Sued by Cavalry, 3 months into litigation, need some direction

[Harry Seaward]

I was served in February.  I filed a timely response, asserted affirmative defenses and filed counterclaims.  We served eachother with Rule 26 disclosure.  From them I got a Bill of Sale and Assignement of Loans with an attached "Loan Schedule" showing a single spreadsheet entry stating various info about the alleged debt and some personal info about me.  There was no contract and no statements included, however their exhibit list included "Billing Statements" and "Statement and/or Affidavit of Account".  So then I served them with interrogatories and requests for admissions and they have another week to respond. (I've been through this a time or two ). In the past, the cases were settled by this point, but for whatever reason, these guys don't seem interested in settling.  They filed a motion to dissmiss my claims for failure to state a claim.  I responded reiterating the three separate claims from my complaint.  One was about a very obviously incorrectly totaled Statement of Account they provided after I sent them a DV.  The judge is incredibly biased toward debt collectors (or maybe biased against pro se litigants) and just being lazy in general so last week he granted their MTD - I'm appealing.

 

Anyway, where I'm hung up is what I should do next.  I need to force their hand to prove they have nothing evidencing an agreement.  If I file a motion to dismiss, based on previous experience, I'm sure it will get denied.  Unless there is some gain beyond wanting their claims dismissed (fodder for appeal, etc), this will very likely be a waste of time.

 

As you can tell, I know enough to get myself into a poo storm, but then not really sure what to do once I'm there.  I'd appreaciate any advice.

 

Thanks!

[racecar]

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/312400-i-need-help-answering-a-motion-for-summary-judgement-in-az/

[Harry Seaward]

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/312400-i-need-help-answering-a-motion-for-summary-judgement-in-az/

So is the suggestion to use that as a template for a motion to dismiss, or should I go at them with MSJ?

Edit: or should I wait it out to trial and spring it on them then?

[BV80]

Since they still have time to respond to your discovery requests, I'd wait before doing anything else. 

[Lincoln Lark]

You probably can't do a mtd unless they broke some rule about who they filed the lawsuit or maybe did not serve you like the law requires.

[Harry Seaward]

Update: No response from Cavalry on my RFAs and Interrogatories.  Justice Court rules here allow them another 15 days to respond to RFAs following a 2nd notice.  I served them with the second notice for the RFAs yesterday and filed with the court a Motion to Compel them to answer the Interrogatories.

[Harry Seaward]

Yesterday I got Cavalry's response to my Motion to Compel. The short version is they are claiming they never received my discovery requests.

 

The long version is when I filed my counterclaims, I named Cavalry's counsel (Ewing) as a co-defendant.  I was unclear on the rules of procedure and it turns out I needed to serve a summons on Ewing in order to properly name them as a counterclaim defendant.  My counterclaims against Ewing were dismissed and I learned from my error.  Prior to the court dismissing my counterclaims, however, I served my RFA and Roggs on Cavalry together with separate RFA and Roggs to Ewing (two separate manilla envelopes - one to Ewing, one to Cavalry - together in a single Priority Mail envelope).  They admit getting the requests directed at Ewing but not the requests directed at Cavalry.

 

These guys are a class act.  I'd be pissed, but they are making me a better pro se litigant.

 

Anyway, I'm going to reply to their response to make sure it's on record that I did in fact send them discovery requests, but of course, the Court will deny my motion to compel.

 

It seems my next move should be to start over with the discovery requests, correct?

[shellieh98]

did you send it CMRRR?  While you should have sent one to each separate, If it was addressed to Calvary, and you have your CMRRR, I would be inclined to motion to compel.  If you didn't, then start over.

[BV80]

@Harry Seaward

 

 

My counterclaims against Ewing were dismissed and I learned from my error.  Prior to the court dismissing my counterclaims, however, I served my RFA and Roggs on Cavalry together with separate RFA and Roggs to Ewing (two separate manilla envelopes - one to Ewing, one to Cavalry - together in a single Priority Mail envelope).  They admit getting the requests directed at Ewing but not the requests directed at Cavalry.

 

 

Did you send the Priority Mail envelope to Ewing?  If so, the only thing I can figure is either they're lying (imagine that) or Ewing didn't bother to open the Cavalry envelope and/or didn't send it to them. 

[Harry Seaward]

did you send it CMRRR?  While you should have sent one to each separate, If it was addressed to Calvary, and you have your CMRRR, I would be inclined to motion to compel.  If you didn't, then start over.

I sent it Priority Mail with signature confirmation and I have the signature of the person that received it.  Regardless, this isn't a flat out denial they got anything.  They admit receiving discovery requests but deny there was anything directed at Cavalry.

 

I already motioned to compel.  Their response to my motion admits receiving the contents of the Ewing envelope but claims there was nothing addressed separately to Cavalry.

 

I agree that I should have sent them separate, and you can bet I will do that next time.  This is what I meant when I said they are making me a better pro se litigant. 

[Harry Seaward]

@Harry Seaward

 

Did you send the Priority Mail envelope to Ewing?  If so, the only thing I can figure is either they're lying (imagine that) or Ewing didn't bother to open the Cavalry envelope and/or didn't send it to them. 

Yes, the Priority Mail envelope was addressed to Ewing.  I just emailed him to ask if they forwarded it to Cavalry, and if not, if they still have possession of it.  I'm sure he'll deny everything.

 

So start over with Cavalry discovery then?

[BV80]

Yes, the Priority Mail envelope was addressed to Ewing.  I just emailed him to ask if they forwarded it to Cavalry, and if not, if they still have possession of it.  I'm sure he'll deny everything.

 

So start over with Cavalry discovery then?

 

I'm not an attorney and could be wrong, but it would seem to me that he should have opened the Cavalry envelope.  After all, he's their counsel.

 

If the discovery process is still considered to be ongoing, I would send the requests again.  Check your rules.

[Harry Seaward]

I'm not an attorney and could be wrong, but it would seem to me that he should have opened the Cavalry envelope.  After all, he's their counsel. If the discovery process is still considered to be ongoing, I would send the requests again.  Check your rules.

Oh, no question he should have opened them. I'm just covering both angles is case he later tries to claim he forwarded them to Cavalry.

I'm going to withdraw my motion to compel but make it very clear for the record that I absolutely included the discovery requests for Cavalry and essentially lay the blame for their disappearance at Ewing's feet.

[numbersguy]

Yesterday I got Cavalry's response to my Motion to Compel. The short version is they are claiming they never received my discovery requests.

 

>>>>

 

Anyway, I'm going to reply to their response to make sure it's on record that I did in fact send them discovery requests, but of course, the Court will deny my motion to compel.

 

Does AZ require a certification of service? I would think that in your reply to their answer, you might include an affidavit as to what was sent and when. If it were me, I would include the delivery confirmation. It is something you can look up on the USPS web site. Priority mail comes with a tracking number.

[Harry Seaward]

Does AZ require a certification of service? I would think that in your reply to their answer, you might include an affidavit as to what was sent and when. If it were me, I would include the delivery confirmation. It is something you can look up on the USPS web site. Priority mail comes with a tracking number.

 

Affidavit or not, what can I realistically do if they deny receipt of something?  Without video of them opening the envelope, I simply cannot prove the contents when they opened it.  If I push the issue, the most likely outcome would be something like in 30 days I get an order saying they have 15 days to respond (Justice Court, lazy judge).   I think that re-sending my requests now gives me the surest outcome which will be having their responses due in 40 days.

 

I'm filing my withdrawal today and I'm re-serving my discovery requests.  In my withdrawal I stated:

"Mr. XXXX wishes to certify for the record that the Priority Mail envelope received by Ewing on April 17, 2013 absolutely contained discovery requests, including Interrogatories, for Cavalry when it was deposited with the Post Office in XXXXX, Arizona."

And I attached as exhibits the Signature Confirmation Receipt showing the date of mailing, Proof of Delivery with signature, copies of the first page of my roggs and RFAs directed to Cavalry and a copy of the Notice of Service I filed with the court when I served the discovery requests on them.

 

Like I said, I made a mistake by trying to save postage and mail both together.  I learned from the mistake and I won't make it again.

[Anon Amos]

deleted-posted twice

[Anon Amos]

I think that re-sending my requests now gives me the surest outcome which will be having their responses due in 40 days.

 

 

That's what I would do, send it CMRRR & mistake free. I would title it RFPOD's SET # 2, since you are withdrawing set # 1, because that will be the next thing they attempt; (saying they got notice that set 1 has been withdrawn).

[Harry Seaward]

That's what I would do, send it CMRRR & mistake free. I would title it RFPOD's SET # 2, since you are withdrawing set # 1, because that will be the next thing they attempt; (saying they got notice that set 1 has been withdrawn).

I never withdrew my discovery requests. I only withdrew my Motion to Compel.

[Harry Seaward]

Alrighty, I got my responses.  First off, prior to answering my discovery requests, they sent me an "Initial Disclosure Statement" and a "Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement".  The Initial Disclosure included a "bill of sale and assignment of loans" signed by the vice president of FIA Card Services and a second page with what looks to be a single entry from a spreadsheet with various account data, my name and a SSN.  The "Second Supplemental" disclosure included the front and backs of a pair of credit card statements from June of '08 and November of '08.

 

Neither of these, however, included a "contract" as requested by RFP #7.  The "Second Supplemental..." title makes me think there might be a "First Supplemental..." so I emailed them to see if there were any other disclosures I should have received.  I'll update when I get a response.

 

I'll split this over 3 posts.  First will be RFP, then Roggs and finally RFA.

 

 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce all documents referred to or used in
answering the interrogatories to plaintiff or requests for admissions to plaintiff served
contemporaneously with these requests;
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiffs Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Produce any written or recorded statements obtained
from witness or any other person related to the allegations relevant to the present lawsuit;
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Plaintiff does not currently have any written or
recorded witness statements within its possession, custody or control, which are related to "the
allegations relevant to this the present lawsuit." Why do you suppose they added the "s to their response?  Seems like they are trying to use my wording of the question to get out of producing something.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3: Produce all documents substantiating or reflecting
any damages claimed against Defendant;
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Produce all journals, memoranda, notes, calendars,
correspondence, emails, account statements, and any other documentation upon which you intend to
rely to substantiate your claims;
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Produce all documentation evidencing the alleged
debt and your authority or standing to collect that debt;
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Produce any and all correspondence (including
emails) in your possession related to this present lawsuit;
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection; the Defendant's sixth request for production is
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Additionally, Defendant's sixth request for production seeks
documentation which covered under attorney work-product doctrine as well as attorney-client
privilege.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: You claim that Defendant breached a contract.
Produce the contract.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8: If you are claiming anything other than breach of
contract, produce all documentation that would substantiate that claim.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's eighth request for production is
inapplicable.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Produce all documentation evidencing any goods or
services purchased by Defendant on this alleged credit account.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent.

[Harry Seaward]

INTERROGATORY No.1: Identify all persons involved in the preparation of the answers to
these interrogatories. For each such person, provide their address and telephone number. For each
such person, also identify which interrogatory that person responded to. Please also state that
person's relationship to you and, where applicable, include their title, routine job duties and length of
time of employment.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the Defendant's first interrogatory is overbroad
and unduly burdensome.


INTERROGATORY No.2: Identify each person who has knowledge or claims to have
knowledge of information or events related to this lawsuit. For each such person, give their name,
address, telephone number, and a summary ofthat person's knowledge or involvement in this matter.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent.

INTERROGATORY No.3: Identify each of your employees who have had direct
involvement with the account of Defendant, including, without limitation, account representatives,
employees involved in acquiring the account if the account was acquired, employees involved in the
decision to refer the account to outside counsel, and any and all employees who worked with,
supervised or have personal knowledge of the account of Defendant in any way. For each such
person, please also state their job title, job description, contact information (including address and
telephone number) and the details of their involvement with the account.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the Defendant's first interrogatory is overbroad
and unduly burdensome.

INTERROGATORY No.4: You claim that you acquired this account from Bank of America,
N.A. Identify with particularity all documents that evidence such assignment including what
consideration was given for the claimed assignment.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintifrs Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent. The Plaintiff objects to the disclosure of consideration
provided for the assignment of Defendant's account as such information is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

INTERROGATORY No.5:
a. Identify all documents related to the portfolio that included the subject debt,
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the Defendant's fifth Interrogatory is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery admissible evidence.
b. State the total number of debts included in said portfolio,
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the Defendant's fifth Interrogatory is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery admissible evidence.
c. State the sum total dollar amount of all alleged debts owed in the portfolio, and
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the Defendant's fifth Interrogatory is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery admissible evidence.
d. State the consideration given for the portfolio in its entirety
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the Defendant's fifth Interrogatory is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery admissible evidence.

INTERROGATORY No.6: You claim that Mr. XXXXXX owes a certain amount on an alleged
delinquent credit card debt. Identify with particularity all documents that evidence such a debt and
the chain of title or custody of those documents that verify that you are the rightful owner of this
account.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent.

INTERROGATORY No.7: You claim that Mr. XXXXXX owes a certain amount on an alleged
delinquent credit card debt. Identify with particularity all documents in your possession or any
document that you intend to produce at trial to substantiate your claim.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent.

INTERROGATORY No. 8: Identify each witness you intend to call at trial. For each witness,
provide a summary of the subject matter about which each is expected to testify.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent.

INTERROGATORY No.9: Identify the "most knowledgeable person" ("MKP") as that term
is understood under the federal rules of civil procedure at your company that would represent you at
deposition. For the MKP, please state in detail every fact known by the MKP that relates to this
issue.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
apply in the instant matter. Furthermore, the Defendant's ninth interrogatory is vague and
ambiguous.

INTERROGATORY No. 10: In relation to the Most Knowledgeable Person referenced in
Interrogatory No. 9, describe that person's personal knowledge, if any, of the method of keeping
business records at Bank of America, N.A. Describe in detail how that person attained any such
knowledge they may have.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's objection to Defendant's ninth
interrogatory.

INTERROGATORY No. 11: In relation to the Most Knowledgeable Person referenced in
Interrogatory No. 9, describe that person's personal knowledge, if any, of the statements, accounts or
records of the original creditor relative to the debt you claim is owed in this matter, and describe how
that person attained said knowledge.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's objection to Defendant's ninth
interrogatory.

INTERROGATORY No. 12: If you claim that, at the time this account was allegedly
assigned to you, you provided notice of said assignment to Mr. XXXXXX, state the method used to
provide this notice and the date on which you claim to have done so.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Written correspondence, dated January 9, 2012.


INTERROGATORY NO. 13: If you, or anyone on your behalf, has taken any oral, written or
recorded statements from any person regarding any matter or recorded statements from any person
regarding any matter relevant to this lawsuit, please provide:
.. .
a. The names, addresses and telephones numbers ofthe individuals giving and/or taking
such statements,
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Plaintiff is unaware of any oral, written or recorded
 witness statements. Therefore, the Defendant thirteenth interrogatory is inapplicable in this
matter.
b. The location the statement was given and/or taken,
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Plaintiff is unaware of any oral, written or recorded
witness statements. Therefore, the Defendant thirteenth interrogatory is inapplicable in this
matter.
c. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the persons who have custody of the
statement and
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Plaintiff is unaware of any oral, written or recorded
witness statements. Therefore, the Defendant thirteenth interrogatory is inapplicable in this
matter.
d. The format used to record the statement (e.g. audio recording, video recording, in
writing, etc).
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Plaintiff is unaware of any oral, written or recorded
witness statements. Therefore, the Defendant thirteenth interrogatory is inapplicable in this
matter.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Ewing sent to Mr. XXXXXX a letter dated December 11,2012 in
which Ewing claimed a debt was owed to you by Mr. XXXXXX in the amount of$6393.49. On or
about February 14,2013, by and through Ewing, you sent Mr. XXXXXX a Statement of Account which
Claims an "Account Balance" of$6786.49. Explain in detail the discrepancy between these two
balances.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The balance of$6,393.49, as ofDecember 11,2012,
consisted of principal and interest. The balance provided to the Defendant, on or about
.. .
February 14, 2012, consisted of principal, interest, attorney's fees, and court costs.
Accordingly, the later balance is in a higher amount.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: In the statement of Account referenced in Interrogatory No. 14,
the value stated for "Principal as of 12/1112012" is $3433.70. In the same Statement of Account, the
value stated for "Accrued Interest as of 12/11/2012" is $2959.79. Explain in detail why the sum of
these two values is discrepant with the value stated for "Account Balance", and explain in detail why
the Statement of Account failed to account for this discrepancy.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the Defendant's fifteenth interrogatory is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Line itemize all interest, costs, fees and any other charge you
have appended to the amount of the alleged debt from the time you claim the account was assigned to
you , and for each item, state the basis for your belief that you are entitled to collect that item.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: From the time of charge off by the original creditor,
through December 11,2012, the Defendant's account accrued interest in the amount of
$2,959. 79. Upon the filing and service of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant's account was
charged with $141.00 in court costs. To date, the Defendant's account has also been charged
$300.00 in attorney's fees.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Line itemize each element ofyour claimed damages.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: On June 30, 2009, the original creditor charged off the
Defendant's account, which totaled $3,433. 70. From the time of charge off by original creditor,
through December 11, 2012, the Defendant's account accrued interest in the amount of
$2,959.79. Upon the filing and service of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant's account was
charged $141.00 in court costs. To date, the Defendant's account has also been charged $300.00
in attorney's fees.

INTERROGATORY NO. 18: In regards to the account you claim was assigned to you by
Bank of America, N.A., line itemize and describe in detail each and every document and piece of
information provided to you at any time by Bank of America, N.A.
PLAiNTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the Defendant's eighteenth interrogatory is
unduly broad and overly burdensome. Additionally, it seeks the disclosure of information that
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information. Finally, it seeks
the disclosure of information which, in part, is protected by privilege.

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: State:
a. The date you first made Ewing aware of you Claims against Mr. XXXXXX,
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the information sought by the Defendant
nineteenth interrogatory, subpart a, is protected by attorney/client privilege.
b. The date you hired Ewing to attempt to collect the alleged debt,
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the information sought by the Defendant
nineteenth interrogatory, subpart a, is protected by attorney/client privilege.
c. The date you instructed Ewing to initiate litigation against Mr. XXXXXX and
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection, the information sought by the Defendant
nineteenth interrogatory, subpart a, is protected by attorney/client privilege.
d. The events that prompted you to initiate said litigation.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Plaintiff initiated the instant lawsuit due to the
Defendant's failure to repay the sums owed on the debt at issue.

INTERROGATORY NO. 20: If it is your claim that the alleged debt is not the result of an
"open account" as identified by Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-543 (2), explain in detail the basis of
this claim.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's twentieth interrogatory is inapplicable in
the instant matter as the Plaintiff has not pled an open account theory at this time.

INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Identify by cases/cause number and court venue all lawsuits
filed in the State of Arizona within the last three years that you have been involved with and, where
applicable, state the prevailing party.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection; the Defendant's twenty-first interrogatory is
not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, it is unduly
broad and overly burdensome. Lastly, this information is a matter of public record and the
Defendant is welcome to look up the cases for himself.

INTERROGATORY NO. 22: The scope of this particular interrogatory is limited to lawsuits
that were filed in the State of Arizona between January 1, 2003 and March 31, 2013 and that were
either, a) filed by you or, filed against you and a counterclaim was filed by you. State the exact
number of such lawsuits in which you claimed a debt that had been assigned to you was owed.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection; the Defendant's twenty-second interrogatory is
not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, it is unduly
broad and overly burdensome.

INTERROGATORY NO. 23: State the exact number of items from Interrogatory No. 22 in
which default judgments were entered in your favor.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection; the Defendant's twenty-third interrogatory is
not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, it is unduly
broad and overly burdensome.

INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Identify each item by case/cause number and court venue and
jurisdiction from Interrogatory No. 22 in which summary or final judgment determined you failed to
prove Lack of Standing.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection; the Defendant's twenty-fourth interrogatory is
not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, it is unduly
broad and overly burdensome.

INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Identify each item by case/cause number and court venue and
jurisdiction from Interrogatory No. 22 in which summary or final judgment determined the Statute of
Limitations had expired on your claims.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection; the Defendant's twenty-fifth interrogatory is
not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, it is unduly
broad and overly burdensome.

INTERROGATORY NO. 26: State with particularity and in detail every fact or piece of
information in your possession that forms the basis for your claims that Mr. XXXXXX owes on this
account.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: See Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement and all
supplemental disclosures thereafter sent.

[Harry Seaward]

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that prior to filing your lawsuit against Mr.
XXXXXX, you were aware of at least one case in which the Superior Court of Arizona recognized a
three year statute of limitation on credit card debts
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection; the Defendant's first request for admission is
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that your Statement of Account sent to Mr.
XXXXXX on or about February 14, 2013 inaccurately represents the value stated for "Principal as of
12/1112012".
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's second request for admission is hereby
DENIED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3: Admit that your Statement of Account sent to Mr.
XXXXXX on or about February 14, 2013 inaccurately represents the value stated for "Accrued Interest
as of 12/11/2012"
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's third request for admission is hereby
DENIED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that your Statement of account sent to Mr.
XXXXXX on or about February 14, 2013 inaccurately represents the value stated for "Costs".
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's fourth request for admission is hereby
ADMITTED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5: Admit that your Statement of Account sent to Mr.
XXXXXX on or about February 14, 2013 inaccurately represents the value stated for "Other Charges".
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's fifth request for admission is hereby
DENIED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6: Admit that your Statement of Account send to Mr.
XXXXXX on or about February 14, 2013 inaccurately represents the value stated for "Interest Rate".
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's sixth request for admission is hereby
DENIED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that your Statement of Account sent to Mr.
XXXXXX on or about February 14, 2013 inaccurately represents the value stated for "Account
Balance".
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's seventh request for admission is hereby
DENIED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.8: Admit that your Statement of Account sent to Mr.
XXXXXX on or about February 14, 2013 was not reviewed by you for accuracy prior to being sent.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection; the Defendant's eighth interrogatory is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.

REQUEST FOR ADMISION NO. 8: Admit that you have no personal knowledge of the
method or manner of the record-keeping practices of the original creditor of the debt that is the basis
of this action.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection; the Defendant's ninth request for admission
(which is incorrectly numbered as a duplicate eighth request for admission) is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9: Admit that you have no personal knowledge of the
method or manner of the record-keeping practices of any of the collection agencies that may have
been at one time assignees of the right to collect this alleged debt.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: Objection; the Defendant's tenth request for admission
(which is incorrectly numbered as the Defendant's ninth request for admission) is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that you do not possess any written or
executed agreements from the Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's eleventh request for admission (which is
incorrectly numbered as the Defendant's ninth request for admission) is hereby DENIED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that you do not possess a promise by the
Defendant to pay this alleged debt.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's twelfth request for admission (which is
incorrectly numbered as the Defendant's eleventh request for admission) is hereby DENIED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that you have no documentary evidence of an
obligation of the behalf of Defendant to pay the alleged debt.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's thirteenth request for admission (which is
incorrectly numbered as the Defendant's twelfth request for admission) is hereby DENIED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that the amounts you claim are owed include
interest and legal fees.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's fourteenth request for admission (which
is incorrectly numbered as the Defendant's thirteenth request for admission) is hereby
ADMITTED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that at trial you do not intend to call any
witness from the original creditor.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's fifteenth request for admission (which is
incorrectly numbered as the Defendant's fourteenth request for admission) is hereby
ADMITTED.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that you do not intend to call any witness that
has a personal knowledge of this account at the time of its creation or had knowledge of the account
when it was allegedly breached.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE: The Defendant's sixteenth request for admission (which is
incorrectly numbered as the Defendant's fifteenth request for admission) is hereby
ADMITTED.

[Harry Seaward]

I received no response to my email.  I called the Clerk of the Court and they have no record of any other disclosure being sent, so it appears Cavalry has no contract in their possession.

 

What do I do next?  MtD?  MSJ?