TolarTanker Posted June 17, 2016 Report Share Posted June 17, 2016 Ive been served by Second Round Sub LLC in Dallas for a 3600 Lowes Card. They are asking for a bunch of discovery stuff from me? How do I respond to the request? Ive got an answer ready. Ill post it below along with a PDF of the papers I received from them. Thank you for your help in advance! This is being done in County Court of Law. Here is the answer, does this look correct? 1. Who is the named plaintiff in the suit? Me2. What is the name of the law firm handling the suit? (should be listed at the top of the complaint.) Second Round Sub LLC3. How much are you being sued for? 36004. Who is the original creditor? (if not the Plaintiff) Lowes5. How do you know you are being sued? (You were served, right?) was served6. How were you served? (Mail, In person, Notice on door) in person7. Was the service legal as required by your state? YesProcess Service Requirements by State - Summons Complaint8. What was your correspondence (if any) with the people suing you before you think you were being sued? No9. What state and county do you live in? Texas Hood County10. When is the last time you paid on this account? (looking to establish if you are outside of the statute of limitations) Nov 201211. What is the SOL on the debt? To find out: 4Statute of Limitations on Debts12. What is the status of your case? Suit served? Motions filed? You can find this by a) calling the court or looking it up online (many states have this information posted - when you find the online court site, search by case number or your name). Just served13. Have you disputed the debt with the credit bureaus (both the original creditor and the collection agency?) no14. Did you request debt validation before the suit was filed? Note: if you haven't sent a debt validation request, don't bother doing this now - it's too late. no15. How long do you have to respond to the suit? (This should be in your paperwork). If you don't respond to the lawsuit notice you will lose automatically. In 99% of the cases, they will require you to answer the summons, and each point they are claiming. We need to know what 20 days Case No. ####### Second Round Sub,LLC Assignee In the County Court at Law Of GE Capital Retail Bank(Lowes) of Plaintiff V. "Me" HOOD COUNTY TEXAS Defendant DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ANSWER Defendant generally denies, pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, each and ever, all and singular, of The Plaintiff's allegations. PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION Grounds for Dismissal for Lack of Standing This is a lawsuit arising out of an alleged consumer credit card debt. Plaintiff, is not a financial institution, original creditor, lender, or issuer of any credit card. Instead, Plaintiff alleges "On or about March 10,2009. See Plaintiff's Original Petition under "Facts" paragraph 4. There is no allegation or statement as to who was the seller, and there is no way from these pleadings to determine if Plaintiff purchased the account from anyone in the chain of title, and no way to determine what rights, if any, the Plaintiff has to bring suit. A plaintiff who seeks to sue based on rights acquired by an assignment must plead and prove up the assignment. Ceramic Tile Intern., Inc, v. Balusek, 137 S.W3d 722, 724 (Tex. App, – San Antonio 2004, no pet.); Delaney v. Davis, 81 S.W.3d 445, 448-49 (Tex. App, – Houston [14th district] 2002, no pet.). Plaintiff has not done either. If Plaintiff is the assignee and rightful owner of the debt, this should be very easy for Plaintiff to allege and prove, yet Plaintiff avoids and dodges the issue, when such issues cannot wait until trial. Without a pleading of an assignment and admissible evidence of the assignment, there is no subject matter jurisdiction and this case must be dismissed. Whether plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit is a threshold issue that should be resolved at the onset, and the instant plea to the jurisdiction is a proper means by which to address this threshold question. Legal Standards for a Plea to the Jurisdiction The purpose of a plea to the jurisdiction is to dismiss a cause of action without regard to whether the underlying claim has merit. Bland ISD v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). The plea challenges the court's power to adjudicate the subject matter of the controversy. Texas DOT v. Arzate, 159 S.W.3d 188, 190 (Tex.App. – El Paso 2004, no pet.), Axtell v. University of Texas, 69 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex.App. – Austin 2002, no pet.). Standing is a basic requirement of the judicial system and goes directly to the court's subject matter jurisdiction over a case. It may be raised at anytime and, unlike a challenge to a party's capacity to sue, cannot be waived or presumed. Nootsie Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal District, 925 S.W.2d 659, 661-662 (Tex. 1996), Continental Coffee Products v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 n.2 (Tex, 1996). A plea to the jurisdiction is the proper way to challenge a party's lack of standing. Waco ISD v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. 2000). The plaintiff must come forward with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is at least an issue of fact as to the existence of jurisdiction. Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227-228 (Tex. 2004). The court should grant defendant's plea to the jurisdiction because on the face of the petition, it is clear that the plaintiff is not the original creditor, which therefore puts standing at issue and it is certain that this Plaintiff will not come forward with admissible evidence of standing to bring the lawsuit. SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ACCOUNT STATED 1. Credit Card Cases Are Based on Express Contracts and Cannot Be Brought On Implied Contract Theories Like Account Stated. The Texas Supreme Court made clear in Truly v. Austin 744 S.W. 2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1988) that a plaintiff may not avoid the terms of its express contract by seeking recovery on an implied contract theory if the damages claimed are covered by the express contract. Credit card cases brought on an account stated theory violate this Supreme Court holding. Credit Card arrangements are governed by express contracts. The only viable cause of action for breach of a credit card is breach of contract. Implied or quasi-contractual causes of action like an account stated cannot be brought on a credit card debt without violating Truly v. Austin. Texas courts will not imply the existence of contract where an express contract already exists. Fortune Production Co. v. Conoco, Inc.,52 S.W.3d 671 684 (Tex. 2000), Woodard v. Southwest States, Inc., 384 S.W.2d 674 (Tex 1964), Musick v. Pogue, 330 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. Civ App.- San Antonio 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The reason for this rule, as described by the Supreme Court in Fortune Production, is that parties should be bound by their express agreements. When a valid agreement addresses the matter, a party should not be able to recover more than is provided for in the agreement. Id., 52 S.W.3d at 684. "Count 1" of the Original petition fails to provide fair notice as to how The Plaintiff can avoid this express contract in favor of an account stated. The principle that a plaintiff should not be able to use an implied contractual theory to recover more than his contract authorizes is particularly applicable to credit card cases. Credit card fees and interest rates are heavily regulated. Federal Law mandates comprehensive disclosures of these terms when the account is opened and when the account is amended. See e.g. 15 U.S.C. § 1637©(1)-(7), 12 C.F.R. 225.5-225.16. Credit card plaintiffs should be able to produce these disclosures or otherwise prove the interest rates and fees that their customers agreed to pay. Using an account stated theory to imply an agreement to pay the interest and fees would improperly relieve plaintiff from establishing the amount of interest and fees that were required to be disclosed to the defendant under Federal law, and must have been included in the terms of its alleged express agreement with the defendant. 2. A Credit Card Account Is Not an Account Stated A credit card account is not an "account" as that term has been used in the common law governing suits on account. A credit card account does not arise out of a course of dealing between two parties engaging in transactions in goods. A credit card account is a multiparty arrangement. Each transaction involves ata minimum, the debtor, a merchant, the merchant's bank, a clearing organization such as Visa, Mastercard, American Express, the card issuing bank and the card issuing bank's credit card processing unit. Every transaction brings a new merchant and merchant bank into the web of transactions that make up the account, with the result that over the term of a credit card account, hundreds of parties may be involved, not just two as envisioned for a common law account. Moreover, the transactions in a credit card account are not merely sales of goods. The account issuer does not sell goods to the account holder: instead, it makes extensions of credit to the account holder or to third party merchants on the account holder's behalf. For these reasons the cause of action for account stated does not apply to credit cards. An account stated is merely an open account that has been closed because the party charged has agreed that the account is correct. Whittlesey v. Spofford 47 Tex. 13, (Tex. 1877), Wroten Grain & Lumber v. Mineola Box Mfg. Co., 95 S.W. 744 (Tex Civ. App.-1906), Padgitt Bros. Co. v. Dorsey, 194 S.W. 1124, 1126 Tex Civ. App.- El Paso 1917, no writ). An open account is an implied claim that arises from the course of dealing between two parties who engage in a series of transactions in which title to goods passes from one to the other. McCamant v. Batsell, 59 Tex. 363, 367-369 (Tex 1883), Livingston Ford Mercury, Inc. v. Haley, 997 S.W.2d 425, 427 (Tex App.----Beaumont 199, no writ). Over a century ago in McCamant v. Batsell, 59 Tex. 363, 1883 WL 9175 (Tex. 1883), a case that has never been overruled, The Supreme Court construed the word “account” as it is used in this context as limited to suits arising out of relationships in which title to goods was transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant and further excluding suits in which the rights of the parties were defined by a written agreement. In McCamant, a suit on a promissory note, the plaintiff sought to make use of the then existing statute governing suits on account, which like current Rule 185, set up abbreviated procedure for resolving disputes involving such suits. Unlike the current rule the statute did not enumerate the kinds of action that could be brought as suits on account. The Supreme Court construed the meaning of the term “account” in the statute as being consistent with the common law meaning of the term: “As used in the statutes of this state, in the act referred to, we believe that the word “account” is used in its popular sense, rather than in a technical sense, and that it applies to transactions between persons in which, by sale upon one side and purchases upon the other, the title to personal property passes from one to the other, and the relation of debtor and creditor is thereby created by general course of dealing.” The Court also ruled that the plaintiff’s suit against the maker of a note and his sureties could not be brought as a suit on account or an open account because it did not arise out of the course of dealings between a buyer and seller, but was based upon a written agreement in which all the terms were fixed and certain. Id., 1883 WL 9175 at 6. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding of McCamant in Meaders v. Biskamp, 316 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. 1958), in which The Court distinguished a suit on an account from a suit based upon an express contract for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees. The then applicable language of Tex. Civ. Stat. Art. 2226, the predecessor to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 38 permitted an award of attorney’s fees for a suit upon a sworn account but did not include the present language authorizing fees in a breach of contract case. The Meaders court, citing McCamant held that a suit founded upon a written contract for the drilling of an oil well was not a suit on account because the relationship of debtor and creditor did not arise from a course of dealing but from a contract. Id., 316 S.W.2d at 78 The classic statements of the elements of the account stated cause of action expressly draw a distinction between suits that grow out of a course of dealing and suits that grow out of an express agreement. For example, in Central Nat. Bank of San Angelo v. Cox, 96 S.W.2d 746, 748(Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1936, writ dismissed), the court said: “The cases are legion on what constitutes an account stated. In general the essential elements involved are: Transactions between the parties which give rise to an indebtedness of one to the other; an agreement, express or implied, between them fixing the amount due; and a promise, express or implied, by the one to be charged, to pay such indebtedness. 1 Tex.Jur. p. 371 et seq.; 1 C.J. 678; 1 Am.Jur. 272; 1 C.J.S., Account Stated, p. 693.” The first and defining element of the claim is existence of a debtor-creditor relationship that arises from a series of transactions—from a course of dealing, not a contract. This element is identical across all suits on account, whether open, sworn or stated. While the other elements of the claim do reference an agreement, the subject matter of the agreement is not the creation or terms of the debtor-creditor relationship, but the acknowledgement, after the transactions that gave rise to the relationship have occurred, of the amount due and the obligation to pay. Recent court of appeals decisions allowing a stated account on a credit card have overlooked these Texas Supreme Court authorities and instead are based upon mere dicta from a footnote in a decision out of the Dallas court of appeals. In a footnote in that case, Dulong v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 261 S.W.3d 890 (Tex.App.----Dallas 2008) the court stated that a sworn account requires the passage of title and is thus not a proper tool for a credit card case but noted that it differs from an account stated in this regard. But neither that decision nor any of the other appellate decisions that have followed it have explained how they reached this conclusion. These decisions are utterly devoid of any analysis or legal authority on the issue, and none of them discuss McCamant v. Batsell. These decisions are simply contrary to Texas Supreme Court authority. PRAYER Wherefore, premises considered, Defendant prays that the Court grant his Plea to the Jurisdiction, grant his Special Exceptions, enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, that Plaintiff take nothing, that the Court assess costs against Plaintiff and award Defendant all other relief to which he is entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Signed_________________________________ Name: Address: Phone: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that I will mail a true and correct copy of this Original Answer to the Plaintiff on the _____ day of ____________________, 20____. Signed____________________________________ Name: Address: Phone: lowesredact.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasrocker Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 Here are answers to RSIEH Discovery. I will PM you fist set of discovery to send to them along with their copy of your answer. Request for Disclosure: a- <your name>, Portfolio Recovery Associates b- <your name>, Portfolio Recovery Associates' address and phone number unknown. c- This is a lawsuit arising out of an alleged consumer credit card debt. Plaintiff is not a financial institution, not an original creditor, and not a lender or issuer of any credit card. Instead, plaintiff claims to be the owner through an assignment but does not identify who assigned the debt. Plaintiff only vaguely alleged an assignment and has not produced any evidence of its alleged ownership of the debt. Defendant generally denies the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Original Petition and demands that Plaintiff be required to appear and provide strict proof of said allegations. Defendant asserts that the enforcement of the Card Member Agreement or contract is substantively unconscionable because it is grossly one-sided and unfair. In particular the Card Member Agreement allows the creditor to unilaterally and dramatically raise the interest rate while simultaneously lowering the credit limit for virtually any reason or whim, even those having no not reasonable bearng upon the consumer's performance, and then charge penalties and fees because the creditor's unilateral and arbitrary decisions caused the consumer to be over the credit limits. The contract allows the creditor to unfairly surprise the consumer to default due to the imposition of impossible and usurious interest rates. Such provisions are grossly unfair and unconscionable and should not be enforced by trhe court. d,e- unknown f- No expert witnesses at this time. 1- n/a 2- n/a 3- n/a g- unknown h- unknown i- unknown j- n/a k- n/a l- unknown Request for Production: 1- Defendant objects to this request as overbroad and as an impermissible fishing expedition. If plaintiff were in fact the rightful creditor it would already have copies of these documents in its possession. 2- Defendant objects to this request as overbroad and as an impermissible fishing expedition. If plaintiff were in fact the rightful creditor it would already have copies of these documents in its possession. 3- Defendant objects to this request as overbroad and as an impermissible fishing expedition. If plaintiff were in fact the rightful creditor it would already have copies of these documents in its possession. 4- Defendant objects to this request as overbroad and as an impermissible fishing expedition. If plaintiff were in fact the rightful creditor it would already have copies of these documents in its possession. 5- Defendant objects to this request as overbroad and as an impermissible fishing expedition. If plaintiff were in fact the rightful creditor it would already have copies of these documents in its possession. 6- Defendant has not been able to identify the alleged account that is the subject of the lawsuit from the plaintiff's petition and from this request. Defendant will supplement. 7- Defendant has made any such determination and will supplement. 8- Defendant objects on the basis that these documents are already in the possession of the plaintiff and are equally or more readily available to plaintiff. These include the plaintiff's discovery requests, which purport to require Defendant to verify his responses to the requests for disclosure, request for production and requests for admissions when no such verification is required. 9. Defendant has not yet made this determination. Defendant will supplement. 10. Defendant has not yet made this determination. Defendant will supplement. 11- Defendant has not yet determined whether to bring a counterclaim. Defendant will supplement in the event that he brings a counterclaim. 12- Defendant has made no such claim. Defendant will supplement. 13- Defendant will supplement. 14- Defendant has made no such claim. Defendant will supplement. 15- Defendant objects to this request as impermissibly shifting the plaintiff's burden of proving standing to the defendant. The plaintiff's own petition constitutes a judicial admission that plaintiff is not the original creditor. Plaintiff must plead and prove up any assignment and has done neither. Admissions: 1- Denied 2- Defendant objects to this request as vague and unclear in that the "Account" is not identified and cannot be determined from the request or the pleadings. Subject to and without waiving these objections, after a reasonable inquiry the information known or easily obtained by Defendant is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the request. 3- Objection. Irrelevant, seeking information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4- Denied. 5- Defendant objects to this request as vague and uncertain because there is no way to discern from the request what the plaintiff contends were the "applicable terms and conditions and/or cardholder agreement" and the determination whether these were "applicable" calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to and not waiving these objections, after a reasonable inquiry the information known or easily available to Defendant is insufficient for Defendant to admit or deny the request. 6- After a reasonable inquiry the information known or easily available to Defendant is insufficient for Defendant to admit or deny the request. 7- Defendant objects to this request as vague and uncertain because there is no way to discern from the request what interest, late fees and other fees and penalties to which the request refers. Subject to and without waiving these objections, denied. 8- Defendant objects to this request as vague and uncertain because there is no way to discern from the request what the plaintiff contends were the "applicable interest rates, late fees, over limit fees or other fees" and the determination whether these were "applicable" calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to and not waiving these objections, after a reasonable inquiry the information known or easily obtained by Defendant is insufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the request. 9- Denied. 10- Denied. 11- Denied. 12- Denied. Plaintiff first set of interrogatories 1- Defendant has never had any account or dealings with Second Round Sub LLC and does not owe any money to Portfolio Recovery Associates. There is no evidence that Second Round Sub LLC has standing to bring any claim for a debt allegedly owed by Defendant to any creditor. Defendant does not recognize the alleged account. 2- Discovery is not yet completed. Defendant will supplement. 3- Defendant has not filed any counterclaims at this time. 4- n/a 5- Unknown. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.