stefeni074

Arizona Justice Court Midland Citibank elected Arbitration MTD/MTC

Recommended Posts

@Harry SeawardThat's what I said before. Why you're twisting it? ;)

OP should File an answer along with a reply to their motion and the MTC arb with notarized affidavit and card agreement. schedule a hearing if required by rules (you should know if it is or not). Wit for Midland to crawl on its knees !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, howucan2 said:

You don't want to straight up say you owe midland do you ? ;)

I use the words like " the Alleged account" or " the Alleged disputed account ".

Admitting to having an account with Citibank doesn't equate to owing a debt to Midland.  Also, if you go so far as deny the underlying debt (not saying your phrases do that), Midland can then argue you cannot argue such and such agreement governs an account you have claimed doesn't exist.  It has happened this way before and the courts ruled in Midland's favor on a consumer's motion to compel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

Admitting to having an account with Citibank doesn't equate to owing a debt to Midland.  Also, if you go so far as deny the underlying debt (not saying your phrases do that), Midland can then argue you cannot argue such and such agreement governs an account you have claimed doesn't exist.  It has happened this way before and the courts ruled in Midland's favor on a consumer's motion to compel.

Harry I suggest you stop confusing yourself. 

The ALLEGED DISPUTED account DOES NOT mean I didn't have an account ! Contrary to what you said ; It means I MAY or MAY NOT have an account and if I did it's disputed. I have short memory, please refresh my memory that the account and the amount is correct. And do it in ARBITRATION which I now elect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, howucan2 said:

Harry I suggest you stop confusing yourself. 

The ALLEGED DISPUTED account DOES NOT mean I didn't have an account ! Contrary to what you said ; It means I MAY or MAY NOT have an account and if I did it's disputed. I have short memory, please refresh my memory that the account and the amount is correct.

No confusion here at all.  This is what I was responding to:

Quote

You don't want to straight up say you owe midland do you ?

7 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

Admitting to having an account with Citibank doesn't equate to owing a debt to Midland.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I say the alleged account, is that denying an existance of the agreement I am trying to arbitrate.. do I need to add something else, in the way of not having knowledge of Midland buying the account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you are not lying.

There was an account and now it's in dispute and court lacks jurisdiction b/c you elected arbitration per the card agreement which said all disputes mus be resolved in arbitration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once had a judge ask me straight up ( MTC hearing) : Is this your account? I said: Your honor this account and amount is entirely in DISPUTE. That was the end of it.

Had I not said it that way I'd be left with two options,. Yes or No. None would turn out favorable  !

You can't lie to a court.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about answer and assertion pf affirmative defense such as Court's Lack of subject matter jurisdiction and arbitration ?

How about two sentence reply to their two paragraph motion? 

Finish the job properly.

Make copies for yourself as well as your opponent. You must mail everything you file plus a certificate of service !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about answer and assertion pf affirmative defense such as Court's Lack of subject matter jurisdiction and arbitration ?

How about two sentence reply to their two paragraph motion? 

Finish the job properly.

------ Can you be more specific on this.. I have revised the MTC to include the notarized statement and that it fulfills AZ rule of Evid 901(b)1

 

If I have to submit an answer I will add the list of affirmative defenses.  I used the ARS 12b1 for lack of venue when I asked for MTD.  and ARS 12-1502 MTC and stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does AZ accepts MTC or MTD in lieu of an answer? If it does then filing MTC is sufficient.

I personally will file a response to their Motion to dismiss if I were you. I have seen not filing a response or  Objections lo be considered as acceptance of the facts. You don't want to leave anything for Midland to drive SJ through !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, howucan2 said:

 

 

21 minutes ago, howucan2 said:

Does AZ accepts MTC or MTD in lieu of an answer? If it does then filing MTC is sufficient.

I personally will file a response to their Motion to dismiss if I were you. I have seen not filing a response or  Objections lo be considered as acceptance of the facts. You don't want to leave anything for Midland to drive SJ through !

You can file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer but a motion to compel on its own is not a proper response to a complaint. It is the MTD that precluded Midland from being able to ask for default in this case. 

But now that the motion is before the court, filing an an answer at this juncture would critically upset things in the precarious Justice Courts here. 

 

@stefeni074, file your reply (affidavit and agreement included) to their objection to your motion to compel and then wait. If the court denies the motion it will order you to file an answer within 20 days following. It's then when you would deny their claims and  assert your affirmative defenses, etc. 

I would check the status at least once a week after you file your reply.  The clerks here are not great about sending notices to the parties and if you miss the memo about having to file an answer, this could be all for naught. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee,  Harry can you beat around a bush more? Yes or No would have been sufficient !

You can refrain from trying to teach me the law , trust me ,I 've been around the block a few rounds.

Now, i'm going to disagree with your statement Harry  b/c MTC  can be filed in lieu of an answer in most jurisdictions.  I'm not from AZ , so we'll leave it for up for the poster to search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, howucan2 said:

Gee,  Harry can you beat around a bush more? Yes or No would have been sufficient !

You can refrain from trying to teach me the law , trust me ,I 've been around the block a few rounds.

Now, i'm going to disagree with your statement Harry  b/c MTC  can be filed in lieu of an answer in most jurisdictions.  I'm not from AZ , so we'll leave it for up for the poster to search.

You understand that I'm not responding to you for your benefit, right?  I'm explaining to the OP - the person that matters here. 

And now we need to go another round since you didn't bother to look for yourself before 'disagreeing' with me.  A motion to compel is not a proper response to a lawsuit in Arizona. 

https://govt.westlaw.com/azrules/Document/N2DF5E7800DDD11E2B1BB87D5DA3B811F?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

Rule 12 of the Big Boy court (Superior Court) is what the above rules are based on, if you'd like to check that out also. 

Our rules don't refer to a "motion to compel" anything. The motion we use here for arbitration is based on ARS 12-1502, and even there it's not called a "motion to compel".  It's referred to as an "application for an order". Every piece of AZ case law I've looked at where a motion to compel was used, a motion to dismiss was filed contemporaneously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry S , I'm not for here for your benefit either. Although, you learned a few things on the other board, didn't you?

Your statements are incoherent , b/c you're trying to show your sophistication and it ain't working.   Save those stuff  for actual court , newbies need simplicity not complication. 

Now, if you read my post three times you would comprehend what was said " IN MOST JURISDICTION MTC CAN BE FILED IN LIEU OF AN ANSWER". and I said M O S T not ALL jurisdictions.  I also said I don't know AZ rules (so don't pat your own back ) .

Keep trying !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, howucan2 said:

Harry S , I'm not for here for your benefit either. Although, you learned a few things on the other board, didn't you?

Your statements are incoherent , b/c you're trying to show your sophistication and it ain't working.   Save those stuff  for actual court , newbies need simplicity not complication. 

Now, if you read my post three times you would comprehend what was said " IN MOST JURISDICTION MTC CAN BE FILED IN LIEU OF AN ANSWER". and I said M O S T not ALL jurisdictions.  I also said I don't know AZ rules (so don't pat your own back ) .

Keep trying !

Ok this is silliness.  You're just being combative, contradicting yourself and cluttering up the OP's thread just to see your words on the screen, right? I can't figure or any other reason you'd want to make such a fool of yourself. 

I'll not be responding to your nonsense any further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@stefeni074 I've been thinking about this.  12-1502 states the only grounds for denying a motion to compel is if the court finds there is no agreement.  In their reply they did not deny there is an agreement to arbitrate nor did they give the court any reason to believe there isn't an agreement to arbitrate.   They only said the agreement you provided is not admissible.  In addition to the responses we talked about already, I would also argue they know or should know the agreement they will produce has an arbitration clause and their response to your motion served no purpose other than to delay and harass.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a letter from the court on Saturday, it is a schedule for trial on Feb 4th.  I had sent in my revised motion to dismiss/compel that included the affidavit that the credit card agreement was a true and exact copy, on Jan 12th the court sent out this mailing for trial on Jan 13th.  I don't believe they even considered (or read) my revised motion.  I have uploaded the doc, is states that since this is a trial, all witnesses and 3 copies of exhibits must be brought to court.

Any suggestions are appreciated.

b-o Sched for trial.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@stefeni074 how did your 'revise' your motion? There's really no rule for amending a pending motion.  I believe the proper method is to file a withdrawal of the pending motion and then refile with the corrections. If a motion has been denied, you would file a 'renewed' motion with whatever changes to the original motion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just leave it for now.  The court is statutorily prohibited from moving ahead to trial until it denies your motion.  If nothing happens between now and your trial date, before the trial begins remind the court of your outstanding motion. If it gets denied, go ahead with trial.  After trial you can appeal the denied motion to compel and anything else that didn't go your way at trial. Hopefully there is enough on the record to get the denial reversed on appeal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking the judge will not decide on my motion until I do bring it up.  I am certain he will deny it.

 I have another case ongoing with the same court and judge with Lvnv Funding.  During the course of my initial MTD (not asking for arbitration), the judge granted it, Lvnv stated they were not given proper notification so the judge then denied my motion and gave me 30 days to Answer.  During the mediation as it was called the judge stated he was not knowledgeable on the issue of credit card debt, the lawyer then started spewing other "legal jargon" that led me to believe I wouldn't get a fair chance in his court because of the judge's reaction to this mediation.  I then answered with the request with the intent to arbitrate. I think at least I could get a fair chance with arbitration.  Since then I have not heard from Lvnv.. I submitted a MTC Dec 22nd.  and I haven't received the return receipt back.. so they have either refused my letter or I'm not sure.  Nothing from the court on this case yet. 

Do you have an idea of what I should expect during a trial. It seems that many steps have been bipassed.  

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.