Sign in to follow this  
macklove

Being sued by Midland Funding in Washington State after Discovery

Recommended Posts

I'm being sued by Midland funding in Washington State (Pierce County). I have received a summons stating breach of contract. I filed an answer and an affirmative defense. I filed a request for production of documents please see attached. Today I received my response from the plaitiffs for request of production of documents as follows: plaintiff objects to defendant's request for production of documents on the ground that is not permitted per LCRLJ 26(3). subject to and without waiving this objection, and in good faith attempt to be responsive to this request, all responsive documents currently within plantiffs possession, custody, and Control specific to this request or attached hereto. What was provided to me was a bill of sale and assignment, a asset schedule and affidavit of sale of account by original creditor,and a certificate of conformity which none of these documents mention my name or account number. I've also received a document titled field data that has account number,date account open, amount,charged off date, name address,last payment date last purchase date. at the bottom of the form it says "data printed by Midland credit management incorporated from electronic records provided by Citibank pursuant to the bill of a sale/assignment of accounts dated 11 2011 in connection with sale of accounts from Citibank to Midland funding". I could create this document myself there's nothing on this document that states it was from Citibank. they did not provide all documents requested that is all they provided there is nothing more filed with the court as of yet what would my next step be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this small claims court, or civil court? It should say what type of complaint it is at the top of the complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like you are in small claims.  You can try to get it out of small claims.  Here is your rule.

 

 
    

LCRLJ 14
REMOVAL OF SMALL CLAIM TO CIVIL STATUS

1. Cross claim or counter claims: Defendant or his Counsel may file a
Summons and Complaint by paying the $31.00 filing fee, and then move the
Court to consolidate the Small Claim action and the Civil action under the
District Court number. A date will be set hearing the motion and both
parties notified.
2. Other: In a case where there will be no cross-claim or counter
claim, the defense counsel shall file a motion asking that the matter be
moved to the District Court. If the motion is granted, Defense Counsel must
submit, within fourteen (14) days of the granting of the motion, an
appearance and answer on behalf of the defendant(s) and pay the $31.00
civil filing fee. The Small Claim action will then be transferred to the
Civil docket and will proceed as a Civil case from thereon. If the
defendant fails to so file or pay, the order transferring the matter to the
District Court Calendar shall be vacated and the matter rescheduled as a
small claim.

 

 

Or here is your rule on discovery.  You can only ask for the things outlined here.

 

https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=district&set=dispr1&ruleid=districtdispr1326

 

Here are your rules.  You need to study them.  If you can get it into a higher court, you will have better discovery, and in my opinion be able to strike affidavits easier.  Your small claims rules says that any statement or declaration is admissible if made by way of affidavit, or sworn under perjury. 

Here is the complete site for your rules, and the ones specific to your case now are below it.

 

https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=district&set=dispr1

 

 

 

Civil/Small Claims Rule LCRLJ 1 Form of Pleadings LCRLJ 5 Filing of Pleadings and Other Papers LCRLJ 10 Pro Se Litigants LCRLJ 14 Removal of Small Claim to Civil Status LCRLJ 26 Discovery LCRLJ 38a Confirmation of Civil Jury Trial LCRLJ 38b Cancellation of Civil Jury Trial LCRLJ 40 Civil Trial Settings; Continuances; Pretrial Settlement Conferences LCRLJ 41 Non-Appearance of a Party or Parties on Trial Date LCRLJ 54a Garnishment Judgment on Answer LCRLJ 54b Condition Precedent for Attorneys Fees on Dishonored Checks LCRLJ 55 Default Judgments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may want to read posts by @sasha0378

 

From what sasha and others have said, WA small claims and district courts are very pro-creditor.  She won her case when she appealled it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elect arbitration now with JAMS that will help to run them off. In my sig line below is a link to Linda7's thread on arb. READ IT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the arbitration is the way to go. The plaintiff most likely won't offer into evidence anything else. I guess the law firm is Suttell and Hammer. The judges around the state are so used to S&H friendly faces, that any piece of evidence S&H introduces will be happily admitted, unless very properly argued by very proper people (attorneys).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, one more thing. I have seen a few WA people around here, who pursued the Request For Admissions path of discovery. The amounts in question were small, so the plaintiff just dropped the case, so they didn't have to bother with answering RFAs

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.

Sign in to follow this