Jump to content

Utah - Midland by Johnson Mark LLC - denied Motion for Summary Judgment


Recommended Posts

1. Midland sent me a Motion for Summary Judgment and Certificate that this was an exact copy of what they filed on April 27, 2021, but they didn't actually file! 

2. Motion for Summary Judgment in April or May of 2021 does not exist in a court file.

3. I didn't know that they didn't fill and submitted a reply memorandum in May 2021.

4. I guess they read memorandum and decided to adjust their defense. 

5. I sent Plaintiff’s attorneys a note in June 2021 that I will be out of the country the entire month of July 2021.

6. guess when they decided to file a motion for summary judgment? Correct. In the beginning of July 2021, so by the time I come back, the time limit to Respond had passed and they can get judgment by default. 

7. I had 24 year old daughter watching my mail and she had been instructed to watch for any words Lawyer,  law firm, attorney,  court, in my mail and call me immediately. So she did. 

8. I emailed a court, explaining that I asked attorneys of Plaintiff for continuance but they filed motion for summary judgment anyways and I am out of the country. 

9. They recommended motion to extend time to respond. 

10. I bought a cheap printer, typed in motion to extend time to respond, Certificate of service, request to submit for decision and order on my android, printed, signed, scanned by my android and emailed it to court. I printed a copy for a Plaintiff and mailed it to USA by trackable mail service. 

11. I waited for response from the court and in two days emailed the court clerk to see if they submitted to the judge.  Court clerk told me they will wait for a Plaintiff’s response!!! This where I was glad I've read that motion to extend time to respond is a Motion which does not require an opposing side opinion. I had to get a masking IP address service to pull Utah code of Civil Procedure to show a clerk exact article in the code which said that they need to submit it to the judge immediately without waiting for an opposing side.

12. I received 30 days extention to Respond.

13. Upon return to states I wrote a reply memorandum opposing motion for Summary Judgment and submitted exhibits and my sworn affidavite which I had notarized. 

14. Plaintiff did not respond to my memorandum. 

15. Plaintiff requested to submit for Decision in September 2021.

16. Today, January 3, 2022 was a hearing online for the Motion for Summary Judgment which lasted two minutes.

17. Plaintiff’s attorneys said that upon reviewing Defendant's memorandum, they agree that there is a material fact and would ask court to deny their own motion. 

18. My court hearing participation consisted of me stating my name in the beginning and me saying thank you and goodbye to the judge.

Ohhh. Forgot to add. Before the hearing,  on December 31, 2021, I submitted to the court Attachment to my memorandum opposing,  consisting of two exhibits.

It was 1) copy of the first motion for summary judgment which they certified that they filed, when in fact they didn't.  So I wrote in my Attachment that from Defendant’s point of view it is a second summary judgment filed by Plaintiff in this case. And 2) a copy of the case I said I will use in my legal arguments which was a case from 4th district utah court Northstar vs Haring 

Where Defendant won because contract was not legal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I need to read your thread a couple of more times, but my initial guess would be Midland probably committed one or more FDCPA violations and didn't want to take a chance of a countersuit.  I don't know that I've ever seen a JDB voluntarily dismiss its own case WITH prejudice before!  Insofar as to whatever they alleged you owe, you've WON!

Jimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be awesome to know what made them afraid... for a future reference...

My feeling was that they waited until the last second to see if I would show up for a Summary Judgment hearing. Then they looked at me for another couple minutes while we were waiting for a judge, I pretended to be busy with rereading an affidavite they submitted with Summary Judgment... and then they asked for their motion to be denied. I know that it is more favorable for them to withdraw it before the hearing,  instead of wasting court's time ... but I guess they hoped that I wouldn't show up and there it is... default judgment... I was ready for a battle... so when they asked an apology for wasted time and asked their motion to be denied... I was like, what am I going to do with all this adrenaline for the rest of the day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt they were afraid of anything.  If they really believed you had possible FDCPA violations to claim, they wouldn’t have dismissed with prejudice.  The dismissal would have been without prejudice so that they would have a countersuit if you filed suit against them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MillaRichards said:

It would be awesome to know what made them afraid... for a future reference...

My feeling was that they waited until the last second to see if I would show up for a Summary Judgment hearing. Then they looked at me for another couple minutes while we were waiting for a judge, I pretended to be busy with rereading an affidavite they submitted with Summary Judgment... and then they asked for their motion to be denied. I know that it is more favorable for them to withdraw it before the hearing,  instead of wasting court's time ... but I guess they hoped that I wouldn't show up and there it is... default judgment... I was ready for a battle... so when they asked an apology for wasted time and asked their motion to be denied... I was like, what am I going to do with all this adrenaline for the rest of the day?

Midland and their attorneys very much prefer the easy default judgment.  They are more likely to dismiss if they feel they will have a fight on their hands.  Losing what ever sum they were suing you for is factored in to their business model.  They are not prepared to prove their cases.  Dismissal keeps them from having to do that.  That is why consumers are encouraged to defend themselves instead of giving up.  Better to go down swinging than not try at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

Midland and their attorneys very much prefer the easy default judgment.  They are more likely to dismiss if they feel they will have a fight on their hands.  Losing what ever sum they were suing you for is factored in to their business model.  They are not prepared to prove their cases.  Dismissal keeps them from having to do that.  That is why consumers are encouraged to defend themselves instead of giving up.  Better to go down swinging than not try at all.

Good to know. I am sure I will be dealing with them again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BV80 said:

I doubt they were afraid of anything.  If they really believed you had possible FDCPA violations to claim, they wouldn’t have dismissed with prejudice.  The dismissal would have been without prejudice so that they would have a countersuit if you filed suit against them.  

I didn't threaten FDCPA violations because I didn't research it yet... I know... irresponsible 

They wrote summons

I responded. 

They asked me for admissions TWICE

Each time they were sending Motions or requests for admission they delayed mail, so I had been receiving it on due day or almost on due day... their attorneys and I share the same zip code! 

Each time when responding I was quoting Utah Code, utah rules of Civil Procedure where unrepresented party has 7 additional days to respond if notified by mail. 

I sent them a notice that I will be out of country for a month, saved a  copy of letter and proof of delivery, they used this time to file summary judgment. Why do they have to cheat so annoyingly? Like exaggerating their own witness' affidavite in the Motion.

For example, she said "read and assumed", they write, witness proved, some things they said in the Motion she stated,  but Affidavit doesn't have anything about that fact. So I went several times with a pencil over the Affidavit and Motion and pointed out their exaggeration... 

I don't know. I wish I could know what exactly made them to drop it 

So we all can use it in a future

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BV80 said:

I doubt they were afraid of anything.  If they really believed you had possible FDCPA violations to claim, they wouldn’t have dismissed with prejudice.  The dismissal would have been without prejudice so that they would have a countersuit if you filed suit against them.  

Thanks @BV80.  I'm always eager to learn.  Of course, who really knows why JDBs do what they do, but what's your opinion on why this or any JDB would purposely do this?  Is there perhaps a tax write-off or something?  It just seems so unusual to me -- that's why I ask.

Best,

Jimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jimmy E said:

Thanks @BV80.  I'm always eager to learn.  Of course, who really knows why JDBs do what they do, but what's your opinion on why this or any JDB would purposely do this?  Is there perhaps a tax write-off or something?  It just seems so unusual to me -- that's why I ask.

Best,

Jimmy

Business losses and legal expenses are tax deductible.  That’s one reason JDBs don’t try any harder than they do.  Occasionally, there will be an attorney trying to impress his boss or make a name for himself, but most JDB attorneys are lazy.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.