff additionally objects to the extent that the documentation requested has already been appended to, or set forth within, the pleadings filed at the case at the bar. Plaintiff further objects to the instant request to the extent that it requests privileged, confidential or proprietary information or, alternatively information that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Plaintiff lastly objects to the request to the extent that it is made to harass and not to lead to the production of discoverable evidence. Attached are purchase and sale agreement, redacted to exclude confidential and proprietary information irrelevant to this case.

 

 

14. Complete and un-redacted credit card purchase agreement between First National Bank Credit Card N.A. and LHR Inc., including all of its exhibits.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects because this is a duplicate answered in response 13. Plaintiff also objects because it is vague, ambiguous and nonsensical. Plaintiff further objects to the instant request to the extent that it requests privileged, confidential or proprietary information or, alternatively information that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Plaintiff lastly objects to the request to the extent that it is made to harass and not to lead to the production of discoverable evidence.

 

 

 

15. All documents and tangible things LHR, Inc. has received from any assignee or assignor in connection with the account that is the subject of this lawsuit.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff  objects because it is vague, ambiguous and nonsensical. Plaintiff further objects to the instant request to the extent that it requests privileged, confidential or proprietary information or, alternatively information that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Plaintiff lastly objects to the request to the extent that it is made to harass and not to lead to the production of discoverable evidence.

 

 

16. All documents containing any warranties or representations made by the originator or any assignees of the account as issue in this lawsuit to LHR Inc. or any other assignee of the account.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects because it is vague, ambiguous and nonsensical. Plaintiff further objects to the instant request to the extent that it requests privileged, confidential or proprietary information or, alternatively information that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Plaintiff lastly objects to the request to the extent that it is made to harass and not to lead to the production of discoverable evidence.

 

 

17. All materials intended to be used at trial that have not already been produced.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that it is premature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

 

 

 

1.     Admit LHR Inc. is not the original creditor, which allegedly extended credit to the Defendant, which such extension of credit is the subject matter of this lawsuit against the defendant:

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as the instant request calls for information already within the Defendant’s possession. Plaintiff also objects as the information requested has already been appended to or set forth within the pleadings filed in the case at the bar. Plaintiff also objects to the extent that the use of the term “alleged” implies that the Plaintiff’s claims and assertions are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff admits.

 

 

2.     Admit that LHR. Inc. has never entered directly into a contract directly with the Defendant.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the extent that the term “directly” and use of the phrase “entered into” rendered the instant request vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff also objects as this request calls for information already within the defendant’s possession and goes far beyond the needs for discovery in this case. Plaintiff additionally objects because the request is irrelevant and overly broad. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

3.     Admit that LHR Inc. has never sent any billing statements in reference to the alleged account which is the subject of this lawsuit, or demands to the defendant, prior to the date in which LHR, Inc. allegedly became the successor in interest to First National Bank, N.A.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the extent that the use of the term “alleged” and “allegedly” implies that the Plaintiff’s claims and assertions are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way. Plaintiff also objects to the request as it is overly-broad, irrelevant and nonsensical, and is intended merely to harass and not to lead to discoverable evidence, calls for proprietary information and goes far beyond the legitimate needs for discovery in this case. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff admits.

 

 

4.     Admit that LHR. Inc. allegedly purchases defaulted alleged debts and/or accounts as a regular course of business.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the extent that the excessive use of the terms “alleged” and “allegedly” render the question vague, ambiguous, confusing and nonsensical. Plaintiff also objects because this request is overly broad, irrelevant and intended merely to harass and not to lead to discoverable evidence. Plaintiff lastly objects because this request calls for proprietary information and goes far beyond the legitimate needs for discovery in this case.

 

 

5.     Admit that LHR, Inc. is not an affiliate or subsidiary of First National Bank, NA

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the extent that this request is vague and ambiguous, thus rendering it unanswerable.

 

 

6.     Admit that LHR Inc. does not produce or originate any billing statement records on behalf of First National Bank, NA

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the request to the extent that it is vague and ambiguous, the defendant having failed to define or explain what is meant by “billing statement records.” Plaintiff also objects to the extent that this request is overly broad and goes far beyond the legitimate needs in this case.

 

 

 

7.     Admit that LHR Inc. at the time of the alleged default on the alleged account which is the matter of this lawsuit, has no records in their possession and/or immediate custody and/or control with Defendant’s name, address, phone number, or social security number on any such record.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the request as the use of the term “alleged” implies that the Plaintiff’s claims and assertions are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way. Plaintiff also objects on the grounds that the term “their” in connection with LHR Inc. is contradictory, implying that the Plaintiff is answering with respect to persons other than LHR but failing to disclose the identity of those persons, thus making the request vague, ambiguous, and unanswerable. Plaintiff also objects to the extent that this request calls for information that is already in the defendant’s possession, custody or control and information that was further appended to the pleadings filed in the case at the bar. Subject notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

8.     Admit LHR Inc. at the time of the alleged default on the alleged account, which is the subject matter of this lawsuit, maintained no records which referred to the Defendant in any manor.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the request as the use of the term “alleged” implies that the Plaintiff’s claims and assertions are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way.. Plaintiff also objects to the extent that this request calls for information that is already in the defendant’s possession, custody or control and information that was further appended to the pleadings filed in the case at the bar. Subject notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

9.     Admit LHR Inc. did not allegedly purchase Defendant’s alleged account and/or alleged defaulted debt with no other allegedly defaulted accounts as a part of the alleged sale of accounts to LHR Inc.

 

ANSWER:  Plaintiff objects to the request as the use of the term “alleged” implies that the Plaintiff’s claims and assertions are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way.. Plaintiff also objects to the extent that this request calls for information that is already in the defendant’s possession, custody or control and information that was further appended to the pleadings filed in the case at the bar.

 

 

 

10. Admit LHR Inc. has no personal firsthand knowledge of the records keeping procedures and/or practices of First National Bank, NA.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the request as it calls for a legal conclusion. Subject notwithstanding to said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

11. Admit Laura Froniak, who is the affiant for LHR Inc., is not a current employee of First National Bank NA.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as the instant request calls for information already within the Defendant’s possession. Plaintiff also objects as the information requested has already been appended to or set forth within the pleadings filed in the case at the bar. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff admits.

 

 

12. Admit Laura Froniak, who is the affiant for LHR Inc, has never been employed by First National Bank NA.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the request as it is irrelevant, made only to harass the plaintiff and not to lead to discoverable evidence. Plaintiff additionally objects as the request goes far beyond the legitimate needs for discovery in this case. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff admits.

 

 

 

13. Admit Laura Froniak, who is the affiant for LHR Inc, has no personal, first hand knowledge of the records keeping and business records keeping practices of First National Bank NA.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the instant request as it is duplicative, having been previously asked and answered. Plaintiff also objects to the request as it calls for information already within the defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff lastly objects because the request calls for legal conclusion. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

 

14. Admit Laura Froniak, who is the affiant for LHR Inc, has no personal first hand knowledge that the defendant defaulted on the alleged debt which is the subject matter of this lawsuit.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the instant request as it is duplicative, having been previously asked and answered. Plaintiff also objects to the request as it calls for information already within the defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff lastly objects because the request calls for legal conclusion. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

 

15. Admit Laura Froniak, affiant for LHR Inc, does not have in their immediate possession, custody or control all records pertaining to this alleged account and debt of the Defendant.

 

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as request calls for information already within the defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff also objects to the request as it is vague and ambiguous, as it both fails to define “immediate” and uses the term “their” in connection with “Laura Forniak” which is contradictory, implying that the plaintiff is answering with respect to persons other than Laura Forniak but failing to disclose the identity of those persons. Plaintiff additionally objects as the use of the term “alleged” implies that the plaintiff’s claims are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way. Plaintiff further objects as this request is intended to harass the plaintiff and not to lead to discoverable evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

 

16. Admit Laura Forniak, affiant for LHR Inc, does not maintain all the alleged business records for the alleged account and alleged debt, which is the subject matter of this lawsuit.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as this is duplicative having been previously asked and answered. Plaintiff additionally objects as the use of the term “alleged” implies that the plaintiff’s claims are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way. Plaintiff further objects as this request is intended to harass the plaintiff and not to lead to discoverable evidence. Plaintiff lastly objects to the request as it is vague and ambiguous , confusing and nonsensical, as it does not define the meaning of the term “maintain.” Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff admits to the extent that Laura Forniak does not maintain said records in her individual capacity.

 

 

17. Admit Laura Forniak, affiant for LHR Inc, is simply reading information off a computer screen that was electronically provided to LHR Inc. by First National Bank, NA.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as this is duplicative having been previously asked and answered. Plaintiff further objects as this request is intended to harass the plaintiff and not to lead to discoverable evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

18. Admit Laura Forniak, affiant for LHR Inc, is only advised of the alleged balance allegedly owed to LHR by the defendant, and has no direct, personal, first hand knowledge of the alleged account or alleged debt.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as this is duplicative having been previously asked and answered. Plaintiff additionally objects as the use of the term “alleged” implies that the plaintiff’s claims are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way. Plaintiff further objects as this request is intended to harass the plaintiff and not to lead to discoverable evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

19. Admit Laura Forniak, affiant for LHR Inc, is only testifying in the affidavit as to what somebody else advised them, and has no personal first hand knowledge if the information provided is true and correct.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as request calls for information already within the defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff also objects to the request as it is vague and ambiguous, as it both fails to define “immediate” and uses the term “them” in connection with “Laura Forniak” which is contradictory, implying that the plaintiff is answering with respect to persons other than Laura Forniak but failing to disclose the identity of those persons. Plaintiff objects as request calls for information already within the defendant’s possession, custody or control. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

 

 

20. Admit Laura Forniak, affiant for LHR Inc, cannot attest to the authenticity of the alleged records, in the immediate possession of LHR Inc, which were allegedly provided by First National Bank, NA, which allegedly shows that the defendant is legally indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $1621.85.

 

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as this is duplicative having been previously asked and answered. Plaintiff additionally objects as the use of the term “alleged” implies that the plaintiff’s claims are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way. Plaintiff further objects as this request is intended to harass the plaintiff and not to lead to discoverable evidence. Plaintiff also objects to the extent that it indicates the principal balance owed by the Defendant is $1621.85; said amount is merely the principal balance owed on the account and that the defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff for interest and costs as well. Plaintiff lastly objects as the request is intended only to harass the Plaintiff and will not lead to discoverable evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

21. Admit that all records allegedly held by LHR Inc. which will allegedly prove that defendant is indebted to the plaintiff are not LHR Inc’s own business records which LHR Inc originated and keep LHR Inc’s regular course of business.

 

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as the use of the term “alleged” implies that the plaintiff’s claims are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way. Plaintiff further objects as this request is intended to harass the plaintiff and not to lead to discoverable evidence. Plaintiff lastly objects because this request for information is already within the defendant’s possession, custody or control. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

22. Admit LHR Inc. allegedly bought Defendant’s allegedly defaulted account as part of a bulk sale transaction with First National Bank, NA.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects because this request for information is already within the defendant’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff also objects as the use of the term “alleged” implies that the plaintiff’s claims are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way. Plaintiff additionally objects as the excessive use of the terms “allegedly” and “alleged” render the question vague, ambiguous, confusing and unanswerable. Plaintiff lastly objects as this request is intended to harass the plaintiff and not to lead to discoverable evidence.

 

 

23. Admit LHR Inc. has no documents in their possession bearing the Defendant’s signature.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the extent that the use of the term “their” in connection with “LHR Inc.” is contradictory, implying that the plaintiff is answering with respect to persons other than LHR and failing to disclose the identity of those persons, thus making the request vague, ambiguous and unanswerable. Plaintiff  also objects because this request for information is already within the defendant’s possession, custody or control. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

24. Admit the defendant never verbally agreed to pay LHR Inc. any sum of money.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the instant request as it calls for information already in the defendant’s possession, custody or control. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

 

25. Admit the defendant never, in an written form, agreed by contract or any other legally binding documents, to be indebted to LHR Inc.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the instant request as it calls for information already in the defendant’s possession, custody or control. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

 

26. Admit that LHR Inc. is aware that simply take somebody else’s alleged business records, in which LHR Inc. had no personal first hand knowledge of their creation or authenticity, and then putting those records into a file maintained by LHR Inc., then referencing those records as LHR Inc’s own business records, do not overcome the business records exception to hearsay.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this is duplicative, having been previously asked and answered. Plaintiff also objects as this is intended merely to harass the plaintiff and will not lead to discoverable evidence. Plaintiff additional objects as to the instant request as it calls for legal conclusion.

 

 

 

27. Admit that all LHR Inc.’s records, which allegedly show an obligation by the defendant to LHR Inc., are hearsay.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this is duplicative, having been previously asked and answered. Plaintiff also objects as this is intended merely to harass the plaintiff and will not lead to discoverable evidence. Plaintiff additional objects as to the instant request as it calls for legal conclusion.

 

 

 

28. Admit that Laura Forniak, affiant for LHR, if called to testify at trial against the defendant, will be unable to testify as having any first-hand knowledge as to the authenticity of the business records referenced in the affidavit which was submitted as an exhibit by the plaintiff as part of this lawsuit..

 

ANSWER:  Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this is duplicative, having been previously asked and answered. Plaintiff also objects as it calls for speculation and is thus unanswerable. Plaintiff also objects as this is intended merely to harass the plaintiff and will not lead to discoverable evidence. Plaintiff lastly objects as this information is already in the defendant’s possession, control or custody. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

29. Admit Laura Forniak, affiant for LHR, if called to testify at trial against the defendant, will be unable to testify by personal or first hand knowledge to the authenticity of any alleged contract, oral or written, entered into by the defendant and First National Bank, NA.

 

 

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as it calls for speculation and is thus unanswerable. Plaintiff also objects as this is intended merely to harass the plaintiff and will not lead to discoverable evidence. Plaintiff lastly objects as this information is already in the defendant’s possession, control or custody. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

30. Admit LHR Inc., at any point in the last five years, has been found by a court of competent jurisdiction, to have falsified affidavit(s), specifically, by submitting affidavits in which the affidavit had not conducted a review of the account as alleged in the affidavit.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the request as it is irrelevant. Plaintiff also objects as this is intended merely to harass the plaintiff and will not lead to discoverable evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

 

31. Admit LHR Inc., in the alleged purchase agreement with First National Bank NA, where LHR Inc. became the alleged successor in interest to First National Bank NA, for the alleged account which is the subject matter of this lawsuit, involved hundreds or thousands of accounts and/or debts transferred in the same transaction.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this is duplicative, having been previously asked and answered. Plaintiff also objects as it calls for speculation and is thus unanswerable. Plaintiff further objects to the instant request to the extent that it requests privileged, confidential or proprietary information or, alternatively information that is irrelevant to the matter at hand and is intended only to harass the Plaintiff and will not lead to the discovery of evidence in this case. Plaintiff also objects as the use of the term “alleged” implies that the plaintiff’s claims are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way.

 

 

 

32. Admit that LHR Inc. routinely violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as this request goes far beyond the legitimate needs for discovery in this case and is irrelevant and intended merely to harass the Plaintiff and will not lead to discoverable evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

33. Admit LHR Inc. routinely violates state collection laws in at least one state in the U.S.

 

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as this request goes far beyond the legitimate needs for discovery in this case and is irrelevant and intended merely to harass the Plaintiff and will not lead to discoverable evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

34. Admit no court should consider any evidence submitted by consideration by LHR Inc. as LHR Inc. has an extensive record of violating both federal and state laws.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as this request calls for a legal conclusion and goes far beyond the legitimate needs for discovery in this case. This request is irrelevant, and is intended merely to harass the plaintiff and will not lead to any discoverable evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

35. Admit LHR Inc. has no more than a spreadsheet with Defendant’s name, which references an alleged account with an alleged amount in default, and allegedly owed to LHR Inc.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this is duplicative, having been previously asked and answered. Plaintiff also objects as it calls for speculation and is thus unanswerable. Plaintiff further objects to the instant request to the extent that it requests privileged, confidential or proprietary information or, alternatively information that is irrelevant to the matter at hand and is intended only to harass the Plaintiff and will not lead to the discovery of evidence in this case. Plaintiff also objects as the use of the term “alleged” implies that the plaintiff’s claims are illegitimate, fabricated or fictitious in some way. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

 

36. Admit the Defendant is not indebted to LHR Inc. for any sum of money.

 

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as the instant request calls for information already within the Defendant’s possession. Plaintiff also objects as the information requested has already been appended to or set forth within the pleadings filed in the case at the bar. Plaintiff additionally objects as this request calls for legal conclusion. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

37. Admit the Defendant has no liability at all to LHR Inc.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as the instant request calls for information already within the Defendant’s possession. Plaintiff also objects as the information requested has already been appended to or set forth within the pleadings filed in the case at the bar. Plaintiff additionally objects as this request calls for legal conclusion. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

 

38. Admit LHR Inc. has violated the FDCPA in the collection attempts against the Defendant.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as this request is irrelevant, and is intended merely to harass the plaintiff and will not lead to any discoverable evidence. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

39. Admit LHR Inc. has never, in the past three years, had a business relationship of any kind with the defendant in this lawsuit.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as the instant request calls for information already within the Defendant’s possession. Plaintiff also objects as the information requested has already been appended to or set forth within the pleadings filed in the case at the bar. Plaintiff also objects on the grounds that this request is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

40. Admit LHR Inc. has not sent letters or other written communication directly and for the sole benefit of First National Bank NA.

 

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this request is vague, ambiguous and overly broad. Plaintiff also objects as this request goes far beyond the needs for legitimate discovery in this case and calls for confidential or proprietary information. Plaintiff further objects that this request is intended merely to harass the Plaintiff and not lead to discoverable evidence.

 

 

41. Admit LHR Inc. should taking nothing in their lawsuit against the Defendant.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects as this request calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to and notwithstanding said objections, plaintiff denies.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHED DOCUMENTS:

 

 

1.     Affidavit from an affiant of First National Bank NA. (notarized, already provided before)

 

2.     Purchase and Sale agreement: mostly blanked out—has absolutely no information about me or the account in question. It’s just a boilerplate agreement.

 

3.     Bill of Sale: already provided before, makes no mention of my account, nor does it have any financial or identifying info.

 

 

4.     File format: Looks like a print-off of different data fields.

 

5.     List of accounts involved in this sale: this does have my name, an old address, the amount in question, dates and my social security number on it. The other accounts listed have been blanked out (or so it appears). This does have information about me and the account as well as the amounts owed.

 

6.     Affidavit from laura forniak (the one mentioned in the discovery above)

 

7.     Another copy (unsigned) of the credit card agreement.

 

8.     All billing statements on the account from beginning to end, showing the correct amount sought.

 

9. A statement of account from LHR Inc. dated July 03, 2012. Basically has the amount, my name, interest rate, last date of payment to the OC, account number and file number. It’s stamped “received” by the law firm on July 10, 2012, which I find odd considering I hadn’t been sued at that point….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that was an entertaining read. Looks like you ticked them off a little.  ::devillaugh::

 

There's a bit to pick apart here. I'll need some more time to comb through it. Some of these they could have just answered instead of grandstanding with repetitive objections.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's a paralegal having a bad day there. Haha

 

Here is one I always go after.

 

13. A complete copy of the agreements that constitute the chain of title for this alleged account at issue in this lawsuit starting with the agreement between an assignee of the account or another assignee of the account and/or LHR, Inc. This is a request for the entire agreement, not just the bill of sale or exhibit to an agreement and includes a master or “flow” agreement whose terms relate in any way to or are incorporated by an agreement transferring rights to the account at issue in the lawsuit. In order to protect the privacy of other debtors whose accounts may be included in such an agreement, LHR. Inc. may redact or otherwise omit information identifying any debtor other than the defendant .

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to the extent this this request is vague, ambiguous or nonsensical and further fails to delineate “assignees” on which it is requesting information. Plaintiff also objects to the request to the extent that it has an would have no knowledge of as to the records of other persons/assignees. Plaintiff additionally objects to the extent that the documentation requested has already been appended to, or set forth within, the pleadings filed at the case at the bar. Plaintiff further objects to the instant request to the extent that it requests privileged, confidential or proprietary information or, alternatively information that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Plaintiff lastly objects to the request to the extent that it is made to harass and not to lead to the production of discoverable evidence. Attached are purchase and sale agreement, redacted to exclude confidential and proprietary information irrelevant to this case.

 

Read this part again:  Plaintiff also objects to the request to the extent that it has an would have no knowledge of as to the records of other persons/assignees.

 

Should be interesting to see if any of their affidavits claim personal knowledge of the OC. If you can get rid of the OC affidavit they sunk their own battleship.

 

Did they buy this directly from the OC or are there any other links in the chain of ownership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is interesting:

 

16. All documents containing any warranties or representations made by the originator or any assignees of the account as issue in this lawsuit to LHR Inc. or any other assignee of the account.

 

ANSWER: Plaintiff objects because it is vague, ambiguous and nonsensical. Plaintiff further objects to the instant request to the extent that it requests privileged, confidential or proprietary information or, alternatively information that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Plaintiff lastly objects to the request to the extent that it is made to harass and not to lead to the production of discoverable evidence.

 

 

Hate to break it to them, it's quite relevant. Most of these assignments are made without warranty. If the OC refuses to guarantee the accuracy of the records, how can the JDB claim that they're accurate?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha. And non-sensical.  They have probably been waiting months to find a place for that.

 

How is a guarantee on a sale non-sense? 

 

I see a M&C and motion to compel in your future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a M&C and motion to compel in your future.

 

Yea, that's going to be the way to move forward. Challenge every objected admission and document they refused to produce. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Can't seem to quote here, sorry):

 

 

The debt was unfortunately purchased directly from the OC. 

 

 

 

You guys are seriously awesome. When I saw the paper that looked like a batch report from the sale, I said to myself, "well, this is all over now."

 

 

They're now saying the amount owed is $2200. *SIGH* 

 

 

I don't know what any of these motions are, to compel or otherwise, so in advance, thanks for bearing with me. :) I'd send you all some cookies if i could for all your help, but all I can send you are internet cookies. And those are a lot less fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A motion to compel is a motion you present that, if the judge grants your motion, forces the plaintiff to produce whatever discovery you requested without objection.

 

For example, in your case, if you motion to compel the COMPLETE document governing the bill of sale (called the forward flow) then the plaintiff must give it to you if the judge grants your motion.

 

What's so great about that? I'll tell you.

 

The bill of sale is an exhibit to a larger document that states all of the warranties, rights, guarantees of accuracy, etc. that the seller (the OC) offers the buyer (the JDB). It states that the accounts are sold with NO GUARANTEE OF ACCURACY. If the OC cannot guarantee their accuracy, how can the JDB?

 

They can't which is why they will not give it to you. So if the court says they have to and they refuse, what option does the plaintiff have?

 

They must get up on the doc or dismiss the case.

 

What if the judge doesn't grant the motion? There are options.

 

The plaintiff will object to your motion because that doc is proprietary, confidential, protected or whatever. The judge may not force them to give it to you. You're sunk, right? Not necessarily.

 

What you can do then is file a motion to preclude.

 

A motion to preclude keeps them from giving you things later at trial that they said they don't have or won't give you. SO?

 

So you can motion to preclude the bill of sale (remember that doc that they say gives them standing?) because the did not give you the complete document. Either give it all to you or they can't use any of it. Again, the judge has to rule in your favor but if you write a well worded motion, your odds are pretty good on one of them... if they don't dismiss before hand.

 

So what do you do now? In some courts it is necessary but it is always a good idea to write a "meet and confer" letter. Just a simple letter (no tricky format) that states that you received their discovery and you disagree with their objections. You want them to please respond to the following requests and respond without objection (then list the ones you want). You give them 10 days to respond or you will be forced to file a motion to compel.

 

Use those 10 days (actually 13 with mailing time) to write up a really good motion to compel because they will either ignore it or respond with the same crap. And then... FILE IT. You must file it or they will know that they can walk all over you and all of your threats are empty. Very important.

 

There should be some good meet and confer examples around here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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