What NOT to do

[BV80]

A consumer filed suit against a debt collector.  The debt collector never answered the complaint and made no appearance at court.  Needless to say, the consumer won a default judgment in her favor.  She was also awarded attorney fees.

Read the details.  More than likely, the collection agency does not exist and the consumer will never see her award.   As to whether or not her attorney gets his fees depends on the agreement with the consumer.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=478613619607969517&q="Nokes+v.+THE+CAVALRY+FIRM"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=6,41

[CCRP626]

Calls to her cellphone but no TCPA mention in the case?

[BV80]

27 minutes ago, CCRP626 said:

Calls to her cellphone but no TCPA mention in the case?

I guess not.  But it really didn't matter because the defendant probably doesn't exist. 

[Harry Seaward]

Where does the court find that the defendant doesn't exist? 

[BV80]

1 hour ago, Harry Seaward said:

Where does the court find that the defendant doesn't exist? 

The court didn't make such a ruling.  I think it's in the details.   They sound just like details provided by some posters on this site.

A consumer gets a call from a "debt collector" saying that a lawsuit has been filed against him, but he finds out there's no lawsuit.  The caller makes various threats that any real debt collector with half a brain cell knows are illegal. 

On top of that, in Nokes, neither the defendant debt collector or counsel for that collector showed up in court.   If you do a search on the "firm", there's a Better Business Bureau complaint stating that someone from that company claimed to be from a district attorney's office. 

More than likely, it was a scam.

[CCRP626]

@BV80 also nothing at NV Secy of State for them including under their agent. It's not like they went away, they don't seem to have existed there.

 

[BV80]

34 minutes ago, CCRP626 said:

@BV80 also nothing at NV Secy of State for them including under their agent. It's not like they went away, they don't seem to have existed there.

 

I also checked under CSC Services of NV, the supposed registered agent.  It lists the companies for which CSC provides service of process.  No "Cavalry Firm" was listed. 

However, Cavalry Portfolio and Cavalry SPV are listed.  I'm wondering if the plaintiff and her attorney assumed the Cavalry Firm was the same as one of those Cavalry companies.  Although why they would look in NV when the plaintiff was in IL stumps me.

[CCRP626]

1 minute ago, BV80 said:

No "Cavalry Firm" was listed. 

and it shows the status of those thousands of companies that used them as an agent, so if they were ever a client they'd be there. Anything served at the agent for Cavalry I guess ended up in the trash?

If one of the consumers these guys convinced to send them money did so I wonder how that happened? Was Cavalry ever a registered business in some state if you wanted to send them a check or did one of the guys on the phone just tell you to send it in their name or use Western Union? Seems like if there would be anyone to send them money that person would definitely qualify as least sophisticated consumer.

[BV80]

21 minutes ago, CCRP626 said:

and it shows the status of those thousands of companies that used them as an agent, so if they were ever a client they'd be there. Anything served at the agent for Cavalry I guess ended up in the trash?

If one of the consumers these guys convinced to send them money did so I wonder how that happened? Was Cavalry ever a registered business in some state if you wanted to send them a check or did one of the guys on the phone just tell you to send it in their name or use Western Union? Seems like if there would be anyone to send them money that person would definitely qualify as least sophisticated consumer.

Such a person would definitely qualify as a least sophisticated consumer, but he wouldn't be able to sue a non-existent company that can't be located.   Well, he could, but he'd never collect his award.

[CCRP626]

14 minutes ago, BV80 said:

he wouldn't be able to sue a non-existent company that can't be located.   Well, he could, but he'd never collect his award.

Not sure what to think of the Atty who took least sophisticated consumer's case hoping to get paid on win from non-existent company.

[BV80]

3 minutes ago, CCRP626 said:

Not sure what to think of the Atty who took least sophisticated consumer's case hoping to get paid on win from non-existent company.

I guess perhaps the attorney didn't do his homework.

[Clydesmom]

13 hours ago, BV80 said:

I guess not.  But it really didn't matter because the defendant probably doesn't exist. 

I believe they existed but have now vanished.

8 hours ago, CCRP626 said:

Not sure what to think of the Atty who took least sophisticated consumer's case hoping to get paid on win from non-existent company.

They served someone.  They may have existed when the case was filed but have since disappeared.  Typically consumer lawyers won't even bother if there is no one to actually serve.   

8 hours ago, BV80 said:

I guess perhaps the attorney didn't do his homework.

Maybe, maybe not.  The reality is even if you get someone served it does not mean you will ever collect.  NOTHING prevents that business from vanishing into the wind as though they never existed.  

I did a quick google search and "The Cavalry Firm" did indeed exist in California.  The end result is this "business" [and I use that term loosely] has let their domain name lapse as of 7-2-2016 and was using Go Daddy which is not a good sign.  They have a D- BBB rating.  1-800 Notes has a litany of responses indicating scam though:  http://800notes.com/phone.aspx/1-855-599-8584

The attorneys found a registered agent to serve but the reality is the chances of collecting are slim to none as they have already vanished like all scammers and have probably already opened up shop somewhere else and started over.

[BV80]

2 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

They served someone.  They may have existed when the case was filed but have since disappeared.  Typically consumer lawyers won't even bother if there is no one to actually serve.   

No one from The Cavalry Firm was actually served. 

They served CSC Services of Nevada. the registered agent.  That company also accepts service of process for thousands of other companies.

2 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

I did a quick google search and "The Cavalry Firm" did indeed exist in California.  The end result is this "business" [and I use that term loosely] has let their domain name lapse as of 7-2-2016 and was using Go Daddy which is not a good sign.  They have a D- BBB rating.  1-800 Notes has a litany of responses indicating scam though:  http://800notes.com/phone.aspx/1-855-599-8584

I did a search of business entities on the CA Sec. of State website, but no "Cavalry Firm" is registered.   It would appear that it was neither a legitimate or registered business and probably existed only for the purpose of scamming consumers.

I still wonder if the attorney just assumed it was associated with Cavalry Portfolio which is why he served CSC.

[Harry Seaward]

I'm apparently super naive and my mind is officially blown.  When you said "scam" I thought you were saying the consumer was running the scam to try get money from Cavalry Portfolio by using Cavalry Firm.  How does a Federal case make it all the way to final judgment with no one figuring out the defendant is fictitious?

In addition to being scammed by whoever made those phone calls, the consumer's lawyer was negligent in not determining the defendant was an empty bag to begin with.

Also, why would a registered agent not verify that the entity being served is in fact one of their customers?  Seems like there is some liability on the part of CSC for their negligence in inappropriately accepting service.

[BV80]

3 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

I'm apparently super naive and my mind is officially blown.  When you said "scam" I thought you were saying the consumer was running the scam to try get money from Cavalry Portfolio by using Cavalry Firm.  How does a Federal case make it all the way to final judgment with no one figuring out the defendant is fictitious?

In addition to being scammed by whoever made those phone calls, the consumer's lawyer was negligent in not determining the defendant was an empty bag to begin with.

Also, why would a registered agent not verify that the entity being served is in fact one of their customers?  Seems like there is some liability on the part of CSC for their negligence in inappropriately accepting service.

LOL, Harry.  I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who can sometimes be confused by posts.  

I'm thinking the attorney is the one to blame.   I don't know that CSC was required to look in their database right at the time of service to see if that defendant was one of their clients.   Also, CSC might have assumed that Cavalry Portfolio and The Cavalry Firm were one and the same.

But I'm sure we'll never know what the attorney or CSC assumed.

[Harry Seaward]

Just now, BV80 said:

LOL, Harry.  I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who can sometimes be confused by posts.  

Reading it again, you were clear.  It just never occurred to me that no one caught on.

2 minutes ago, BV80 said:

I'm thinking the attorney is the one to blame.   I don't know that CSC was required to look in their database right at the time of service to see if that defendant was one of their clients.   Also, CSC might have assumed that Cavalry Portfolio and The Cavalry Firm were one and the same.

I have to believe that part of the duties of a registered agent is to verify the person/entity being served is in fact one of the people/entities they are responsible to accept service for.  That is their business, for crying out loud.  It's not like a real estate office or restaurant where there is a chance you could get a hold of someone that has no idea what 'service' is and has no idea who works there and just accepts the papers because someone hands them over.

And CSC assuming Cavalry Firm was Cavalry Portfolio is no excuse.  It's still negligent.

But now I have another question....  What if someone had sued "Calvary Portfolio" instead of "Cavalry Portfolio"?  (look close)

[BV80]

19 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

But now I have another question....  What if someone had sued "Calvary Portfolio" instead of "Cavalry Portfolio"?  (look close)

I see the difference. 

I guess then it would depend upon the details of the lawsuit and whether or not there's a CaLvary Portfolio.   Just like suing Harry Seeward instead of Harry Seaward.