Prospers.ORG Prosper Forum

Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to Prospers.ORG!   Login here

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats  (Read 15076 times)

Urbi_et_Orbi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +197/-117
  • Posts: 9355
  • "Lock Him Up" - Suspended Since 9/3/2009
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2008, 01:01:26 pm »
So much for DoFu's "John Wayne" speech.

Big hat, no cattle.

Logged
Mothandrust: "Why's he off the ballot in Colorado but it's OK for the other 48 states and Hawaii to vote for him"
https://www.prospers.org/forum/index.php?topic=37264.msg807090#msg807090

regeneration

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2008, 05:56:18 pm »
Quote from: yankeefan on July 31, 2008, 07:41:59 am
So we have 1 default judgement in our favor? 

I want my penny! :P
Logged

lhsbandnurd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2008, 10:50:36 pm »
If it's "without prejudice" that means PMI can try the case again later (like, say, if the bankruptcy thing falls through), right?

Pharmacy Tech =/= Lawyer
Logged
*The opinions expressed by lhsbandnurd may not represent the opinions held by lhsbandnurd or its subsidiaries.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

cowdog

  • Guest
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2008, 11:08:53 pm »
Quote from: lhsbandnurd on August 01, 2008, 10:50:36 pm
If it's "without prejudice" that means PMI can try the case again later (like, say, if the bankruptcy thing falls through), right?

Yes, and it costs more too.
Logged

xraider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Posts: 6805
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #34 on: August 02, 2008, 08:12:58 am »
Yeah.  Without prejudice means that if Prosper wants to sue again, it can file a new lawsuit.  With a new filing fee.
Logged
Prosper missed me.  They lifted my suspension a day early.

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +145/-10654
  • Posts: 48347
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #35 on: August 02, 2008, 12:10:11 pm »
Quote from: xraider on August 02, 2008, 08:12:58 am
Yeah.  Without prejudice means that if Prosper wants to sue again, it can file a new lawsuit.  With a new filing fee.

What does Prosper care -- the NAT-participating lenders have to pay all the costs of suit before collecting one penny from the NAT.  Of course Prosper owes those lenders a fiduciary duty to act in their best interest -- bwahahahah.
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Cushie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +5/-3
  • Posts: 9714
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2008, 12:19:36 pm »
I can't figure out the dismissed w/o prejudice at all.  I can't think of one valid reason other than the debt being past SOL, but even that would be with prejudice. 

Anyone else have ideas? 
Logged

xraider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Posts: 6805
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #37 on: August 02, 2008, 12:59:47 pm »
Cushie, all of the debts are well within the 4 year statute of limitations for breach of written contract, or for common counts (the "the money miraculously appeared in my checking account even though it wasn't my promissory note" defense would fall under common counts) so all of the suits are timely.

I don't have a clue why Prosper is dismissing without prejudice.  It's possible that the defendants threatened to file bankruptcy; it's possible that the defendants convinced Prosper it wasn't their loan and they never got the money.  I don't know.  I would bet that when the defendants whimpered or threatened, Prosper decided it wasn't worth pursuing, and dismissed the actions.

In any event, Prosper SHOULD update the lenders on those loans. 
Logged
Prosper missed me.  They lifted my suspension a day early.

Cushie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +5/-3
  • Posts: 9714
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #38 on: August 02, 2008, 02:06:05 pm »
Quote from: xraider on August 02, 2008, 12:59:47 pm
In any event, Prosper SHOULD update the lenders on those loans. 
+about a gazillion
Logged

Xenon481

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +956/-88
  • Posts: 12206
  • Feeling Gassy
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #39 on: August 02, 2008, 03:48:34 pm »
Quote from: xraider on August 02, 2008, 12:59:47 pm
. . .
it's possible that the defendants convinced Prosper it wasn't their loan and they never got the money.
. . .
In any event, Prosper SHOULD update the lenders on those loans. 

If that is ever the case, Prosper must immediately repurchase those already "repurchased/defaulted" loans for their full principal value.  Maybe this is why they won't let anybody know why they dismissed without prejudice.
Logged

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +145/-10654
  • Posts: 48347
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #40 on: August 02, 2008, 03:57:18 pm »
Quote from: Xenon481 on August 02, 2008, 03:48:34 pm
Quote from: xraider on August 02, 2008, 12:59:47 pm
. . .
it's possible that the defendants convinced Prosper it wasn't their loan and they never got the money.
. . .
In any event, Prosper SHOULD update the lenders on those loans. 

If that is ever the case, Prosper must immediately repurchase those already "repurchased/defaulted" loans for their full principal value.  Maybe this is why they won't let anybody know why they dismissed without prejudice.

That is certainly what I want to know.  Xraider, have you checked PACER to see if these 3-4 dismissals are the result of a BK filing like the first one?
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

xraider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Posts: 6805
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #41 on: August 02, 2008, 04:30:39 pm »
Ira, no, I checked the Gaerke situation only.  Unfortunately, I can't access my PACER login until I get back to work on Monday but I'll check those dismissals then.
Logged
Prosper missed me.  They lifted my suspension a day early.

cowdog

  • Guest
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #42 on: August 02, 2008, 04:41:46 pm »
If the defendant pointed out that PMI was their agent and money came from lenders, not PMI, would that be a conflict of interest as far as the court is concerned, so they would tell PMI to straighten that out and refile?

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

Does that John Doe mean PMI doesn't know who the person really is?
Logged

xraider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Posts: 6805
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #43 on: August 02, 2008, 05:18:24 pm »
CD, that's exactly right.  The process server rang the doorbell and some man answered.  The process server said, "Here.  Diana Davis has been served."

PMI can act as our assignee in court.  That prevents all 250 (or whatever) lenders on a loan from having to go to court on a settlement conference.
Logged
Prosper missed me.  They lifted my suspension a day early.

xraider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Posts: 6805
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #44 on: August 04, 2008, 11:21:54 am »
Did the PACER search.

There are several BKs for Jerald L Cline and one for Jerald W Cline, but none more recent than 2000.  So, no relevant BK.

Deborah Shannon filed for ch 13, and is to pay off at 7% of debt. 

No bankruptcy filing for Roger Treskunoff.
Logged
Prosper missed me.  They lifted my suspension a day early.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
« previous next »