Sharleemar

Yet, another LVNV suit. Need help at where I am now with case...

Recommended Posts

(BIG GRIN)... THANK YOU Calawyer and helpme.  I know... I sound pathetic and desperate...i'm usually calm, cool, and collected... Taking very deep breaths... whew! ok...I made it today to file. I gave simple answers as suggested. 

 

oh, and I FINALLY found ASTMedics post that he credits to Calawyer, Seadragon and numerous other members help... it's amazing...I wish I would have "favorites" that a long time ago when I started my research for answers here. I could have saved some members and myself a headache (laughs at self).

 

Thank you again. I am sure I will have a few more questions in the very near future. Right now I will be sending off the rest of the docs and a meet and confer letter this Friday (tmrw) since the BOP is vague and limited to just a few statements - if that is still suggsted. If not, just say so I will not send.    

 

Side note: I am in a HUGE civil litigation battle with a very large utility type of company - breach of contract and Cross for fraud. This issue is rather tiny in my world but for the other I have a lawyer to handle it. This in pro per stuff is exciting and relatively easy if the rules are followed - I'm still learning the rules and trying my very best to follow them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm asking.... I've read through the repsponsed from 1111girl, Calawyer and ASTmedic. All great info. 

 

In the Plaintiff response for my BOP's they have listed them selves like this:

 

Portfolio Recovery Associates,LLC (not LVNV Funding, LLC) 
Plaintiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • oopsie, looks like they are sharing responses that are canned, and have not even bothered to look at your demand, lol.  I think PRA is a subsidiary of Sherman originators, as well as LVNV is also, they probably have a box full of canned responses they pass around the office.  I would consider an objection to that, I mean, who the heck is suing you? Won't bode well for them if you can bring it to the courts attention. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks shellieh98.  my post was cut short for some reason....

 

To finiish my thought...

 

Yea, I believe law firms and lawyers were held to a higher standard under the eye of the court.

 

AH-HA!  I just noticed they also did it to the Demand for Prod and the interrogs but not the Admissions. 

 

They did that in their response to my DVLtr to them; stating the OC was Capital One Bank (USA) using their address but then also saying Chase Bank USA in the body of the letter (the law firm did not the JDB).  I never had anything from the JDB on this account. 

 

SO... My first reponse to the three items they sent me with Portfolio Recovery on the should say "Objection...something, something. something... 

 

In my cross-complaint I have that I can't tell who is the REAL Plaintiff is; the OC, the JDB or the lawfirm since the lawfirm is also a collection agency as listed in their collection letters.  Adds to my cross-complaint. 

 

The other item I would like some help on is general language for is the Admissions, Interrogs and DFProd as listed in my previous post.  Obviously, deny all. I have looked around at 1111girl and ASTMedic, etc. 

 

thanks so - so much for any further help on this... I'm gettin' there! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm asking.... I've read through the repsponsed from 1111girl, Calawyer and ASTmedic. All great info. 

 

In the Plaintiff response for my BOP's they have listed them selves like this:

 

Portfolio Recovery Associates,LLC (not LVNV Funding, LLC) 

Plaintiff

  Sure makes the following RFAs hard to admit, doesn't it:

 

No. 1    Defendant had a Chase credit account, currently owned by LVNV Funding.

 

No. 2    Defendant received statements from Chase regarding her Chase credit account, currently owned by LVNV Funding.

 

No. 3    Admit that the copy of the billing statement attached as Exhibit 1 for Defendant’s Chase credit account, currently owned by LVNV Funding is genuine.

 

No. 4    Admit that the copy of the credit card application, attached as Exhibit 2 by Defendant’s Chase credit account, currently owned by LVNV Funding is genuine.

 

 

 

Not only has plaintiff failed to provide the complete accounting in response to your BOP, they responded on behalf of an entity that is not even the plaintiff.  Should they be the plaintiff?  Who knows?  Not you.

 

I think 1111girl's response is pretty appropriate here.  For each response asking you about the "account", consider something like the following:

 

Defendant objects to this RFA on the ground that the word "Account" is vague and ambiguous in the context of this litigation. Plaintiff's complaint is utterly devoid of any factual information regarding the alleged debt and plaintiff has not fully responded to defendant's Bills of Particulars seeking such factual information. Moreover, an entity named "Portfolio Recovery Associates" has responded to Defendant's Bill of Particulars, purporting to be the plaintiff herein,  calling into serious question whether NVLV even owns the claim at issue in this litigation.  Based upon the foregoing, Defendant responds as follows: DENIED.

 

If Portfolio is listed as the plaintiff on any of the discovery that you are responding to, you should object on that basis as well:

 

Defendant objects on the ground that this discovery is propounded by a non-party in this case, Portfolio Recovery Associates. [continue on with any other objections].

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome! What an angel you are Calawyer. Thanks! This is exacatly what I had scambled in my head.  lol.  It's like, being on the tip of my toung but I can't get it out. I am working on this tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still need some help please! please - please - please

 

I have the prod of docs response and they submitted a year of statements and the application for the credit card again. I do not know what is my next step.

 

On the application for the credit card there should be a printed date on the form itself. Look for it and see if that application coincides with the date you allegedly open the account. Does that application have your signature?

Even though they have a years worth of statements they can't prove how they arrived at that Amt to claim damages. Let me look for the case law on that and I will post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the application for the credit card there should be a printed date on the form itself. Look for it and see if that application coincides with the date you allegedly open the account. Does that application have your signature?

Even though they have a years worth of statements they can't prove how they arrived at that Amt to claim damages. Let me look for the case law on that and I will post.

 

The application has both my sig and date signed. The only printed date is the offer being good until July 27, 2007.

 

They arrived at the damages in the amount of the balance on the last statment of July 2010. 

 

I thought I read somewhere that the default buyer (company) has to be named in the terms of the agreement (not just any POS-JDB).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my strategy:

My responses are due back by October 18th (the day of the CMC). I will mail the responses back just in the nick of time (to arrive just short of the CMC) (I feel giddy inside) ~ so they'll get the information on the responses that show the embarrassing mistake on the Plaintiff info.

All my answers (most all) are per the suggested verbiage of Calawyer.

 

In the meantime, I will be sending my requests to them.

 

The CMC will provide the trial date for the case – I’m sure to be after the new year. That will give them enough time to request a Set 2 of each (ugh!)

Same questions, I’m sure.

 

Calawyer: I’m assuming that I can put the same responses to the ROGS. I will look around herein for some more ways to respond to the specific q's wihout giving away too much. 

 

I sooo want to stick it to 'em. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Calawyer: I’m assuming that I can put the same responses to the ROGS. I will look around herein for some more ways to respond to the specific q's wihout giving away too much. 

 

I sooo want to stick it to 'em. 

 

 

Sure.  You should probably object on the ground that the interrogatories are overbroad as the only relevant account is the one they are suing you for.  And that one, can't be identified because they haven't given you the necessary information.

 

In other words, "Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is overbroad in seeking information not limited to the account at issue in this litigation." 

 

Then continue on with the 1111girl response.

 

I soooo want you to stick it to them also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So today I had the CMC. I arrived on time, looked sharp (was asked by the security and bailiff if I was an attorney...lol), I checked in with the bailiff, I was #15.

 

It took only 10 minutes to get to me since most folks just don't show up (shameful and very sad). I got up there. The plaintiff was on the phone and introduced themself before I could fully get to the table.  There was a very long pause of silence before I got up to the table. I was almost compelled to shout my name while I was walking up, but quickly thought to remain confident and professional - so I went normal speed, put my stuff down on the table and said, "good morning your honor, then my name".

 

Next, the judge asked where the plaintiff was with their part of the case and the attorney said they are ready to file a motion to ? (I couldn't hear him), but they are waiting on my discovery response which is due on October 30th (actually is due on Oct 20 and I've already sent back), and they asked to set a trail date. The judge said, "Noooo, since discovery is still pending I'm going to schedule another CMC about 90 days out, (looked at his calendar) lets set for January 13th." The attorney stammered a few words (which I could not hear) and the judge repeated the CMC to be that date and told the plaintiff to send a notice.  The judge looked at me as if I might to say something, I just said "Thank you your honor" picked up and walked out. 

 

I knew this was gonna be no biggie. I just wanted to give everyone an update. 

 

I'm still feeling kinda giddy since I sent back my discovery response with mostly objections and denials being that I do not know who the real plaintiff is. I'm sure now that the CMC was extended the plaintiff can resend me the discovery with the correct plaintiff name - darn.

 

   

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did well.  And now you have your first Court appearance under your belt.

 

Just one piece of advice.  Be confident in Court.  If plaintiff appears by telephone and says something you can't hear, say "excuse me your honor, could plaintiff repeat the type of motion it intends to file?  I did not hear what he/she said".  You are entitled to know what is going on and if plaintiff appears by phone and can't be heard, you should ask that plaintiff repeat what was said.

 

PS.  If you want to post your meet and confer letter, I would be happy to take a look at it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on the board... the case seems to have been on the back burner for a bit. 

 

Next step,  the CMC on January 13th. Now I have a scheduled deposition on the 23rd. In the subpoena the asks me to bring ALL documents relating the Chase Bank credit card (currently owned by LVNV); payment copies, dispute letters and responses, correspondence to and from LVNL, charge slips, all printed sales receipts reflecting the charges, all documents in my possession or control to show I do not owe money on the account, copies and each and every document reflecting to any telephone calls made to defendant on behalf of LVNV (already submitted as an exhibit).

 

Not once, after numerous times I responded, have they amended their complaint due to knowing the errors of having two "original creditors" and 2 plaintiffs named on the suit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your list of stuff should be short and sweet. Love how they want you to provide everything they need to prove their case so they don't have to look.

so your depo is today?

Just take your time after each question, formulate your answer, and I do not recall is your favorite response, because you do not want to lie--good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Depo is the 23rd of January - 10 days after the CMC. Thanks for the tip on the depo. I'm sure their reason to depose me is because of my Cross-Complaint. 

 

Funny... the judge pushed the CMC out due 90 days because the plaintiff had pending discovery and it's their excuse again.  When I go the the CMC I will hopefully move the court to have trial immediately or file a motion to what? dismiss? summary judgement? The plaintiff has not proven standing - although they sent me statements from the account and a signature that appears to look like mine - that's all I have. Of course they are not authenticated and subject to hearsay.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems depos are being more common in California. Yours is the second one I've seen recently. They're trying to intimidate you, don't let them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: I had the second CMC last week. The attny (on the telephone) for LVNV sated they are still in discovery. We set the trial date to be April 21st. The judge asked the attny if t was going to be a "short cause" trial. The attny said it maybe longer since I have a cross complaint. The judge looked at me as if I agreed and I said, No, your honor, I will want a Jury trial. The judged looked irritated and said he will put down for three days, said I had to post the jury fees and the trial readiness conference is on April 17th. 

 

So, I have my depo today at 10:00. As I mentioned - they want me to produce everything in the way of evidence I have - which I have nothing more than what was exhibited in the response to the compliant. Oh wait... I do have my credit report printout. But they should have that since they know they did not report that the account was in dispute that is listed on it.

 

My cross complaint is for

constant telephone calls from the attorneys office to collect the debt after I sent them a cease contact letter,

not providing proper verification, 15 USC 1692 g(B);   

attempting to collect fees, interest, expenses that are not authorized by any agreement permitted by law: 15 USC 1692 f(1);

engaging in conduct of which to harass, oppress, abuse; continuing to pursue collection and unverified debt, filing a suit, forcing me to defend against: 15 USC 1692 d;

failure to communicate the credit bureaus or other persons the debt is in dispute: 15 USC 1692 e(8);

falsely representing LVNV is the original creditor or that the assignment constitutes a proper valid assignment; just to name a few. 

 

The alleged debt is for $$6K plus but the cross may reach higher than that. 

 

As shellieh98 said... "I do not recall" is my favorite response in the depo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all those counter claims I'm surprised that they haven't run away in terror. Good luck with the depo today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: 

 

Had the nearly 6 hour long depo. Not really sure how it went.  Am expecting the transcripts of the depo any day to review, certify and return.  I really didn't say to much OR maybe I did. It felt like getting arrested for something I didn't do, get drilled for hours, and confess to something just to get the hell outta there. Frustrating and was not how I planned my day (clients waiting for me was making me nervous). 

 

The attorney that deposed me kept asking me if I researched my responses from the internet and the various forums (like this). I said - of course, I am in pro-per and I also had some advice from my civil attny (not on the case).  He said he could tell because my responses sound just like the "ill-informed, want to be attorneys" in the forums. That really p'ed me off! I kept cool. My question to him was, why he was stuck on the internet research and forums opinion...he responded was they he was not the one being deposed, I was. Saying, he was not going to answer (but grinned at my question). 

 

He also asked why I didn't bring any documents to the depo as required. I said, you mean as "requested"?  I said that I did not have the file with me and that everything I have they have already.

I was not about to give them my hand written research notes, notes from this forum, etc. Privileged. Right?  

 

I'm sure that attorney is reading this now (Hello Mr. J.!)...  

 

He said, that I have a colossal consulting career, live in a high end house and make lots of money. I responded that he must be getting his information from the ill-informed internet because none of that was close to the truth. Since the truth is I live in a 850sf house in a gang invested ghetto, barely surviving on less than $1,200/mo and drive a 14 year old car.  

 

So this week I finally get the discovery response. And just like most everyone's answers herein on this forum - my questions were "vague and ambiguous, blah, blah, blah".  The some ol' song and dance they always give - so I really got nothing. BUT I DID GET the bill of sale which was not authenticated. It shows Sherman purchased a block of accounts from Chase, Sherman assigned to LVNV and shows me nothing in the way of my name or the purported account number, amount or any other information. 

 

So, I really would like ANY opinions: but one concern I have is asking for a jury trial and the "inconvenienced" feel it posed on the judge. 

 

I look forward to hearing back. It's now getting crunch time and my "crunch" is feeling a little soggy right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's very little reason for a deposition in a debt collection case. Since you decided to foil their default plans and fight back they're only looking to feel you out and intimidate you. Their smug comment about your internet responses confirms that. A 6-hour deposition can't be easy for anyone other than a seasoned expert. I'm sure you did the best you could under the circumstances. 

 

I wouldn't worry about "inconveniencing" the judge with a jury trial. You have a right to it and while getting a jury involved is a crap shoot, depending on the judge it may work out better for you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I foiled  their plans.  lol

I knew goin into this that it was going to be a fight with my cross complaint.

 

I meant to say that they sent me the Bill of Sale signed by Chase and Sherman, the Transfer and assignment  from  Sherman and L V NV, and a receivable file (Ex A) with a transfer group number. Not one of these items shows anything...does it?  Anyone receive this in discovery before. It appears to be made up. Shows me no agreement between me and LV NV or other. 

 

thanks for listening... 

 

PS: I feel like someone is watching me... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a difficult time proving assignment is a normal case where the original creditor assign directly to the JDB.  How will they prove the assignment from Chase to Sherman to LVNV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of assignment evidence will be much harder to prove between Chase and Sherman. Since Sherman owns LVNV they can produce the link between these two. So I would concentrate on Chase bill of sale since it is most likely a generic document for a portfolio of accounts. If the first one can't be proven then the second one is irrelevant. 

 

You might want to also look back at all of the letters you received before the lawsuit was filed. Sherman has been known to try and collect using more than one its "companies" at the same time. I have heard this can be very confusing to least sophisticated consumer B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.