Print

[ira01]

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.

Actually, it is not impossible that the case settled -- sometimes a dismissal without prejudice will be filed after a settlement agreement is finalized, with a dismissal with prejudice filed after the money is paid.  This isn't the most typical way of doing things, but I have seen it happen.  It doesn't seem especially likely in this case, however, because the case was very young, so there wouldn't have been an urgent need to file a dismissal ASAP as is sometimes the case in older cases.  But who knows? 

[ira01]

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...

Yes, this is correct. 

[arebelspy]

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......

Ouch.  That gets me more than anything.

[xraider]

Ira, the with/without prejudice issue has come up in a few of my cases.  Once the case is dismissed, it's gone.  I've never had a court change the type of dismissal for that reason.   They will keep jurisdiction to ensure compliance but not change the nature of the dismissal.......

[mothandrust]

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......

Ouch.  That gets me more than anything.

+1

[Cushie]

I've seen it dismissed w/o prejudice on CB's "I've Been Served" forum.  Then if the defendant fails to complete payment arrangments the plaintiff will go for summary judgment. 

[Staneslav]

a

[xraider]

Cushie, once the case is dismissed in California, it's history.  It would need to be refiled before a summary judgment motion could be brought.  Also, summary judgments in California are very awkward now (thanks, Gray Davis).  You have to give 70 days' notice.  Ugh.

[Mtnchick]

Cushie, once the case is dismissed in California, it's history.  It would need to be refiled before a summary judgment motion could be brought.  Also, summary judgments in California are very awkward now (thanks, Gray Davis).  You have to give 70 days' notice.  Ugh.

P------r - we know you're reading this - why not update your blog??

[112233]

Cushie, once the case is dismissed in California, it's history.  It would need to be refiled before a summary judgment motion could be brought.  Also, summary judgments in California are very awkward now (thanks, Gray Davis).  You have to give 70 days' notice.  Ugh.

P------r - we know you're reading this - why not update your blog??

they want you to go on vacation for a while

[Mtnchick]

Cushie, once the case is dismissed in California, it's history.  It would need to be refiled before a summary judgment motion could be brought.  Also, summary judgments in California are very awkward now (thanks, Gray Davis).  You have to give 70 days' notice.  Ugh.

P------r - we know you're reading this - why not update your blog??

they want you to go on vacation for a while

I would if I could get some money for my 33 defaults........

[Fred93]

I got a response from Prosper support explaining what happened in this case.

Our collection law firm received notification from Ms. Brown’s attorney that she has filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy. Following standard procedures, the firm immediately dismissed the case.  As of this date, Prosper has not received official notice of the filing from the bankruptcy court.

[xraider]

And they're trusting that claim?  I'd wait for proof of the filing, and STAY the action, instead of dismissing it.  Prosper has already incurred the cost of the (1) preparation of the complaint; (2) the filing fee; (3) service of the complaint.  Cases in bankruptcy are stayed (not dismissed) all of the time.

We already know that Prosper takes people's words for it with no backup.

This is Prosper's hot shot collections firm?

[NewHorizon]

I can't find it, but I think there's another thread here about a borrower who told Prosper that s/he would be filing Bk but never did.   

[Fred93]

And they're trusting that claim?  I'd wait for proof of the filing, and STAY the action, instead of dismissing it. 

You mean to say I can't trust the lawyer?   

Should I be able to look up this bankruptcy filing online?  If so, where?