Jump to content

Razor Capital suing - NO DUNNING LETTER first!


Recommended Posts

Hi, this is my first time posting. Although I am somewhat familiar with debt collection/validation procedures, I am NOT so savvy in the summons - we're-suing-you procedures. XhelpX

 

I was served a limited, civil summons in person eight days ago saying that the Plaintiff, Razor Capital LLC, (represented by Nelson & Kennard) is suing me for just over $2000 for a debt that they claim that I owe to GE Capital Retail Bank.  I have been getting voice messages from Nelson & Kennard for the past couple of months (I did not call them back), but I have never received a dunning letter or any other kind of correspondences from either Razor Capital LLC or Nelson & Kennard.  I called Nelson & Kennard and recorded the call in which I told them immediately, and they told me that they had sent me a demand letter on April 3, 2013.  I keep maticulous records and would have requested validation right away if I had received anything from them!  This account was sent to collections three years ago to a different CA and when I requested validation from them, they did not respond; I never heard back from them.  This account is being reported by only the OC on my CR.

 

My question:  Is there an FDCPA law that requires CA's/Attorneys to send a demand letter to an alleged debtor more than one time before they just go and try to sue someone???  Also, my name is on this summons, but my address isn't, is this normal?

 

I am going to the court (15 miles away - ugh, there's a superior court 2 miles from me!) on Tuesday (Nov. 5) to get the appropriate forms that I need to file my answer.

 

Thanks again!
Jo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, this is my first time posting. Although I am somewhat familiar with debt collection/validation procedures, I am NOT so savvy in the summons - we're-suing-you procedures. XhelpX

 

I was served a limited, civil summons in person eight days ago saying that the Plaintiff, Razor Capital LLC, (represented by Nelson & Kennard) is suing me for just over $2000 for a debt that they claim that I owe to GE Capital Retail Bank.  I have been getting voice messages from Nelson & Kennard for the past couple of months (I did not call them back), but I have never received a dunning letter or any other kind of correspondences from either Razor Capital LLC or Nelson & Kennard.  I called Nelson & Kennard and recorded the call in which I told them immediately, and they told me that they had sent me a demand letter on April 3, 2013.  I keep maticulous records and would have requested validation right away if I had received anything from them!  This account was sent to collections three years ago to a different CA and when I requested validation from them, they did not respond; I never heard back from them.  This account is being reported by only the OC on my CR.

 

My question:  Is there an FDCPA law that requires CA's/Attorneys to send a demand letter to an alleged debtor more than one time before they just go and try to sue someone???  Also, my name is on this summons, but my address isn't, is this normal?

 

I am going to the court (15 miles away - ugh, there's a superior court 2 miles from me!) on Tuesday (Nov. 5) to get the appropriate forms that I need to file my answer.

 

Thanks again!

Jo

There is no law saying they have to send a certain amount of demand letters before they sue. After the first initial communication they are supposed to send you a dunning letter saying you have 30 days to dispute.

 

A couple of points:

 

1) you can get all the forms you need to answer the complaint, fee waiver, etc. here: www.courtinfo.ca.gov

 

2) You mentioned this account was sent to a different collection agency 3 years ago.  In CA the statute of limitations (for which you can sue someone) is 4 years, so it may have already ran.

 

 

Also what 1st step said in the post above.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1stStep: Thanks, this is exactly what I plan to do, and yes, I've heard that N&K are morons, it's just a shame that there's no law supporting a lawsuit against it! 

 

Anon Amos: I think that it's wrong that we have to prove that we sent something to them, but they don't have to do the same; I never received anything from them so I think they're lying - shocker!  1) I tried the link, it didn't work but that's OK I have the two forms that I think I need, I'm just not sure how I need to fill them out and I don't want to make any mistakes; I need to go to the court anyway it's just too bad they filed it in Norwalk instead of Torrance.  2) I still have one more year to use the SOL card and I thought I would be in the clear by now with all of old debt, I was wrong, damn.

 

Thanks for your responses and have a great weekend! :)%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@

 

I think that it's wrong that we have to prove that we sent something to them, but they don't have to do the same

 

Unfortunately, a JDB doesn't have to contact you at all prior to suing.  There doesn't have to be an initial communication.  They can buy the debt and just sue.

 

If your reasoning is that they called you but never sent a letter with the 30 day notice, that's a "he said/she said".  It would be your word against theirs.

 

BUT, as 1stStep has pointed out, if they've sued in the wrong venue, there's your FDCPA violation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's just too bad they filed it in Norwalk instead of Torrance. 

 

 

***Whether or not you have an FDCPA violation; you can still file a motion for a change of venue. I would try to find out which court is more bottom feeder friendly first, and then make sure my case was heard in the other one. My guess would be that Norwalk is more pro plaintiff, and that's why they filed there. Good Luck.***

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

it's just too bad they filed it in Norwalk instead of Torrance. 

 

 

***Whether or not you have an FDCPA violation; you can still file a motion for a change of venue. I would try to find out which court is more bottom feeder friendly first, and then make sure my case was heard in the other one. My guess would be that Norwalk is more pro plaintiff, and that's why they filed there. Good Luck.***

 

I'm thinking you're right about Norwalk, Torrance might be a better venue for me.  I will find out Tuiesday if I can have it moved! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be the correct county, but it may be the wrong courthouse in the county... which then becomes the venue violation.

 

 

Many years ago, I was sued in LA (Chatsworth), and while technically correct because it was a court in the correct county, the correct venue (courthouse) for the suit was Long Beach. I sued both the law firm and the plaintiff for the violation and it was very quickly settled. 

 

This is why the OP needs to do their homework to see if the actual courthouse that the case was filed in is actually correct - it may be, it may not be. 

 

Plus with all the consolidation the courts are doing, it may be a violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be the correct county, but it may be the wrong courthouse in the county... which then becomes the venue violation.

 

 

Many years ago, I was sued in LA (Chatsworth), and while technically correct because it was a court in the correct county, the correct venue (courthouse) for the suit was Long Beach. I sued both the law firm and the plaintiff for the violation and it was very quickly settled. 

 

This is why the OP needs to do their homework to see if the actual courthouse that the case was filed in is actually correct - it may be, it may not be. 

 

Plus with all the consolidation the courts are doing, it may be a violation.

How do I find out though?  They are both Superior Courts in Los Angeles County. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in AZ, it depends on your address... 

Went to Norwalk this morning, they said that all LA County collection cases are heard only in either Norwalk or Chatsworth now.  I will file my answer and then hit them with BoP... I guess.  I'm not sure how to fill out the answer - hope I do it right!  Thanks for your input :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.  I'm not sure how to fill out the answer - hope I do it right!  Thanks for your input :-)

 

If the complaint is not verified ( to be verified it would need a separate page with the word "verification" and signature of lawyer) then you can just file a general denial (form PLD-050), it is much easier.  It has a proof of service form that goes with it, and you must send that with a copy of the general denial to the lawyer. You can get the forms here www.courtinfo.ca.gov

 

You don't have to rush in answering this, you do have time. Just don't be late. Always use time to your advantage and against them. Use the time to learn more about how to answer and defend against the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the complaint is not verified ( to be verified it would need a separate page with the word "verification" and signature of lawyer) then you can just file a general denial (form PLD-050), it is much easier.  It has a proof of service form that goes with it, and you must send that with a copy of the general denial to the lawyer.

Thank you, but unfortunately, it DOES have a verification page signed by the attorney.  :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a verification as to the correct venue... N&K had to start putting those on their complaints after I sued them in Federal (for suing me in the wrong venue). 

To my understanding, a verified complaint is one signed by the party or the attorney who verifies the contents to be true.  The verification page in my summons  includes the statements: "As to all other matters, I am informed and believe that the matters stated therein are true, and on that ground, I allege that the matters stated therein are true.  I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct."

 

Does this constitute a verified complaint or does it have to be signed and notorized by Razor Capital LLC, the "plaintiff"?  The summons I have does not even contain my address nor the license number or address of the plaintiff.  I have a feeling that N&K are the true owners, per their reputation.

 

Apparently you taught them a lesson... that they've learned from!  No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning,

N&K don't own the debt, they are simply a Collection Attorney, so don't get off track. Razor is the JDB. In my dealings Razor purcahsed from another Debt Buyer, meaning they have to prove Standing to sue via 2 bill of sales from the OC.

Answer as if it is a verified complaint, not that much more work.

N&K is primarily interested in getting default judgements, so if you follow the guidance and force them to work, via discovery and going to trial. Their case will eventually lack the neccessary live testimoney to authenticate the proof to win....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning,

N&K don't own the debt, they are simply a Collection Attorney, so don't get off track. Razor is the JDB. In my dealings Razor purcahsed from another Debt Buyer, meaning they have to prove Standing to sue via 2 bill of sales from the OC.

Answer as if it is a verified complaint, not that much more work.

N&K is primarily interested in getting default judgements, so if you follow the guidance and force them to work, via discovery and going to trial. Their case will eventually lack the neccessary live testimoney to authenticate the proof to win....

Thank you for your insight!  So I'm going to fill out form PLD-C-010 (Answer) but I'm not sure which box to check.  They claim I owe over $1000 so it seems that I can't generally deny their claim the way this thing is written!  "Do not check this box if the verified complaint or cross-complaint demands more than $1000."   So do I check the "admit all except" box, and then list the statements that I think are false?  It seems so contradictory!  I want to insist on them proving to me that they have the right to collect, where do AND how do I state this?   ALL help is VERY much appreciated!!!

 

Razor DID buy from another CA that could not validate the debt for me a couple of years ago.  I only wish they would have contacted me before they just up and sued me so that I could have done the same to them!  I only have eleven more months for SoL to run out on all of the accounts that I had to default on. 

 

Thanks again :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning,

I would check box 3( B). Just under 3( B) there should be the next statement on the form that reads:

1. Defendent claims the following statements are false (use paragraph numbers or explain)

If you click on the box there will be a place for you to type. I entered the following based on the complaint they filed. (see below)

1. Defendant denies plaintiff's allegation number 8 and demands strict proof thereof and authenticated proof thereof.

2. Defendant denies plaintiff's allegation number 9 and demands strict proof thereof and authenticated proof thereof.

3. Defendant denies plaintiff's allegation number 10(a) and demands strict proof thereof and authenticated proof thereof.

4. Defendant denies plaintiff's allegation number 10( B)(2) and demands strict proof thereof and authenticated proof thereof.

There wasn't enough room so I also checked the box that says "Continued on attachment 3.b.1.

Then on pleading paper I enter the following:

ANSWERS THE COMPLAINT

Now comes the defendant and hereby specifically answers the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, to wit:

5. Defendant denies plaintiff’s allegation number CC-1 and demands strict and authenticated proof thereof.

6. Defendant denies plaintiff’s allegation number CC-1(a)(1) and demands strict and authenticated proof thereof.

7. Defendant denies plaintiff’s allegation number CC-1( B) and demands strict and authenticated proof thereof.

8. Defendant denies plaintiff’s allegation number CC-1(3) and demands strict and authenticated proof thereof.

9. Defendant denies plaintiff’s allegation number CC-2 and demands strict and authenticated proof thereof.

As to all allegations not specifically admitted herein, they are hereby denied and defendant demands strict and authenticated proof thereof each.

So you see I have denied basically everything except my name and address and the venue being correct.....

Hope this helps

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be the correct county, but it may be the wrong courthouse in the county... which then becomes the venue violation.

 

 

Many years ago, I was sued in LA (Chatsworth), and while technically correct because it was a court in the correct county, the correct venue (courthouse) for the suit was Long Beach. I sued both the law firm and the plaintiff for the violation and it was very quickly settled. 

 

This is why the OP needs to do their homework to see if the actual courthouse that the case was filed in is actually correct - it may be, it may not be. 

 

Plus with all the consolidation the courts are doing, it may be a violation.

 

1692i does not use word "county."  It uses the term "judicial district."  In this case, the U.S. Second Cir Court of Appeals said in 2011 that  1692i was violated when plaintiff sued in the wrong judicial district of NY. It came to that conclusion by an analysis of the NY court system   In the OP's case, whether there was a violation of 1692i would turn on how Calif court system is structured.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13710297913000158577&hl=en&as_sdt=5,107,122,349,350,351,352&sciodt=4,107,122,349,350,351,352

  • Like 1
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.