PRA continually sues for same alleged debt in Texas, over and over. HELP!

[DeepEastTexasBoy]

Hello everyone,

I am from Texas.

I will ask my questions first and give you specifics further on.

Is it unlawful for PRA to sue me over the same alleged debt over and over again even if they don't have all documentation and have no real intent to win?  Isn't this act alone a violation of the FCDPA?  Does PRA suppose to delete the tradeline of the alleged debt from all credit reporting agencies (CRA) after they loose each suite, but they don't?  What is my recourse if any?

Specifics....

Lawsuite #1 brought by PRA.

1. Plaintiff's (PRA) representatives, Rausch Sturm.

2. Alleged debt $3,400+ from CitiBank card.

3. Venue and service was correct.

4. My answer was sent timely and proper.

5. Sent amendments to my answer properly

6. I sent a Motion for Pretrial Conference (MFPC) and was granted.  Date set for conference.

7. I show up for conference, PRA is a no show

8. Trial date set.

9. PRA sends Motion for Continuance (MFC) and is granted.

10. Trial date set again. 

11.  I show up for trial, PRA is a no show

12.  JP is perturbed at PRA because he just received a 2nd MFC from them 2 days before trial date.

13.  He denies their MFC and rules in my favor, Dismissed for Want of Prosecution. 

14. I won

 

Lawsuite #2 brought by PRA

1. PRA's representatives are Rausch Sturm

2. Alleged debt $3,400+ from CitiBank card, same debt as before.

3. Venue and service was correct

4.  My answer was timely and proper

5. Trial date set.

6. PRA submits a MFC and was granted (sounds familiar)

7. Trial date reset

8. I show up for trial, a local representative that was hired that morning by PRA and she shows up, out of breath and obviously unprepared.

9. I questioned her credentials and if she was a lawful representative for the plaintiff.   The JP verified her credentials.

10. She called me out of court to discuss if I wanted to admit to the debt, etc.  I said no.  She said she had proof of the debt in her briefcase.  I told her that this "proof" was a surprise, I object to it, and it better be accompanied by proper Chain of Custody and affidavits from each record keeper involved.

11.  She got up directly and walked back into court, with a scowl on her face.

12. She immediately told the JP that she had no doubt I owed the debt, but due to her client lacking proper documentation and proof that they move for a Non-Suite at this time.  So by her own motion her "lack of doubts" became completely irrelevant. 

13. I won again

14.  When I get home, I received a copy of a 2nd MFC that evidently was filed too late by PRA.

I am a practical person.  If someone, especially a large law firm, were to sue someone they would be prepared and have every little bit of proof and documentation at the ready.  Rausch and Sturm and PRA are unprofessional, abusive with no intention of showing proof and documentation for their suite, and just plain buffoons.  I don't think their cornbread ain't done in the middle.  Even though they loose cases they will still keep their tradelines on your credit reports even if a judge rules against them or they choose not to prosecute (non-suite).  I am sure they will do this again.

Thank you and God bless from Texas.

[WhoCares1000]

Your mistake is that when, in the 2nd trial, you did not bring up a motion to have the case dismissed with prejudice as this was their 2nd bit at the apple so to speak. Had you done that, you would have stopped any other attempts at another suit. If they try to sue you again and it gets to the same point where they motion for non suit because they lack the evidence, I would oppose their motion and move for a summary judgement in my favor from the judge or at a minimum, a dismissal with prejudice as this is the 3rd case on the same debt and they have had ample opportunity to obtain the evidence. A judgement in your favor would be better because you can take that to the CRAs and demand the tradeline be removed.

BTW, how old is this debt. They might be running up against the legal statute of limitations after 2 suits with continuences.

[Clydesmom]

9 hours ago, DeepEastTexasBoy said:

Rausch and Sturm and PRA are unprofessional, abusive with no intention of showing proof and documentation for their suite, and just plain buffoons.

I understand your view but they are nothing more than a large debt collection law firm.  In 95% of the cases they do not have to show proof because the defendant either never shows up and they get a default judgment or the few who do show panic and sign a consent judgment out of fear.

10 hours ago, DeepEastTexasBoy said:

 

9 hours ago, DeepEastTexasBoy said:

Even though they loose cases they will still keep their tradelines on your credit reports even if a judge rules against them or they choose not to prosecute (non-suite).

You are mixing up two very different issues.  Unless the court outright rules you do not owe the money (a good example would be identity theft or the SOL had expired) then the only weapon they have left if they dismiss on their own is to keep reporting the debt. They do this knowing most consumers will eventually want or need new credit and if it is a home or expensive car they will have to deal with the negative trade line.  If they dismiss on their own they are allowed to re-file and try again.  Usually they don't but occasionally they do.

10 hours ago, DeepEastTexasBoy said:

I am sure they will do this again.

Then you raise the defense of res judicata and then file a counter claim for FDCPA violation(s).  The court has already decided this.  I would argue aggressively that they have tried twice and both times had no proof and the court tossed their case.  If it even gets to the point of trial.  My guess is when they see the defense of res judicata along with a counter claim they ask what you want to settle and you tell them mutual walk away and they delete all trade lines along with a statement they will permanently drop all collection efforts.

[BackFromTheDebt]

42 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

I understand your view but they are nothing more than a large debt collection law firm.  In 95% of the cases they do not have to show proof because the defendant either never shows up and they get a default judgment or the few who do show panic and sign a consent judgment out of fear.

You are mixing up two very different issues.  Unless the court outright rules you do not owe the money (a good example would be identity theft or the SOL had expired) then the only weapon they have left if they dismiss on their own is to keep reporting the debt. They do this knowing most consumers will eventually want or need new credit and if it is a home or expensive car they will have to deal with the negative trade line.  If they dismiss on their own they are allowed to re-file and try again.  Usually they don't but occasionally they do.

Then you raise the defense of res judicata and then file a counter claim for FDCPA violation(s).  The court has already decided this.  I would argue aggressively that they have tried twice and both times had no proof and the court tossed their case.  If it even gets to the point of trial.  My guess is when they see the defense of res judicata along with a counter claim they ask what you want to settle and you tell them mutual walk away and they delete all trade lines along with a statement they will permanently drop all collection efforts.

Having dealt with this law firm and this OC, I doubt they would even consider a deletion of trade lines.  

I have an NDA, so I cannot tell anyone how my case went.  I cannot say if that law firm tends to run away from FDCPA cases, although I heard that rumor elsewhere before dealing with them.  

[WhoCares1000]

Quote

Then you raise the defense of res judicata and then file a counter claim for FDCPA violation(s).  The court has already decided this.  I would argue aggressively that they have tried twice and both times had no proof and the court tossed their case.  If it even gets to the point of trial.  My guess is when they see the defense of res judicata along with a counter claim they ask what you want to settle and you tell them mutual walk away and they delete all trade lines along with a statement they will permanently drop all collection efforts.

The problem is, the OP did not request a dismissal with prejudice in the previous round so the dismissal was w/o prejudice. This means that they can file again. If they do file again and end up at the same point where they motion for a dismissal, the OP should them request that the dismissal be with prejudice and outline that PRA has sued twice already on the same debt before the current case and the case got dismissed twice therefore they have had 3 bites at the apple now and should not be allowed to waste my time and the courts time anymore.

[nobk4me]

What about your state's Rules of Civil Procedure?  Often the rules state that a second dismissal IS with prejudice.

[Clydesmom]

3 hours ago, nobk4me said:

What about your state's Rules of Civil Procedure?  Often the rules state that a second dismissal IS with prejudice.

Not when the party that files voluntarily withdraws the case. 

[WhoCares1000]

14 hours ago, nobk4me said:

What about your state's Rules of Civil Procedure?  Often the rules state that a second dismissal IS with prejudice.

I would think that this is like SOL which means one needs to bring the issue that this is the 2nd case to the attention of the judge in order to get the dismissal with prejudice.  Even in a small community, most judges see 100s of cases go by them and most of the cases are not memorable. The parties therefore need to notify the court when there is an issue such as this which is out of the ordinary.

[nobk4me]

15 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

Not when the party that files voluntarily withdraws the case. 

Ohio RCP Rule 41:

Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits of any claim that the plaintiff has once dismissed in any court.

[Robby8900]

35 minutes ago, nobk4me said:

Ohio RCP Rule 41:

Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits of any claim that the plaintiff has once dismissed in any court.

There is also a savings statute that allows them to sue again within one, if dismissed without prejudice.

[WhoCares1000]

1 hour ago, nobk4me said:

Ohio RCP Rule 41:

Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits of any claim that the plaintiff has once dismissed in any court.

Again, do you have to bring up to the court that the case had already been dismissed once or does the court automatically know it. In the OPs case (which is Texas), the OP never informed the court of the previous filing. We cannot assume that the courts know about such things and must bring their attention to details like that.

[Clydesmom]

2 hours ago, nobk4me said:

Ohio RCP Rule 41:

Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits of any claim that the plaintiff has once dismissed in any court.

The OP is in Texas. Ohio law has no standing. Not sure why you are clouding the situation with irrelevant information.

[nobk4me]

20 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

The OP is in Texas. Ohio law has no standing. Not sure why you are clouding the situation with irrelevant information.

I quoted Ohio's Rule 41 as an example of a RCP that does make a second dismissal with prejudice.  Yes, I know the OP is in Texas, and I advised the OP earlier to check his state's RCP. 

[fisthardcheese]

When they failed to show up the first time I would have asked for a directed verdict.

When the attorney admits in the second case that she has no proof and wants to dismiss, I would object to dismissal and ask the judge for a verdict for the Defendant given Plaintiff's admission they have no proof.

If they keep bringing it to court, I wold not just continue to go through the same motions each time.  Change it up and actually ask for a judgement rather than playing it more passive.

[WhoCares1000]

13 hours ago, fisthardcheese said:

When they failed to show up the first time I would have asked for a directed verdict.

When the attorney admits in the second case that she has no proof and wants to dismiss, I would object to dismissal and ask the judge for a verdict for the Defendant given Plaintiff's admission they have no proof.

If they keep bringing it to court, I wold not just continue to go through the same motions each time.  Change it up and actually ask for a judgement rather than playing it more passive.

And that is the issue the OP has. They are not bringing up PRAs failed attempts to the court's attention. The judges preside over so many cases that they all bleed into each other and they have no recollection of any particular case. You as the defendant need to remind them that this is the 2nd bite at the apple.

[fisthardcheese]

49 minutes ago, WhoCares1000 said:

And that is the issue the OP has. They are not bringing up PRAs failed attempts to the court's attention. The judges preside over so many cases that they all bleed into each other and they have no recollection of any particular case. You as the defendant need to remind them that this is the 2nd bite at the apple.

Even if it hasn't been multiple times, if ANY Defendant is in court and the other side says "we have no proof", immediately ask for a directed verdict and object to any voluntary dismissal or continuance.  Same thing if the Plaintiff is a no show.  Never just sit back and let the judge dictate what will happen when they don't show up.  ASK for a directed verdict or ask for a default judgement.  The judge can't do that on his own, you must ask for it.  I would never sit passively when the other side isn't doing anything.