Small claims case removed to federal court by CA

[creditsamurai]

I sued in small claims for a FDCPA violation. I was surprised that the CA didn't try to settle and instead took this step. The way I see it, this only makes the whole affair more expensive for them. I have made a settlement offer, asking for statutory damages and a deletion. My question is, how can I make this as expensive as possible for them so as to make a settlement more attractive? There is an AAA arbiration clause in the agreement I signed with the original creditor. Filing a motion to compel is definitely on the table. What else should I consider? 

[BV80]

38 minutes ago, creditsamurai said:

I sued in small claims for a FDCPA violation. I was surprised that the CA didn't try to settle and instead took this step. The way I see it, this only makes the whole affair more expensive for them. I have made a settlement offer, asking for statutory damages and a deletion. My question is, how can I make this as expensive as possible for them so as to make a settlement more attractive? There is an AAA arbiration clause in the agreement I signed with the original creditor. Filing a motion to compel is definitely on the table. What else should I consider? 

Depending upon the wording in the arbitration provision and on how courts in DC have ruled, you may have waived your right to arbitrate by filing the lawsuit. 

[Clydesmom]

4 hours ago, creditsamurai said:

I sued in small claims for a FDCPA violation. I was surprised that the CA didn't try to settle and instead took this step. The way I see it, this only makes the whole affair more expensive for them.

Then clearly you did not do enough research before filing the suit.  It is VERY common for the creditor to remove the case to Federal Court when a pro-se files a case like this.  The expense is nothing for them.  The prime reason for removing it to Federal Court is it now gets REALLY EXPENSIVE for YOU.  Not to mention that if you are not skilled at the rules of civil procedure for Federal Court you will get steam rolled.  Circling back to the expense: if you lose you can be hit with their expenses involved in defending the frivolous action.

4 hours ago, creditsamurai said:

My question is, how can I make this as expensive as possible for them so as to make a settlement more attractive?

You can't.  They already took the step of making it expensive and that goes both ways as I said above.  Odds on them settling with what you want now are slim to none.  Especially if you made the settlement offer and they have not responded.  My opinion is they have figured out you filed a frivolous case to force deletion of the accurate information and now they are going to try and teach you a lesson by making it very expensive for you.

3 hours ago, BV80 said:

There is an AAA arbiration clause in the agreement I signed with the original creditor. Filing a motion to compel is definitely on the table.

I agree with @BV80 once you filed suit you waived your right to arbitrate.  You should have filed that first not gone to court.

Is this the same case you posted about in another thread that involves PRA?  (who is NOT a CA by the way) You said you settled that.  Did you get that settlement in writing?  Because if you didn't then that trade line deletion was done to further hinder your case in Federal Court.  

 

[Harry Seaward]

I've always believed that filling Federal lawsuits in non-federal courts, especially small claims, is a fool's errand. It may be more expensive for them, but they must be pretty confident that your claims are either frivolous or they can use the bona fide error defense. If they can convince the court your claims are frivolous, they can then ask the court to order you to pay their legal fees.

Other than arbitration, I don't see that you have any leverage. And BV is right. By filling a lawsuit, you may have waived your right to arbitration. 

[creditsamurai]

15 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

Then clearly you did not do enough research before filing the suit.  It is VERY common for the creditor to remove the case to Federal Court when a pro-se files a case like this.  The expense is nothing for them.  The prime reason for removing it to Federal Court is it now gets REALLY EXPENSIVE for YOU.  Not to mention that if you are not skilled at the rules of civil procedure for Federal Court you will get steam rolled.  Circling back to the expense: if you lose you can be hit with their expenses involved in defending the frivolous action.

You can't.  They already took the step of making it expensive and that goes both ways as I said above.  Odds on them settling with what you want now are slim to none.  Especially if you made the settlement offer and they have not responded.  My opinion is they have figured out you filed a frivolous case to force deletion of the accurate information and now they are going to try and teach you a lesson by making it very expensive for you.

I agree with @BV80 once you filed suit you waived your right to arbitrate.  You should have filed that first not gone to court.

Is this the same case you posted about in another thread that involves PRA?  (who is NOT a CA by the way) You said you settled that.  Did you get that settlement in writing?  Because if you didn't then that trade line deletion was done to further hinder your case in Federal Court.  

 

• Federal court will not be really expensive for me. I can qualify for  a filing fee waiver based upon my level of income. If I lose and they get a judgment against me, they won't be able to collect because my sole source of income is SSDI.
• I haven't given up on a settlement. I hope to hear from them by week's end.
• I'm not convinced that I've completely given up my right to arbitration, but I'm going to consult a consumer law attorney on this.
• This is different from the PRA case. That one has been settled to my satisfaction and I got it in writing. The tradeline has already been deleted.

[creditsamurai]

16 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

Then clearly you did not do enough research before filing the suit.  It is VERY common for the creditor to remove the case to Federal Court when a pro-se files a case like this.  The expense is nothing for them.  The prime reason for removing it to Federal Court is it now gets REALLY EXPENSIVE for YOU.  Not to mention that if you are not skilled at the rules of civil procedure for Federal Court you will get steam rolled.  Circling back to the expense: if you lose you can be hit with their expenses involved in defending the frivolous action.

You can't.  They already took the step of making it expensive and that goes both ways as I said above.  Odds on them settling with what you want now are slim to none.  Especially if you made the settlement offer and they have not responded.  My opinion is they have figured out you filed a frivolous case to force deletion of the accurate information and now they are going to try and teach you a lesson by making it very expensive for you.

I agree with @BV80 once you filed suit you waived your right to arbitrate.  You should have filed that first not gone to court.

Is this the same case you posted about in another thread that involves PRA?  (who is NOT a CA by the way) You said you settled that.  Did you get that settlement in writing?  Because if you didn't then that trade line deletion was done to further hinder your case in Federal Court.  

 

16 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

I've always believed that filling Federal lawsuits in non-federal courts, especially small claims, is a fool's errand. It may be more expensive for them, but they must be pretty confident that your claims are either frivolous or they can use the bona fide error defense. If they can convince the court your claims are frivolous, they can then ask the court to order you to pay their legal fees.

Other than arbitration, I don't see that you have any leverage. And BV is right. By filling a lawsuit, you may have waived your right to arbitration. 

This is small potatoes by the way. We're talking about a couple of hundred dollars. I'm betting that there is a definite limit on the human and financial resources they're willing to throw at it in order to collect. Settling makes more sense than trying to teach me an expensive lesson and secure a judgement that can't be collected.

[BackFromTheDebt]

There are exceptions to everything.  I once filed a claim in court, had it removed to Federal, and was able to settle.  

[Harry Seaward]

1 hour ago, creditsamurai said:

Settling makes more sense than trying to teach me an expensive lesson and secure a judgement that can't be collected.

You're missing the big picture. If they go to trial with you, what are the odds you're going to try this again? And once your story is out, that's a whole bunch of other people that won't bother trying. So your "small potatoes" means huge savings for them in the long run. 

[creditsamurai]

The defendant's counsel got back to me. They have rejected my settlement offer and ask that I voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit. 

[BV80]

32 minutes ago, creditsamurai said:

The defendant's counsel got back to me. They have rejected my settlement offer and ask that I voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit. 

 What did you claim was a violation? 

[creditsamurai]

Misrepresentation of the amount of the debt and lack of proper communication 

[BV80]

1 hour ago, creditsamurai said:

Misrepresentation of the amount of the debt and lack of proper communication 

Perhaps they believe you can’t prove your claims. Who’s the CA?

[Clydesmom]

On 9/19/2018 at 2:11 PM, creditsamurai said:

The defendant's counsel got back to me. They have rejected my settlement offer and ask that I voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit. 

I would seriously consider it.  Based on your frivolous claims made trying to force a deletion you are about to not only get slammed with their expenses but set BAD precedent for other consumers.

2 hours ago, creditsamurai said:

Misrepresentation of the amount of the debt and lack of proper communication 

The second one fails big time.  What exactly are you claiming is "proper communication?"

1 hour ago, BV80 said:

Perhaps they believe you can’t prove your claims.

Not only the CA the Judge.  This guy is posting on multiple forums and leaving just enough out to get the answers he wants but this Federal Judge has seen through his frivolous cases.  16 in the past 8 years at least.  He is about to be labeled a vexatious litigant and hit with the Defense's expenses for this case.   

Read this:  http://www.debtorboards.com/index.php?topic=30563.msg296382;topicseen#new

[WhoCares1000]

Sounds like they called your bluff and you should seriously consider folding.

The defendant might not be able to collect their costs because you are collection proof but you will lose the ability to file in-forma paupis in the future which means you have to pay the court fees just to get a case started. Also, being listed as a vexatious litigant will cause trouble with other federal judges. The judge can also order you to post a bond to cover the defendants costs if you wish to proceed.

This is why I am not willing to run to the court at the first violation. That is also why many consumer attorneys are not willing to take any but the slam dunk cases.

Seriously consider what you are doing here. It is OK to fold and walk away. It is doubtful this JDB will try to contact you again anyways for fear you might come up with a violation.

[creditsamurai]

I have some good news to report. The CA and I were able to work out an agreement after all. I'll file to have the case dismissed with prejudice and they will delete the tradeline. Since they are just working behalf of the original creditor, they could not cancel my debt. I realize this means that I'll most likely end up in this situation again with another CA. If that happens, I suspect I'll opt for arbitration from the beginning.

 

[creditsamurai]

Today I filed a motion to dismiss, as was part of my settlement agreement. Thank you to everyone on this thread who advised me.