Print

[Fred93]

Case dismissed!  ... I wonder what happened here?

I tried to download the case documents, but the web site says "wrong case number or documents unavailable".  These court case info database systems are notoriously obscure.  I have no idea what that means.

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/

Case Number: 08C00921
PROSPER MARKETPLACE, INC. VS. BROWN, HOLLY

Filing Date: 02/25/2008
Case Type: COLLECTIONS CASE (Limited Jurisdiction)
Filing Court: Beverly Hills Courthouse
Status: CASE DISMISSED

05/12/2008 DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE FILED FOR THE ENTIRE ACTION AS
TO ALL DEFENDANT(S) AND ALL CAUSES OF ACTION(S).

04/25/2008 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; NOTICE OF CASE
MANAGEMENT REVIEW FILED. SERVED AS TO (BROWN, HOLLY) .
COSTS OF $ 40.00

02/25/2008 COLLECTIONS CASE COMPLAINT FILED PURSUANT TO CRC 3.740. RN
BH050581019.

[snake]

was this one of the test cases?

IIRC, the test cases were supposed to have been handpicked by prosper to ensure favorable outcome

[Fred93]

was this one of the test cases?

Yes.  Precisely. 

[msava]

was this one of the test cases?

Help! Exactly what does this mean?

Yes.  Precisely. 

[xraider]

Hmmm.  Dismissal WITHOUT prejudice means no settlement. 

[animalhouse]

Is there anyway of finding out why it was dismissed?

[Mtnchick]

Hmmm.  Dismissal WITHOUT prejudice means no settlement. 

Could you give us some scenarios as to what happened or is it a crapshoot?

[beerbud1]

They couldn't prove Holly Brown actually took the Loan?

[xraider]

I have no idea what this is.  This dismissal, in this setting, is inexplicable to me.

I just commented to my husband, also a lawyer but who does plaintiff work so knows about dismissing cases.  His first thought was that Prosper didn't get her served on time.  I said no, she was served.  He said, "Weird," shook his head and walked out.

[SGriff]

They couldn't prove Holly Brown actually took the Loan?

That's how people have been beating the internet PDL's - no signature card = no proof of loan.

[Xenon481]

They couldn't prove Holly Brown actually took the Loan?

If that is the case, Prosper cannot prove that it was not Identity Theft and so should pay all lenders on this loan (both opted in and out) the 100% Identity Theft Guarantee.

[xraider]

xenon, you're exactly right.  If Prosper can't prove that the borrower is the borrower, it will have to treat the loan as identity theft.

[Cushie]

Could it be that they couldn't prove it was her loan - ie, she took it out or that they had the correct Holly Brown?  Any chance a call to the courthouse would get any more info?

[xraider]

Cushie, a dismissal WITHOUT prejudice leaves Prosper with the option to refile the complaint.  If it IS the wrong Holly Brown, the dismissal should have been WITH prejudice.  If Prosper was uncertain, it should have explored further before dismissing.

A call to the courthouse won't do any good.  All the clerk will know is that the case was dismissed. In California, a request for dismissal is a one page form, that does not include the reasons for the request.  You check a box and you're done.

[Cushie]

Right, but couldn't they dismiss without prejudice and then refile after they gather further docs to prove it was her?

What strikes me is the time frame.  I doubt she got an answer in and Prosper reviewed that and agreed to dismiss.  I'm assuming she's defending herself without a lawyer, but I suppose that'd explain it.