OC Plaintiff omitting "business records" during pre-trial discovery

[lulew]

What do you feel your affirmative defenses are?

1) failure to state a claim
2) unjust enrichment

 

[Zigner]

1) failure to state a claim

They did state a claim.

2) unjust enrichment

Why do you think this is an affirmative defense?

 

[lulew]

They did state a claim.
Why do you think this is an affirmative defense?

1) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant for which relief can be granted.

2) Defendant alleges that granting the Plaintiff's demands in the Complaint would result in Unjust Enrichment, as the Plaintiff would receive more money than plaintiff is entitled to receive.

 

[Zigner]

1) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant for which relief can be granted.

They did state a claim.

2) Defendant alleges that granting the Plaintiff's demands in the Complaint would result in Unjust Enrichment, as the Plaintiff would receive more money than plaintiff is entitled to receive.

That is not an affirmative defense in your case.


I'm sorry, but it seems that you have no actual defense against owing the money. You are going to lose. You are going to end up paying more money than you would have had you just paid your debt in the first place and not tried to get out of it like a deadbeat.

 

[tranquility]

I agree with Zigner, you're just playing games. But, to see what and how they will prove things up, see:
http://ftc.gov/os/comments/debtcollectroundtable3/545921-00017.pdf

 

[lulew]

They did state a claim.



That is not an affirmative defense in your case.


I'm sorry, but it seems that you have no actual defense against owing the money. You are going to lose. You are going to end up paying more money than you would have had you just paid your debt in the first place and not tried to get out of it like a deadbeat.

Your momma is a deadbeat!!! They stated a claim with no sufficient facts for their cause of action. Apparently, you can't read. Don't have time for your insults. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[lulew]

I would really appreciate hearing from expert members who have solutions that challenge these types of cases. Thank you.

 

[Zigner]

Your momma is a deadbeat!!! They stated a claim with no sufficient facts for their cause of action. Apparently, you can't read. Don't have time for your insults. Thanks, but no thanks.

They stated that you owed money and haven't paid it. That affirmative defense is now shot.

They state that you owe $x. That is based on your contractual obligations. They are trying to collect $x. If they prove their case, then they are not unjustly enriched. That affirmative defense was a non-starter.


Seriously, if you would stop looking at this from the professional debtor point of view, you would come to the same conclusions.


ETA: My momma's been dead and buried for nearly 20 years now. She really can't be considered a deadbeat. Are you trying to excuse your deadbeat actions by claiming to be a corpse?

 

[Zigner]

I would really appreciate hearing from expert members who have solutions that challenge these types of cases. Thank you.

Paying what you owe would have been an excellent solution.

 

[lulew]

Paying what you owe would have been an excellent solution.

Apparently, you're a debt collector that hangs out on this site because you have no life. If I felt like giving my money away to a bottom feeder without a fight, then that's what I would do. I'll take my chances in court. It very obvious that you have no insight - so move on.

 

[tranquility]

I would really appreciate hearing from expert members who have solutions that challenge these types of cases. Thank you.

Here's one that got the "inactive" attorney acting pro se past the first summary judgment. [http://documents.jdsupra.com/f8dbf8e5-fea5-4968-ac02-ba1517a921f4.pdf ] Maybe YAG can read the eCourts file better than I, but it seems this guy won arguing against the summary judgment motion by the plaintiff. Then, a later Motion In Limine by the defendant (I assume it was to exclude the account statements.) was withdrawn and the trial then withdrawn and seems "disposed". I suspect either the lawyers for the card company got scared over litigation (maybe to sell the debt to another before result), or some deal was made at the last moment.

I suspect the later, but don't know.

 

[Zigner]

Apparently, you're a debt collector that hangs out on this site because you have no life. If I felt like giving my money away to a bottom feeder without a fight, then that's what I would do. I'll take my chances in court. It very obvious that you have no insight - so move on.

Again, had you paid what you agreed, when you agreed, then this wouldn't even be a problem, would it?

And no, I am not a debt collector.

You came here asking for advice on how to dodge a debt that you acknowledge you owe. No, that's not right. You simply don't protest the statement that you owe it. Rather, you would like to argue technicalities and loopholes to avoid paying what you owe.

 

[TigerD]

I would really appreciate hearing from expert members who have solutions that challenge these types of cases. Thank you.

I have a little experience in these matters. Not as a collections attorney and not as a consumer attorney, but as a collections manager and agency executive. I can tell you the unjust enrichment argument is a no go. That was a waste of printer ink.

As for the failure to state a claim, it is possible that the plaintiff's attorney really screwed up their filing. But it is unlikely.

That said, I have nothing further for you because of this:

Your momma is a deadbeat!!! They stated a claim with no sufficient facts for their cause of action. Apparently, you can't read. Don't have time for your insults. Thanks, but no thanks.

Apparently, you're a debt collector that hangs out on this site because you have no life. If I felt like giving my money away to a bottom feeder without a fight, then that's what I would do.

Good luck. You are on track to lose handily.

DC

 

[lulew]

Here's one that got the "inactive" attorney acting pro se past the first summary judgment. [http://documents.jdsupra.com/f8dbf8e5-fea5-4968-ac02-ba1517a921f4.pdf ] Maybe YAG can read the eCourts file better than I, but it seems this guy won arguing against the summary judgment motion by the plaintiff. Then, a later Motion In Limine by the defendant (I assume it was to exclude the account statements.) was withdrawn and the trial then withdrawn and seems "disposed". I suspect either the lawyers for the card company got scared over litigation (maybe to sell the debt to another before result), or some deal was made at the last moment.

I suspect the later, but don't know.

Thank you so much for replying with competent and relevant information FYI this no game. I am very aware of how this industry operates and forces people to pay debts they are not liable for, double dipping and all. If I didn't believe that your site was a valuable source of information, I wouldn't be here. I get it - Zinger is playing devils advocate...and that's cool.

Back to the matter at hand....I looked at several related cases from all perspectives, therefore, I am aware of Eric's tactics. The James case really confirms a lot of my suspicions about the debt collection industry. Very, very informative. Thank you.

 

[Ohiogal]

1) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against the Defendant for which relief can be granted.

2) Defendant alleges that granting the Plaintiff's demands in the Complaint would result in Unjust Enrichment, as the Plaintiff would receive more money than plaintiff is entitled to receive.

A) All they need to do is notice pleading.
B) HOw would Plaintiff be recieving more money than they are entitled to receive -- in addition to the debt, there is interest, court costs, attorney fees and various other costs that can be added to the amount. NOne of which is unjust.