Print

[NewHorizon]

The next update on the case might be: "CASE FILE ORDERED DESTROYED PER SECTION(S) 71008 AND/OR
68152 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE."  or "CASE FILE STORED IN BOX xx SET FOR DESTRUCTION ON...".  (But IANAL)

[cubbiesnextyr]

(even though Prosper has every borrower fill out a physical postcard to verify their address and identity)

This is not true.  Since I made a listing, I received one of these postcards.  There is nothing to fill out and send back, there is merely a code on it that you have to put into a form on the website.

I never got one of those postcards.

I'm not sure when this postcard scheme was implemented, but I think it was after Doug Fuller came on.

It was way before DoFu.  The earliest mention of a postcard on the old forums is March 12, 2007. 
http://www.prosperreport.com/prosper/forums/archive/threads/1/9/3/19399.1.HTM#post254683

[Retireme99]

Again, folks, Online PDL's are crashing and burning everywhere because of this loophole.

Forgive me for not being in the know... what examples are there of crashing and burning everywhere?  What are the other examples?

[onthefence]

Since the case was dismissed less than a month after the proof of service was filed, and no hearing dates had been set, I'm completely confident that Prosper requested the dismissal.

I agree that the question is, why? 

Maybe the lawyer forgot to wear his pants that day. 

(Sorry bad joke.  I don't know what the poor prosper lawyer is armed with walking into these cases.)

[ira01]

Hopefully, Prosper will provide an explanation of what is going on here, since it is hard to tell from what we have.  It appears that Prosper filed a dismissal for an as yet unknown reason.  One possibility is that the defendant convinced Prosper that she was not the borrower.  That would suggest that Prosper owes the lenders a repurchase under the ID-theft guarantee, unless Prosper simply screwed up the service somehow (for example, maybe Holly Brown really was the borrower, but she moved, and Prosper served a different Holly Brown).  It is also possible that the defendant convinced Prosper that it filed in the wrong courthouse, and Prosper decided to dismiss and refile.  That would be a rather troubling indication of the lawyer's competence if that were the case, but easily fixed.  Certainly any lender on this loan (is this one of the loans where we know the listing number?) should be contacting Prosper for an update (or a demand for repurchase).  Maybe a few PM's would be in order?

[regeneration]

Xode, in Los Angeles, where I practice and where this case was filed, cases get dismissed without prejudice in one of two ways, when the plaintiff (here Prosper) submits a request for dismissal without prejudice, or if plaintiff fails to appear at a status conference, then fails again to appear at an order to show cause hearing.  Typically, in limited civil cases in Los Angeles are on the slow track. 

Since the case was dismissed less than a month after the proof of service was filed, and no hearing dates had been set, I'm completely confident that Prosper requested the dismissal.

I agree that the question is, why? 

Could this have happened because they failed to pay their lawyers, and so the lawyers failed to show up?

[Fred93]

Could this have happened because they failed to pay their lawyers, and so the lawyers failed to show up?

No.  It wasn't time for the lawyers to "show up" yet.  The lawyers filed a document asking the court to dismiss the case.

[Heavens2Murgetroid]

Is it possible that a settlement of sorts was reached?

[112233]

Is it possible that a settlement of sorts was reached?

if they settled, then where's the money?

[xraider]

No, heavens.  If there was a settlement, the case would have been dismissed WITH prejudice.

[Fred93]

Is it possible that a settlement of sorts was reached?

if they settled, then where's the money?

That seems like a possibility!  We wouldn't see the money immediately.  Prosper has never told the opt-in people when they would get the money recovered from these folks.  I would imagine they need to delay a bit so that they can subtract appropriate legal costs.

Prosper has not responded to my email asking what happened.  I wonder if & how they plan to tell lenders the outcome of these cases.

[Fred93]

No, heavens.  If there was a settlement, the case would have been dismissed WITH prejudice.

Oh.  This use of the word "prejudice" is obscure to us nonlawyers.  Is it like this?
"with prejudice" means the suit evaporates and the plaintiff cannot sue again,
"without prejudice" means the suit evaporates and the plaintiff CAN sue again 

[xraider]

I wonder if & how they plan to tell lenders the outcome of these cases.

I'd say the answer is pretty obvious, since the case was dismissed three weeks ago......

[xraider]

No, heavens.  If there was a settlement, the case would have been dismissed WITH prejudice.

Oh.  This use of the word "prejudice" is obscure to us nonlawyers.  Is it like this?
"with prejudice" means the suit evaporates and the plaintiff cannot sue again,
"without prejudice" means the suit evaporates and the plaintiff CAN sue again 

Sorry, Fred.  Yes.  Exactly.  Without prejudice means you can refile.  WITH prejudice means you can't refile. 

Or, WITHOUT prejudice means no consideration/payment/settlement.  WITH prejudice means the case settled.

[cwsswc]

That seems like a possibility!  We wouldn't see the money immediately.  Prosper has never told the opt-in people when they would get the money recovered from these folks.  I would imagine they need to delay a bit so that they can subtract appropriate legal costs.

Even beyond that, if I recall the text of the original note offering lenders the opportunity to opt in or opt out of the lawsuits, Prosper would first cover all its costs associated with the program before the lenders who opted in would see one thin dime. That includes, I believe:
* The money Prosper paid the lenders who opted out
* The court costs for all filed suits
* The lawyer costs for all filed suits
* (possibly) whatever other costs it incurs in the process of fighting the lawsuits.

So one suit out of 66 potential such suits, even if there had been a settlement with payment in full, probably wouldn't be enough to cover all that overhead. Reading xraider's responses, it looks like there was no settlement...