• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

What Can I Do if This Guy Refuses Certified Letter Notice?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
On the first page, under "Filing a Small Claims Suit," the first section is "Requisites" and says "Direct a letter, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the defendant, giving notice of the suit. State the amount of money to be sued for, and if the money is not received within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the letter, suit may be filed."

So, I am taking that as a very definite "thou shalt" from our courthouse RE the CCRRR.
I know you are beyond this point...but I'm posting this for clarification for others who may come upon this thread.
From what you posted above, you are required you to SEND the letter. No mention is made that they actually have to ACCEPT it...
 


In looking again at how the request is worded, I believe I've answered my own question and clarified things.

We should disclose the data requested as per Rule 194 (194.2); the reference to 194.2(f) is only listed in the event we do have an expert witness.

*duh*

Sorry about the confusion. *sigh*
 

dcatz

Senior Member
If I have no objection to explaining my side of the case to the attorney and providing him copies of the documentation (our hope is that the attorney will realize the validity of our case and tell the client he should go ahead and pay us), should I go ahead and provide it even though I'm not an "expert witness"?

I understand, share the feeling and can only respond with a personal opinion; other may have other thoughts. I said that it’s a good general rule to not disclose anything, unless you have to. I also said that there are tactical exceptions to that rule. Speaking personally, I regularly violate it. I’m a big fan of informal discovery and complete discovery. I’m normally representing plaintiffs (your status in this action). Complete disclosure, whether requested or not, is a way of saying, “If we go to trial, this is why I win. If you want to spend money and still lose, we can do that to.” You seem to see it similarly (and I apologize, if I’m misreading).

While service, and the difficulties of service no longer appear to be an issue, evidence that goes to the merits of the case continues to be. If I was in your place and was comfortable that my evidence was not subject to being compromised by early disclosure, I might contact the other attorney and say, “You only asked for expert witnesses, and I won’t have any. But I’ll be glad to give you things that you didn’t ask for but that prove that your defense gets blown out of the water. Review them and we can talk settlement.”

That’s just a personal approach, and it requires confidence that you can and will prevail, if the case is tried. But it can also be a surprising and intimidating turn of events for opposing counsel. Passing the Bar doesn’t necessarily mean that you do intelligent discovery, but knowing your case (and theirs) in advance is important. Doing less than you can do is cheating yourself and your client. I hope that helps with a decision.
 
Last edited:
Zigner...thanks for adding that clarification.

dcatz...thanks so much for your thoughts. As I re-read the Disclosure Request, I realized that the request for Disclosure refers to Rule 194 in its entirety, I think; Rule 194.2(f) was referenced only to indicate a different response deadline in the event discovery would include an expert witness.

I understand what you're saying about disclosure. And if this were a complex case, we would be hesitant, I think, to "tip our hand." However, our side of the case is really pretty straight-forward, and we are fairly confident that if the attorney--who, we presume, won't be the dense hot-head that the client is being--reviews our facts, he will see that his client does not have a winning defense and will want to settle.

That being said, Rule 194.2(c) states that I do not have to disclose everything that would be submitted at trial, so if there are some things I'd rather hold in reserve, as it were, I could do so, it seems.

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts, suggestions, and input.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top