A Quick Thank You & Some Questions

[EnoughIsEnough80]

Good Evening All.  I just wanted to come in here to say thank you first of all.  From the information gained from this board, and some advice from a former federal prosecutor I have been able to put a JDB, and their representation on the ropes (I will share everything when all is said and done, to help others if they are in my situation).  To summarize: I was served a subpoena, I answered, was hit with their discovery, I answered, hit them with two separate requests for a Bill of Particulars which were ignored, sent my own discovery (Which they must really not have liked) and have just received a request to dismiss without prejudice (This has been attached with specific information redacted).

I am concerned about the without prejudice, but also caught that they claimed that "No party received a fee waiver", which is untrue as I did receive one.  So with that, should I push for dismissal with prejudice?  Should I correct the lawyer that was too lazy to even see that a fee waiver was granted?  I know that I have seen that most firms do not come back to sue on the same debt after requesting dismissal, but after what I have seen in dealing with these people in particular (LVNV Funding via Patenaude & Felix), I can pretty much believe that anything is possible.

Any input or feedback would be appreciated.  As previously stated, I couldn't have gotten this far without reading through the site, but just don't want to botch the end of this and have them coming back to sue on this again (This is the first time I have ever been sued and hope sincerely that it will be the last).

[Goody_Ouchless]

Outside of something like filing in the wrong court after someone just moved, I don't think we've ever seen a debt buyer re-sue after a dismissal without.

 Take your win and be cheerful.

 

[RyanEX]

I 2nd the above ^

I don't think their error about the fee waiver is of any consequence.

Per CA code, they have the right to dismiss without prejudice anytime prior to commencement of trial: CCP 581 (b)(1). Can't force their hand on that. As it is, I doubt they come for you again. I have have seen very few, maybe just one occurrence, where someone on this board had to defend the same debt twice (been on the board 5 years). JDBs want settlements & defaults, not defendants who will fight back.

Congrats on your win!

[WhoCares1000]

Realize that most lawyers in these cases are being switched out and really do not read your case until the computer tells them that something needs to be done. More likely a computer spit that out and the attorney probably did not check the case file. You can contact the attorney to make the change if you wish. Just don't try to get your phantom fees paid back, that will piss off the judge and you don't want that.

As for refiling, the first thing I have to ask if when you first defaulted on the debt. CA courts move slowly and it could be possible that the SOL ran out on the debt while the case was progressing. If that is the case, then once the case is dismissed, the SOL clock returns to the time you first defaulted on the debt as if the case was not filed. If that is the case, they can try to sue you again but you will have a valid defense AND could demand damages from they for filing an out of SOL case. The reality is that you might get some phone calls about the debt which you can send some C&D letters about but they will probably not sue you again. As others have said, their business model is based on defaults and agreements, not fighters and because fighters are such a small group, they can eat those costs and be profitable.