Print

[ira01]

I wonder why the dismissals without prejudice?  WITHOUT prejudice generally means no money paid.

There does seem to be an inordinate amount of dismissals early in the process -- these 2 make at least 3, out of what, about 50 cases that we know the status of?  The first one we learned of was dismissed due to BK, IIRC.  Can you run a PACER check on these other two to see if that is the case here?  If not, I would really like to know if they were dropped because the defendants proved that they weren't the borrowers -- that would certainly be interesting, to say the least.  Maybe a call to the defendants' counsel (if they were represented) or to the defendants themselves, if not, would be in order.

[Pinebox]

I wonder why the dismissals without prejudice?  WITHOUT prejudice generally means no money paid.

There does seem to be an inordinate amount of dismissals early in the process -- these 2 make at least 3, out of what, about 50 cases that we know the status of?  The first one we learned of was dismissed due to BK, IIRC.  Can you run a PACER check on these other two to see if that is the case here?  If not, I would really like to know if they were dropped because the defendants proved that they weren't the borrowers -- that would certainly be interesting, to say the least.  Maybe a call to the defendants' counsel (if they were represented) or to the defendants themselves, if not, would be in order.

Yes. That would be interesting. Wouldn't Prosper be required to buy back the loan then? Or did they wiggle out from under that for this "test batch" of CA deadbeats?

[xraider]

None of the dismissed defendants appeared.  I have to go to SF today but I'll try to check PACER on Fri or over the weekend.  I don't really want to call these folks but I can try to find their numbers.

No way to tell from the court file what prompted Prosper to dismiss the cases.  I don't think Prosper's collection attorneys would take/return my call. 

[xraider]

Orange County update:

Case 30-2008-00058684-CL-CL-HLH PMI vs. FITZGERALD, BRANDI - no activity

Case 30-2008-00058436-CL-CL-NJC PMI vs. MASSEY, JERMAINE - proof of service filed 7/11/08

Case 30-2008-00050023-CL-CL-NJC PMI vs. ROZIER, KAREN - answer filed with fee waiver 5/14/2008; proof of service filed 5/27/08.  No hearing dates set.

Case 30-2008-00058438-CL-CL-NJC PMI vs. SHARABA, JOSEPHINE - no activity

Case 30-2008-00058426-CL-CL-HLH PMI vs. SPREEN, TERESITA - no activity

Case 30-2008-00065226-CL-CL-NJC PMI vs. VILLANUEVA, MARIO - no activity

[xraider]

LA Superior Court update:

Case 08C01411 PMI vs. BARBOZA, RICARDO - Order to Show Cause why case shouldn't be dismissed for failure to file proof of service set for October 3, 2008.  (This is a routine placeholder.  However, other than that, there's been no activity on the case.)

Case 08C00921 PMI vs. BROWN, HOLLY - DISMISSED due to pending bankruptcy.

Case 08C01110 PMI vs. CARR, CHRISTOPHER - proof of service filed July 7, 2008

Case 08K08483 PMI vs. COLLET, LOUIS - Order to Show Cause set for October 6, 2008.  No other activity.

Case 08C01457 PMI vs. DAVIS, DIANA - proof of service filed July 2, 2008; sub-served on "John Doe."

Case 08C01458 PMI vs. DELGADO, CARLOS - proof of service filed May 19, 2008; OSC set for October 6, 2008.  No answer; no default application.

Case 08C01437 PMI vs. MOFFETT, CRYSTAL - declaration of due diligence AND proof of service filed on May 8, 2008.  Don't quite get that one.  No answer; no default application.

Case BC388361 PMI vs. PARK, SHI IL - DEFAULT ENTERED July 16, 2008! 

Case 08C01750 PMI vs. RABOTEAUX, VALENTINO - OSC set for October 23, 2008; no evidence of service.

Case 08K08484 PMI vs. RIVERA, ROBERT - Proof of service filed July 7, 2008

Case 08E04908 PMI vs. WEST, JAMES - AMENDED complaint filed June 18, 2008; OSC set for October 27, 2008.

Case 08C01456 PMI vs. WOKE, CHINYERE - OSC set for October 6, 2008.

[xraider]

San Francisco update

Case CGC-08-474617 PMI vs. LEWIS, LAVINA - proof of service filed July 11, 2008 showing service made on May 27, 2008.  No answer; no request for default on file.

Case CGC-08-473799 PMI vs. TRESKUNOFF, ROGER - Dismissed without prejudice July 17, 2008

[regeneration]

Had I known that PMI would only litigate in California,then I would have only bid on borrowers in California.


Please move this post to the lobby.

Are they even suing all the people in CA??

Had I known they were only suing in CA, I would only have bid on CA loans. If I'd known they were only suing a portion of CA borrowers, I wouldn't have bid at all. They must look at us like total sheep.

+1

[xraider]

No updates on the Santa Clara suits - no evidence of service.

[yankeefan]

So we have 1 default judgement in our favor? 

[big-al]

So we have 1 default judgement in our favor? 

Unfortunately all a judgement gets you is a judgement.  PMI will still need to take action to collect on that judgement.  It will be interesting to see how that goes.

[j9359]

San Francisco update
Case CGC-08-473799 PMI vs. TRESKUNOFF, ROGER - Dismissed without prejudice July 17, 2008

In the document the reason for dismissal is given as "breach of contract"
anyone have an idea on what that means ?
john.

[xraider]

The form request for dismissal  identifies the type of case as breach of contract, and gives no reason for the dismissal.....  I don't recall anything different about this particular form (yeah, I looked at it) but I can't pull it up on my Treo.

[j9359]

Could it be that the case was in the wrong court? And that they do no have jurisdiction ?

[ira01]

So we have 1 default judgement in our favor? 

Unfortunately all a judgement gets you is a judgement.  PMI will still need to take action to collect on that judgement.  It will be interesting to see how that goes.

Although true, we don't even have that yet.  According to xraider's post, only a default was entered, not a default judgment.  The default just means that the clerk recognized that the defendant failed to respond on time.  Next, Prosper has to file a motion for a default judgment, in order to obtain one.  It has to convince the judge that the defendant owes the amount requested (which shouldn't be too hard).

[ira01]

San Francisco update

Case CGC-08-474617 PMI vs. LEWIS, LAVINA - proof of service filed July 11, 2008 showing service made on May 27, 2008.  No answer; no request for default on file.

Case CGC-08-473799 PMI vs. TRESKUNOFF, ROGER - Dismissed without prejudice July 17, 2008

So that's at least 4 dismissals that we know about -- something very strange appears to be going on, unless all these defendants filed BK after the lawsuits were filed (and even in that case, the correct move would be to simply stay the cases pending resolution of the BK, not to dismiss them).