Jump to content

Pressler and Pressler - Civil Action Complaint (Contract)


Recommended Posts

Hello All,

 

Pressler and Pressler is at it again and I need help! This is not my debt and I am not sure how to answer this motion. Any help is appreciated.Thank you and God Bless. Please see below.

 

 

FILED Jul 18, 2013

 

 

 

Pressler and Pressler, LLP 7 Entin Rd.

Parsippany, NJ 07054-5020 1-973-753-5100 Attorney for Plaintiff

 

 

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC CURRENT ASSIGNEE, [CITIBANK   (SOUTH DAKOTA),   N.A.   THE HOME DEPOT,  ORIGINAL CREDITOR]

 

Plaintiff                     SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Law Division

vs.                                                      MONMOUTH    Special Civil Part

Docket # DC-000000-00

Me

Defendant(s)                             Civil Action

COMPLAINT

______  __________________________________________  (Contract)

Plaintiff having a principal place of business at:  8875 AERO DR STE 7 00 SAN DIEGO,  CA 92123 says:

  1. Plaintiff is the assignee and the current owner of the Defendant's CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. THE HOME DEPOT account, having the last four numbers 2571, which is in default.
  2. The last three digits of the social security number   of    the Defendant, Me,  are 0000.
  3. The Plaintiff is seeking from the Defendant Me, on the above account the sum of $7,784.72 and pre-judgment interest    is    requested from 10/20/2009 to 07/18/2013 in the amount of $266.97 for a total of $8,051.69.
  4. The account was assigned from the original creditor CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A. THE HOME DEPOT to Midland Funding LLC, the present assignee, plaintiff, on 27 DEC 2012 .

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment for the sum of $8,051.69 plus accruing pre-judgment interest to the date of judgment plus costs.

I certify that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other court action or arbitration proceeding, now pending or contemplated, and that no other parties should be joined in this action.

I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(B).

PRESSLER and PRESSLER, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) By:  S/ Ralph Gulko Ralph Gulko

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

start by reading summons, or start of complaint in NJ rules of civil procedure.  It will tell you how to answer your summons.  Some states require a verified answer, stating a denial to each accusation, others a general denial will be fine.

 

BV80 posted this site from a NJ attorney that has various motions etc., I would book mark it, you may need a reference to a motion down the line, and he has some good stuff with NJ law in it. http://www.philipstern.com/files/

 

It would help others from your state if you answer the questions in this thread that are posted in a sticky at the top of this forum called "Q's to answer when posting in this forum" there are like 17 questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is not you debt and you never have had a Citibank/Home Depot credit card this is the type of thing NJ consumer protection defense lawyers like Phil Stern http://www.philipstern.com/Cases.html  live die and breath for. File your answer with a counter suit, FDCPA, FCRA claim and reap the rewards.

 

It may not be just that easy but that's where I would start.

 

HP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never had a home depot or Citibank account. In addition, I never received any notice of this debt until  now. My credit score is 733 and I dont want a default judgement. An attorney is too expensive. I am willing to pay someone to assist. Please help. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We hate Junk debt buyers and love to beat them.

Put your money away and put your slippers on and relax and read for a while.

 

 

If this is not your debt and your being sued here is Philip Sterns contact information

http://philipstern.com/contact_us.html

URGENT MATTERS: If you are in need of immediate legal services, please call our office
at (973) 379-7500. If your call is directed to voice mail, be certain to
(1) clearly state your name and spell it if needed,
(2) state how we can contact you, and
(3) repeat any telephone number or email address.

FAX: (973) 532-0866,

Email: webinquiry@philipstern.com

 

 

 

 

Read thru all his posts and files

http://www.philipstern.com/files/

http://philipstern.com/resources.html

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/index.html

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/forms.htm

http://www.findnjlawyersonline.com/njlaw/evidence/toc.htm

http://philipstern.com/Appeals.html with midland funding

http://philipstern.com/Cases.html

http://camlaw.rutgers.edu/library

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KPPEt5fV9I8J:law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2011/a2062-10.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC. v. HARRY J. KUMBARIS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Jersey Appellate Court Announces Standard for Obtaining Summary Judgment in an Action to Collect on a Revolving Credit Account

 

by:

Peter E. Lembesis

Joy Harmon Sperling

Day Pitney LLP - Parsippany Office

    July 26, 2011

Previously published on July 22, 2011

In a recent decision approved for publication, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, clarified the standard of proof required to obtain summary judgment in a suit to collect on a revolving credit card account. In LVNV Funding, L.L.C. v. Colvell, A-1313-10 (July 12, 2011), the court held that the creditor must "prove more than merely the total amount remaining unpaid" and must set forth: (a) the previous balance; (B) all transactions and credits; © the periodic rates; (d) the balance on which the finance charge is computed; (e) any other charges applied; (f) the closing date of the billing cycle; and (g) the new balance.

The plaintiff, LVNV Funding, L.L.C. ("LVNV"), was a credit agency that purchased a portfolio of debt from Citibank, including the MasterCard account of defendant Mary B. Colvell ("Colvell"). LVNV brought suit in the Special Civil Part for $12,060.75 in damages, including interest, service charges, costs and attorney fees. Prior to trial, LVNV moved for summary judgment, attaching a computer-generated report supporting its claim as to the amount due. The court granted LVNV's motion. Colvell appealed.

Colvell argued that the computer-generated report attached to LVNV's motion did not meet the requirements set forth in New Jersey Court Rule 6:6-3(a), which governs entry of judgment by default and requires the inclusion of "forms of proof, consistent with federal regulations for credit card account periodic billing statements." Specifically, the rule requires that, where the plaintiff's records are maintained electronically and the "claim is founded on an open-end credit plan," the plaintiff must attach "a copy of the periodic statement for the last billing cycle" or a "computer-generated report setting forth the previous balance, identif[ying] ... transactions and credits, if any, periodic rates, [the] balance on which the finance charge is computed, the amount of the finance charge, the annual percentage rate, other charges, if any, the closing date of the billing cycle, and the new balance." The Appellate Division found that, although Rule 6:6-3 "does not generally apply in a summary judgment situation," it "provides a guide to the proofs necessary to grant summary judgment in a credit card collection matter."

The court found the statement provided by LVNV did not comply with Rule 6:6-3(a). It did not specify any transactions comprising the debt owed and, in fact, the only transaction listed on the statement was LVNV's purchase of the account. "Additionally, and incredibly," the statement indicated that the finance charge percentage rate, annual percentage rate, and other fees were zero. The statement also failed to include the closing date of the billing cycle. Accordingly, despite that Colvell did not dispute that she used the card or held the account, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.

While the LVNV Funding decision sets forth a clear and concise blueprint, the court's decision may have limited application. Rule 6:6-3 applies only to matters in the Special Civil Part, which does not hear cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000. The Appellate Division in LVNV Funding did not comment on whether its holding would have broader application to matters not brought in the Special Civil Part. Additionally, the court did not opine on whether the standard set forth in Rule 6:6-3 would govern proof at trial. However, the court did note that the requirements ofRule 6:6-3(a) were also "set forth in federal law." In any event, the standard established by LVNV Funding is not a difficult one to meet, and creditors seeking judgment on a revolving credit card account in situations not expressly covered by Rule 6:6-3 or the LVNV Funding decision may thus want to consider conforming to that standard in order to avoid challenges to their proofs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.