Being Sued by Midland - Need Help With Special Interrogatories, Request for Admissions, and Request to Production of Documents

[Varstal]

Hi,

I'm being sued by Midland via Mandarich Law Group. Unfortunately, I had already sent an answer before discovering this forum through solosuit and tried to negotiate without any success. Now they've 3 requests that I imagine is meant to overwhelm me, which, to some degree has worked. I'm hoping if I break down each document requests, that somebody more knowledgeable will be able to point me in the right direction.

Request For Documents To Be Produced

1. Asks me to produce any and all correspondence between myself and the original creditor (Synchrony). I don't have any correspondence to produce, I don't keep statements long-term.

2. Copies of any and all correspondence between myself and the Plaintiff (Midland). I don't have any recorded phone calls or anything.

3. Copies of any and all documentation evidencing any payments made to the original creditor on said credit account. I don't have any statements and my online bank statements don't go that far back.

4. Copies of any and all documents that support your affirmative defenses by you.  Affirmative defenses are: Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of laches, equitable, estoppel, and unclean hands. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because of a failure to mitigate damages.  Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the statute of limitations. Defendant requests that Plaintiff perform an accounting and provide Defendant with documentation that proves the amount that Defendant allegedly owes.

5. Copies of all correspondence from me regarding false or factually incorrect claims or statements that you believe were made to various credit reporting bureaus or services about my account. Not sure how to respond to this. 

Special Interrogatories

1. State all facts upon which you base your contention that you owe nothing on the account. They knowingly purchased risky debt with a history of non-payment, thus they failed to properly mitigate damages. Debt is near statute of limitation. I don't believe they have enough to prove I owe the debt. 

2. Describe each document that you believe supports your contention that you owe nothing on the account. Don't really have anything

3. State all facts upon which you base your contention that you owe less than the amount prayed for in Plaintiff's Complaint. Not sure how to respond. I don't think they have enough to prove that I owe the debt. The original suite included two statements from Paypal with the amount owed, my name and address. I'd also argue that they knowingly purchased risky debt with a history of non payment, thus they failed to mitigate damages. 

4. Describe each document that you believe supports your contention that you owe less than the amount prayed for in Plaintiff's complaint. I don't really have any documents

5. State each of your affirmative defenses. Affirmative defenses are: Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of laches, equitable, estoppel, and unclean hands. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because of a failure to mitigate damages.  Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the statute of limitations. Defendant requests that Plaintiff perform an accounting and provide Defendant with documentation that proves the amount that Defendant allegedly owes.

6. State all facts upon which you base your affirmative defenses. Not sure what to say

7. State each mailing address for the last 10 years. Not sure why they need this, but no issues providing

8. State all facts regarding payments made on the account. Not sure how to answer this since I'm contesting it. 

9. Describe each document evidencing payments made on the account. Not sure how to answer since I'm contesting it. 

10. If you have ever been married, state the name of your spouse. Why do they need this? Don't see how this is relevant to the case. 

11. State all details regarding the length of your marriage. Don't see how this is relevant to the case.

Request For Admissions

1. Admit that Original Creditor issued to you the Account. Not sure how to respond. 

2. Admit that you used said account.  Not sure how to respond. 

3. Admit that You and Original Creditor entered into an agreement regarding the Account. Not sure how to respond. 

4. Admit that You agreed to pay Original Creditor and its successor and all assigned outside balances owed on the Account. Not sure how to respond. 

5. Admit that Original Creditor mailed monthly statement to You regarding your account. Not sure how to respond. I don't recall receiving monthly statements

6. Admit that you received a final statement on or around XX/XX/2019. Not sure how to respond. I don't recall receiving a final statement. 

7. Admit that You never disputed, with any person or entity including the original creditor, the statement with an outstanding balance of $2K. Not sure how to respond. 

8. Admit that You have not paid the outstanding balance of said account. Not sure how to respond. 

9. Admit that You owe the Plaintiff the amounts prayed for in the Complaint. Not sure how to respond since I'm contesting that I owe them anything.

10. Admit that You have no facts which would vary the amounts owed to Plaintiff. Not sure how to respond. 

11. Admit that you have no affirmative defenses against the Plaintiff's Complaint. Not sure how to respond. 

 

 

 

[Varstal]

Update. Okay, I was able to figure out responses to Request for Admission and Request for Documents to be produced. I'm still struggling to figure out how to respond to Special Interrogatories. 

[Clydesmom]

4 hours ago, Varstal said:

Affirmative defenses are: Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of laches, equitable, estoppel, and unclean hands. 

Nope.  Not even close.  If they filed within the SOL then NONE of this applies.  I can tell by your defenses you cut and pasted them off the internet and worse so can Midland's lawyers.  

4 hours ago, Varstal said:

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because of a failure to mitigate damages. 

There is absolutely NO requirement that either the creditor or Midland mitigate their damages in a credit card default case.  The ONLY area of law that requires a mitigation of damages is landlord tenant law.

4 hours ago, Varstal said:

Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the statute of limitations.

Debt is near statute of limitation.

If this is accurate it is the only one you should have used.  When was your last payment to the original creditor?  And when did they file?

What does "near the SOL" mean?

4 hours ago, Varstal said:

Defendant requests that Plaintiff perform an accounting and provide Defendant with documentation that proves the amount that Defendant allegedly owes.

This not a defense. This is something you would use in your own discovery.

4 hours ago, Varstal said:

They knowingly purchased risky debt with a history of non-payment, thus they failed to properly mitigate damages.

Not a defense.  The courts are keenly aware of what the JDB industry is and you will get slaughtered on this one.  As I said before there is NO requirement they mitigate their damages.

1 hour ago, Varstal said:

I was able to figure out responses to Request for Admission and Request for Documents to be produced. I'm still struggling to figure out how to respond to Special Interrogatories.

You need to either file a motion to compel arbitration and answer all of it "denied.  The proper venue is private contractual arbitration which Defendant has elected."  Or you need to read all the California threads on defending these suits in that state before you answer anything and give up your rights under debtor friendly California law.

 

[Bulldoger]

15 hours ago, Varstal said:

original creditor (Synchrony).

Many have found that compelling private arbitration will result in JDB settling for small amount and/or dismissing. 

 

10 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

You need to either file a motion to compel arbitration and answer all of it "denied.  The proper venue is private contractual arbitration which Defendant has elected."  Or you need to read all the California threads on defending these suits in that state before you answer anything and give up your rights under debtor friendly California law.

 

 I suggest you read these posts as Synchrony has one of the best arbitration clauses. 

Read this if decide to stay with CA courts.  This was in Superior Court May not apply to your case. 

 

[Varstal]

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I really appreciate it

[alwayswinning36]

A debt being "near" the statute of limitations doesn't matter. It is likely the SOL was tolled (meaning paused) when the suit was filed, from the date it was filed. So the SOL won't start running again unless or until the case is dismissed without prejudice. If it was filed in the SOL, and you were properly served in the SOL, then get ready for court.

I am not familiar with California courts but based on the requests filed by the plaintiff your matter is in federal court. Looks like you may have figured out how to answer, deny, or omit what you needed to.

How are things going now? I am sure we would like to hear an update, if there is one.

[BV80]

On 6/4/2022 at 6:41 PM, alwayswinning36 said:

I am not familiar with California courts but based on the requests filed by the plaintiff your matter is in federal court.

Debt collection lawsuits are not filed in federal court.  I know bankruptcy matters can be in federal court, but the OP did not indicate that this is a bk matter.

[alwayswinning36]

On 6/6/2022 at 7:14 AM, BV80 said:

Debt collection lawsuits are not filed in federal court.  I know bankruptcy matters can be in federal court, but the OP did not indicate that this is a bk matter.

Well California must have some relaxed small claims court rules for discovery. Admit/deny usually isn't required unless discovery is granted at least here in Texas. Higher courts different story.

[BV80]

25 minutes ago, alwayswinning36 said:

Well California must have some relaxed small claims court rules for discovery. Admit/deny usually isn't required unless discovery is granted at least here in Texas. Higher courts different story.

In CA, small claims is in Limited Civil court, and discovery does not have to be granted by the court.  Affidavits are admissible at trial if the plaintiff follows certain procedures.  However, a defendant can send a subpoena requiring attendance of the affiant who signed the affidavit.  See CCP 98.  The plaintiff must have provided an address within 150 miles of the courthouse at which the affiant will be available to be served the subpoena.  If the affiant is not present at that location, the affidavit signed by the affiant will not be admissible in court.

Unless a JDB is located in CA, most affidavits are signed by out-of-state affiants, and it seems that most JDBs are not willing to pay transportation and lodging in order for those affiants to be available for service of a subpoena within the required distance from the courthouse.  As a result, when a defendant takes advantage of the rule, most JDB lawsuits will be dismissed.

[alwayswinning36]

On 6/7/2022 at 8:28 PM, BV80 said:

In CA, small claims is in Limited Civil court, and discovery does not have to be granted by the court.  Affidavits are admissible at trial if the plaintiff follows certain procedures.  However, a defendant can send a subpoena requiring attendance of the affiant who signed the affidavit.  See CCP 98.  The plaintiff must have provided an address within 150 miles of the courthouse at which the affiant will be available to be served the subpoena.  If the affiant is not present at that location, the affidavit signed by the affiant will not be admissible in court.

Unless a JDB is located in CA, most affidavits are signed by out-of-state affiants, and it seems that most JDBs are not willing to pay transportation and lodging in order for those affiants to be available for service of a subpoena within the required distance from the courthouse.  As a result, when a defendant takes advantage of the rule, most JDB lawsuits will be dismissed.

I wish it were that way here in Texas. It is flat out stupid (I think) that it has to be approved in JP court. But I guess they have their reasons.