Billy Pilgrim

Need Help, PRA followed me into Arb in AZ after dropping court case (attn: Harry Seaward)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

Even after mailing me a settlement offer of a joint dismissal without prejudice? 

They filed a MTD with prejudice and sent an offer for stipulated dismissal without prejudice. I know these may seem like the same thing, but they are pretty different from each other in two distinct ways. So much so that it makes more sense for it to be a case of mixing up two different cases (or even left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing) vs. intentionally trying to pull a fast one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:
 

They filed a MTD with prejudice and sent an offer for stipulated dismissal without prejudice. I know these may seem like the same thing, but they are pretty different from each other in two distinct ways. So much so that it makes more sense for it to be a case of mixing up two different cases (or even left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing) vs. intentionally trying to pull a fast one. 

IMO it was the original attorneys wanting to get a dismissal, and going about it strangely, and then PRA having a change of strategy once the current lead attorney was assigned to the case.  Which is what I argued when I opposed PRA's motion to vacate.

In regards to the mixing up of the cases, PRA originally filed their MTD with prejudice January 22, then sent me a MTD with prejudice dated February 10th.  So if cases were mixed up, it was done twice, which is why I am hesitant to embrace that line of reasoning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

PRA originally filed their MTD with prejudice January 22, then sent me a MTD with prejudice dated February 10th.

Earlier you said the stipulated dismissal was without prejudice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Seaward said:
 

Or there were 3 MTDs?

Yup, there appears to be three of them.  The MTD without prejudice was never filed though as I never signed the stipulated agreement they sent me.

The MTD w/o prejudice was dated Jan 16, the original MTD with prejudice was filed Jan 22, and the MTD with prejudice they sent me was dated Feb 10.

I'll make an updated timeline when I have time, but it will be soon.  Right now I need to get my amended claims in to AAA as they/re due by June 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

The MTD w/o prejudice was dated Jan 16, the original MTD with prejudice was filed Jan 22, and the MTD with prejudice they sent me was dated Feb 10.

This seems painfully clear that the lawfirm handling the case is completely unorganized, and has no idea what they are filing and sending to whom and when.  That or you share the same name with another debtor they are currently suing and they are mixing the two cases up in their office.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've heard of it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2020 at 2:36 PM, BV80 said:

What are you talking about?   My response was to your following statement:

On 5/30/2020 at 1:14 AM, kittycat said:

It isn't entirely voluntary in az, at least in the sense that PRA had to make a motion to the court.  They couldn't do it unilaterally without court approval.  Billy had already answered.

You had noted my references to “voluntary”.  I explained why I included that term.  It was a voluntary rather than involuntary dismissal.  Then you state that it wasn’t entirely voluntary.   Well, according to AZ rules of civil procedure, voluntary dismissal includes a motion to dismiss after an answer is filed.  My response was only in regard to what is considered a voluntary dismissal.  That’s all.  It had nothing to do with the court’s discretion or anything else.  

 

Let's set aside whether or not an action that cannot be completed without the intervention and approval of another is as voluntary as one that can.

The larger point of my statement was contained in what proceeded the portion that you chose to quote above;

 

On 5/30/2020 at 1:14 AM, kittycat said:

Do you mean to imply that retraxit (or voluntary dismissal with prejudice, if you like) is somehow not equivalent to a verdict and judgment on the merits of the case, and doesn't bar another action for the same cause between same parties?  That somehow the "voluntarily" nature of  the motion to dismiss with prejudice is lesser than a verdict and judgment on the merits of the case?

 

It seemed to me that you highlighted the voluntary nature of the dismissal, not because it met the definition contained within the arcp, but rather because it was an important distinction as compared to some other kind of dismissal, like a verdict and judgment on the merits of the case.  The point I was trying to make is that they are equivalent in force and effect, or to the extent that there is any distinction, it is without a difference in force and effect..

It seemed to me that the implication of your remarks was that the voluntary nature of the dismissal was an important distinction in terms of force and effect.

If the only reason that you chose to set "voluntary" in boldface numerous times across multiple posts was because it met the definition contained within the arcp, and not because this type of dismissal is distinguishable (in terms of force and effect) to the other types of dismissals described, then I misunderstood the implication of your choice to emphasize "voluntary".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2020 at 9:00 PM, Harry Seaward said:
They filed a MTD with prejudice and sent an offer for stipulated dismissal without prejudice. I know these may seem like the same thing, but they are pretty different from each other in two distinct ways. So much so that it makes more sense for it to be a case of mixing up two different cases (or even left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing) vs. intentionally trying to pull a fast one. 

"With prejudice" as compared to "without prejudice" is pretty different, as you say.

One way they demonstrate consistent intention is that both were done at the time that PRA was sending draft release agreements to dispose of the claims in their entirety.

So, if PRA had filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice (perhaps even the exact copy that they had sent Billy with the settlement agreement document), they what PRA would have filed would've been entirely consistent with Billy's case.

 

On 5/31/2020 at 6:58 PM, Harry Seaward said:

This seems painfully clear that the lawfirm handling the case is completely unorganized, and has no idea what they are filing and sending to whom and when.  That or you share the same name with another debtor they are currently suing and they are mixing the two cases up in their office.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've heard of it happening.

 

The "lawfirm" handling the case is PRA themselves.  All of the attorneys listed on the documents Billy uploaded have 10+ years experience in-house at PRA and lots of staff and monetary resources.  They also have automated systems in place that use AI to flag inappropriate filings.

All of them also have lots of experience with the arbitration defense.

That is not to say that a mistake is impossible, but it seems unlikely to me.  I find Billy's guess, that they decided to change strategy after filing the motion to dismiss with prejudice, to be more likely than it being a mistake.  Maybe some discovery with the lead attorney of record when the motion was filed could uncover the actual intention at the time.  If the court would ever allow it, but they likely wouldn't.

 

On 5/30/2020 at 11:05 PM, Billy Pilgrim said:

The MTD without prejudice was never filed though as I never signed the stipulated agreement they sent me.

Did the stipulated agreement, notwithstanding the motion document included, have language that described a mutual release?

Was it in the boilerplate form, entitled with something like "Stipulated Agreement and Mutual Release".

Perhaps, since you didn't accept it, you can upload a redacted copy of the stipulated agreement.

If the stipulated agreement had effective language for a mutual release, you should've jumped on it, regardless if the motion document attached was without prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kittycat said:

I find Billy's guess, that they decided to change strategy after filing the motion to dismiss with prejudice, to be more likely than it being a mistake. 

I don't.  3 different MTDs with two different dispositions filed in less than a month (two different dispositions in the same week, in fact) doesn't seem like a lawfirm that has a handle on the case strategy.

53 minutes ago, kittycat said:

All of the attorneys listed on the documents Billy uploaded have 10+ years experience in-house at PRA and lots of staff and monetary resources.

You know as well as I do that the attorneys with 10+ years of experience don't go anywhere near these filings.  Best case is some second year affiliate, but most likely it's drafted by some law student intern. 

43 minutes ago, kittycat said:

They also have automated systems in place that use AI to flag inappropriate filings.

There was an Indiana case here a couple years ago (I think it was Unifund suing).  It ended up in arbitration and the attorney handling that case went completely rogue.  I'm not comparing the details of case to that one, but merely using that as an example for how things start out a little sideways and end up on a completely different track headed in the opposite direction at double speed.  The best AI can't stop someone that thinks they know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the second PRA case currently in arbitration. This one had a change of council. If PRA has decided to derail arbitration as a quick way to skate on debts (as OCs like Amex and Discover have been doing for years) then the erroneous court filings make sense if this is a new policy. They may have many cases that came from court and ended up in the "let's go to arbitration" department.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2020 at 11:32 AM, kittycat said:

"With prejudice" as compared to "without prejudice" is pretty different, as you say.

One way they demonstrate consistent intention is that both were done at the time that PRA was sending draft release agreements to dispose of the claims in their entirety.

So, if PRA had filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice (perhaps even the exact copy that they had sent Billy with the settlement agreement document), they what PRA would have filed would've been entirely consistent with Billy's case.

 

 

The "lawfirm" handling the case is PRA themselves.  All of the attorneys listed on the documents Billy uploaded have 10+ years experience in-house at PRA and lots of staff and monetary resources.  They also have automated systems in place that use AI to flag inappropriate filings.

All of them also have lots of experience with the arbitration defense.

That is not to say that a mistake is impossible, but it seems unlikely to me.  I find Billy's guess, that they decided to change strategy after filing the motion to dismiss with prejudice, to be more likely than it being a mistake.  Maybe some discovery with the lead attorney of record when the motion was filed could uncover the actual intention at the time.  If the court would ever allow it, but they likely wouldn't.

 

Did the stipulated agreement, notwithstanding the motion document included, have language that described a mutual release?

Was it in the boilerplate form, entitled with something like "Stipulated Agreement and Mutual Release".

Perhaps, since you didn't accept it, you can upload a redacted copy of the stipulated agreement.

If the stipulated agreement had effective language for a mutual release, you should've jumped on it, regardless if the motion document attached was without prejudice.

The stipulated agreement was pretty boilerplate, saying "PRA and debtor jointly stipulate to dismiss the case without prejudice".  When I got it was that there was nothing in regards to the order to arbitrate, so I was concerned at the time due to this, and the fact that the judge on the case is very slow with approving motions.  I was concerned I would still have to go into arbitration, and then 6 days later PRA filed its motion to dismiss with prejudice.  Looking back, I agree I should have taken the offer (and have it notarized).

I'll upload it in a few when I have a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2020 at 12:48 PM, Goody_Ouchless said:

This is the second PRA case currently in arbitration. This one had a change of council. If PRA has decided to derail arbitration as a quick way to skate on debts (as OCs like Amex and Discover have been doing for years) then the erroneous court filings make sense if this is a new policy. They may have many cases that came from court and ended up in the "let's go to arbitration" department.

  

Speaking of new policies, on March 20 PRA had posted a document to my AAA case from its Managing Counsel of the Litigation and Compliance Department to the Assistant Vice President of AAA regarding PRA's standing with AAA, stating that PRA was going to "pay the costs of arbitration."  So I guess no more arbitration cases being closed due to "non payment" in consumer cases where PRA is a party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2020 at 12:31 PM, Harry Seaward said:

I don't.  3 different MTDs with two different dispositions filed in less than a month (two different dispositions in the same week, in fact) doesn't seem like a lawfirm that has a handle on the case strategy.

You know as well as I do that the attorneys with 10+ years of experience don't go anywhere near these filings.  Best case is some second year affiliate, but most likely it's drafted by some law student intern. 

There was an Indiana case here a couple years ago (I think it was Unifund suing).  It ended up in arbitration and the attorney handling that case went completely rogue.  I'm not comparing the details of case to that one, but merely using that as an example for how things start out a little sideways and end up on a completely different track headed in the opposite direction at double speed.  The best AI can't stop someone that thinks they know better.

I may have a rogue attorney in my case as they are going against PRA's recently articulated policy to pay their arbitration costs in AAA cases (see my post directly above).  Not to mention going directly against the CC agreement by seeking arb fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

stating that PRA was going to "pay the costs of arbitration."

What was the context of the letter? Were they saying that is their policy with regard to any case that goes to arbitration? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

What was the context of the letter? Were they saying that is their policy with regard to any case that goes to arbitration? 

The AAA Assistant Vice President had a correspondence with one of PRA's attorneys regarding PRA's standing with AAA, and the PRA higher-up was following up to the correspondence. I'll send you a PM with more details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2020 at 11:32 AM, kittycat said:

"With prejudice" as compared to "without prejudice" is pretty different, as you say.

One way they demonstrate consistent intention is that both were done at the time that PRA was sending draft release agreements to dispose of the claims in their entirety.

So, if PRA had filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice (perhaps even the exact copy that they had sent Billy with the settlement agreement document), they what PRA would have filed would've been entirely consistent with Billy's case.

 

 

The "lawfirm" handling the case is PRA themselves.  All of the attorneys listed on the documents Billy uploaded have 10+ years experience in-house at PRA and lots of staff and monetary resources.  They also have automated systems in place that use AI to flag inappropriate filings.

All of them also have lots of experience with the arbitration defense.

That is not to say that a mistake is impossible, but it seems unlikely to me.  I find Billy's guess, that they decided to change strategy after filing the motion to dismiss with prejudice, to be more likely than it being a mistake.  Maybe some discovery with the lead attorney of record when the motion was filed could uncover the actual intention at the time.  If the court would ever allow it, but they likely wouldn't.

 

Did the stipulated agreement, notwithstanding the motion document included, have language that described a mutual release?

Was it in the boilerplate form, entitled with something like "Stipulated Agreement and Mutual Release".

Perhaps, since you didn't accept it, you can upload a redacted copy of the stipulated agreement.

If the stipulated agreement had effective language for a mutual release, you should've jumped on it, regardless if the motion document attached was without prejudice.

Here is the copy of the stipulated agreement.

joint dismissal 2.jpeg.jpeg

joint dismissal 1.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, filed my claims against PRA and have gotten PRA’s response back (the arbitrator allowed them to respond a second time).  The PRA attorney is claiming, in line with their established intention to seek cost compensation, that my claims are “patently frivolous” and also that my exercising of my arbitration rights constitutes harassment.

The heart of the issue is language in the credit card agreement in the “Default” section, which states : “As permitted by applicable law, you agree to pay all collection expenses actually incurred by us in the collection of amounts you owe under this Agreement (including court or arbitration costs and the fees of any collection agency to which we refer your Account).”

However, it appears what the agreement means by “arbitration costs” refers to the act of arbitration only and not the AAA fees related to the arbitration.  From the arbitraton section of the agreement: “
We will pay, or reimburse you for, all fees or costs to the extent required by law or the rules of the arbitration Administrator. Whether or not required by law or such rules, if you prevail at arbitration on any Claim against us, we will reimburse you for any fees paid to the Administrator in connection with the arbitration proceedings. Under no circumstances will we seek from you payment or reimbursement of any fees that we incur in connection with arbitration.”

It appears to me that the agreement, in the last sentence of the above passage, is specifically referring to the AAA fees never being sought for reallocation.  While PRA appears to be entitled to the arbitrator’s cost, it is not entitled to the AAA fees, which they asked for in their original response and again in their second response.  So twice they have violated the credit card agreement, the second time after having been warned about it. And since my FDCPA claims are built around this violation, I’m having a hard time seeing how they could be “patently frivolous”

And on a final note, as the first passage quoted above (in the “default” section) begins with “as permitted by applicable law”, the credit card agreement itself can be a source of applicable law:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract#:~:text=Contracts%20arise%20when%20a%20duty,be%20exchanged%20for%20adequate%20consideration.&text=Contracts%20are%20mainly%20governed%20by,(i.e.%20the%20private%20agreement).

From the link above, under the “governing laws” section: “Contracts are mainly governed by state statutory and common (judge-made) law and private law (i.e. the private agreement).”


Is anybody else reading this the same way? I’ll post the cc agreement in the next post.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alleged agreement is a 2014 Barclay's card agreement, which is 11 pages long so not going to post the whole thing.  The relevant sections are the "default" and "arbitration" sections:

Default/Collection Costs. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, your Account will be in default and we may demand immediate payment of the entire amount you owe us if: 1) in any month we do not receive your Minimum Payment Due by the Payment Due Date; 2) you make Purchases, initiate Balance Transfers, use a Check, or obtain Cash Advances in excess of your credit line; 3) you fail to comply with this Agreement; 4) there is a filing for your bankruptcy; 5) you die or become incapacitated; or 6) we believe in good faith that the payment or performance of your obligations under this Agreement is impaired for any other reason. As permitted by applicable law, you agree to pay all collection expenses actually incurred by us in the collection of amounts you owe under this Agreement (including court or arbitration costs and the fees of any collection agency to which we refer your Account) and, in the event we refer your Account after your default to an attorney who is not our regularly salaried employee, you agree to pay the reasonable fees of such attorney. We will not be obligated to honor any attempted use of your Account if a default has occurred or we have determined to terminate your Account or limit your Account privileges (as discussed below).

ARBITRATION. At the election of either you or us, any claim, dispute or controversy (“Claim”) by either you or us against the other, arising from or relating in any way to this Agreement or your Account, or their establishment, or any transaction or activity on your Account, including (without limitation) Claims based on contract, tort (including intentional torts), fraud, agency, negligence, statutory or regulatory provisions or any other source of law and (except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement) Claims regarding the applicability of this arbitration provision or the validity of the entire Agreement, shall be resolved exclusively by arbitration. For purposes of this provision, “you” includes yourself, any authorized user on the Account, and any of your agents, beneficiaries or assigns, or anyone acting on behalf of the foregoing, and “we” or “us” includes our employees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, beneficiaries, agents and assigns, and to the extent included in a proceeding in which Barclays is a party, its service providers and marketing partners.Any Claims sought to be made or remedies sought to be obtained as part of any class action, private attorney general or other representative action (hereafter all included in the term “class action”) shall be subject to arbitration, and arbitrated on an individual basis between you and us, not on a class or representative or other collective basis. The arbitrator shall not have any authority to entertain a claim, or to award any relief, on behalf of or against anyone other than a named party to the arbitration proceeding. If any Claim is advanced in a court, arbitration may be elected under this provision instead, and the right to elect arbitration shall not be deemed to have been waived if the election is made at any time before commencement of trial.

Alternatively, you and we may pursue a Claim within the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court in Delaware, or the equivalent court in your home jurisdiction, provided that the action remains in that court, is made on behalf of or against you only and is not made part of a class action, private attorney general action or other representative or collective action.

The arbitration shall be administered by the AmericanArbitrationAssociation, www.adr.org, 950 WarrenAvenue, East Providence, Rhode Island, 02914, 1-866-293-4053 (the “Administrator”). The Administrator provides information about arbitration, its arbitration rules and procedures, fee schedule and claims forms at its web site or by mail as set forth above. The Administrator will apply the rules and procedures in effect and applicable to the claim at the time the arbitration is filed. The Claim will be heard before a single arbitrator. The arbitration will not be consolidated with any other arbitration proceedings. The Administrator shall resolve each dispute in accordance with applicable law.

If you commence arbitration, you must provide us the notice required by the Administrator’s rules and procedures. The notice may be sent to us at Barclays Bank Delaware, P.O. Box 8801, Wilmington, DE 19899-8801. If we commence arbitration, we will provide you notice at your last known billing address. We agree to honor a request by you to remove the action to a Small Claims Court, provided that we receive the request within thirty days of the notice of commencement of arbitration.Any arbitration hearing at which you appear will take place at a location within the federal judicial district that includes your billing address at the time the Claim is filed. This arbitration agreement is made pursuant to a transaction involving interstate commerce, and shall be governed by the FederalArbitrationAct, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16. No class actions, joinder or consolidation of any Claim with a Claim of any other person or entity shall be allowable in arbitration, without the written consent of both you and us. In the event that there is a dispute about whether limiting arbitration of the parties' dispute to non-class proceedings is enforceable under applicable law, then that question shall be resolved by litigation in a court rather than by the arbitrator; and to the extent it is determined that resolution of a Claim shall proceed on a class basis, it shall so proceed in a court of competent jurisdiction rather than in arbitration.

A party can file with the Administrator a written appeal of a single arbitrator’s award within 30 days of award issuance, requesting a new arbitration in front of three neutral arbitrators designated by the Administrator. The panel will reconsider all factual and legal issues, following the same rules of procedure, and will make decisions based on majority vote.Any final arbitration award will be binding on the named parties and enforceable by any court having jurisdiction. Judgment upon any arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction.

We will pay, or reimburse you for, all fees or costs to the extent required by law or the rules of the arbitration Administrator. Whether or not required by law or such rules, if you prevail at arbitration on any Claim against us, we will reimburse you for any fees paid to the Administrator in connection with the arbitration proceedings. Under no circumstances will we seek from you payment or reimbursement of any fees that we incur in connection with arbitration. In addition, in any arbitration that you elect to file that could be heard in Small Claims Court in your jurisdiction, we will pay the filing fees and other arbitration fees above the cost of filing in that Small Claims Court. If you are required to advance any fees or costs to the arbitration Administrator, but you ask us to do so in your stead, we will consider and respond to your request.

This arbitration agreement applies to all Claims now in existence or that may arise in the future, and it survives the termination of the Cardmember Agreement and the Account relationship, including your payment in full, and your filing of bankruptcy. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent any party’s use of (or advancement of any claims, defenses, or offsets in) bankruptcy or repossession, replevin, judicial foreclosure or any other prejudgment or provisional remedy relating to any collateral, security or property interests for contractual debts now or hereafter owed by either party to the other under this Agreement.

ARBITRATION WITH RESPECT TO A CLAIM IS BINDING AND NEITHER YOU NOR WE WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE THAT CLAIM THROUGH A COURT. IN ARBITRATION YOU AND WE WILL NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS THAT ARE PROVIDED IN COURT INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JUDGE OR JURY AND THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE OR BE REPRESENTED IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY OTHERS SUCH AS CLASS ACTIONS OR SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS. IN ADDITION, THE RIGHT TO DISCOVERY AND THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ARE ALSO LIMITED OR ELIMINATED BY ARBITRATION.ALL OF THESE RIGHTS ARE WAIVED AND ALL CLAIMS MUST BE RESOLVED THROUGH ARBITRATION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the wall of text above.

Basically the cc agreement says in one place:  “As permitted by applicable law, you agree to pay all collection expenses actually incurred by us in the collection of amounts you owe under this Agreement (including court or arbitration costs and the fees of any collection agency to which we refer your Account).”

And in another place says, in a place where it discusses filing fees and fees paid to the administrator: "
Under no circumstances will we seek from you payment or reimbursement of any fees that we incur in connection with arbitration.”

My interpretation is that PRA can seek reimbursement of the arbitrator's cost but not the AAA fees.  What is everyone else seeing with this?

Of course, PRA is seeking the AAA fees and is saying my claims are "patently frivolous" for pointing this out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's what I would do, but I'm insane. Others will argue, with eloquence, that the Supreme Court limited a consumer's exposure in these matters. My argument is based on the fact the election of arbitration, as advised on this site, is inherently Frivolous. Discuss...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

It's what I would do, but I'm insane. Others will argue, with eloquence, that the Supreme Court limited a consumer's exposure in these matters. My argument is based on the fact the election of arbitration, as advised on this site, is inherently Frivolous. Discuss...

 

Do you happen to know which Supreme Court decision limits consumer exposure Goody?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are reading too much into it.  Every single arbitration case I have had, the other side ALWAYS claims it is "frivolous" simply because that is the ONLY way that fees can be reallocated in AAA.  They simply always throw it at the wall in hopes that it sticks.  It wont.  As part of your response, just state that you have complied with all aspects of the court and the contract with PRA and that in no way can this be considered "frivolous".  Of course, me being myself, I personally would add in for my own amusement something like "if Respondent honestly believes the actions of Claimant are frivolous, then Claimant would ask Respondent why they would ever create or involve themselves in a contract that is patently frivolous against themselves from the outset?"

On 6/9/2020 at 11:19 PM, Goody_Ouchless said:

It's what I would do, but I'm insane. Others will argue, with eloquence, that the Supreme Court limited a consumer's exposure in these matters. My argument is based on the fact the election of arbitration, as advised on this site, is inherently Frivolous. Discuss...

 

I could not disagree more strongly.  The only way we advise using arbitration on this site is to follow the letter of the contract AND well established case law.  There is no way that following those two things by the book can be considered frivolous in any way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 10:23 PM, Billy Pilgrim said:

My interpretation is that PRA can seek reimbursement of the arbitrator's cost but not the AAA fees.  What is everyone else seeing with this?

Of course, PRA is seeking the AAA fees and is saying my claims are "patently frivolous" for pointing this out.

Again, I see this as an over-complication of a simple issue.  The contract clearly states you are only responsible for fees required by the AAA rules.  The AAA rules are very clear that you owe $200 and nothing more UNLESS found to be frivolous. Nothing about the act of starting an arbitration case for a genuine dispute can be frivolous. It's their own contract. THEY wrote it.  Too bad if they don't like it being used in the rare case it does not benefit them now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2020 at 6:18 AM, fisthardcheese said:

I think you are reading too much into it.  Every single arbitration case I have had, the other side ALWAYS claims it is "frivolous" simply because that is the ONLY way that fees can be reallocated in AAA.  They simply always throw it at the wall in hopes that it sticks.  It wont.  As part of your response, just state that you have complied with all aspects of the court and the contract with PRA and that in no way can this be considered "frivolous".  Of course, me being myself, I personally would add in for my own amusement something like "if Respondent honestly believes the actions of Claimant are frivolous, then Claimant would ask Respondent why they would ever create or involve themselves in a contract that is patently frivolous against themselves from the outset?"

I could not disagree more strongly.  The only way we advise using arbitration on this site is to follow the letter of the contract AND well established case law.  There is no way that following those two things by the book can be considered frivolous in any way.

Thanks for the response and heads up Fist!  Good to know this is a standard practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2020 at 6:21 AM, fisthardcheese said:

Again, I see this as an over-complication of a simple issue.  The contract clearly states you are only responsible for fees required by the AAA rules.  The AAA rules are very clear that you owe $200 and nothing more UNLESS found to be frivolous. Nothing about the act of starting an arbitration case for a genuine dispute can be frivolous. It's their own contract. THEY wrote it.  Too bad if they don't like it being used in the rare case it does not benefit them now.


The issue to me is that in the contract default section it says the arbitration costs are owed back to the creditor. And while the reallocation of the AAA fees is clearly disallowed per the contract, there is nothing specifically saying arbitrator’s cost is exempt from reallocation.  So my concern is that the contract leaves me on the hook for the arbitrator’s cost regardless if the claims asserted by me are valid.  AAA seems to make a distinction between the AAA fees and the arbitrator’s compensation (i.e. cost).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.