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)

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +145/-10654
  • Posts: 48347
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #45 on: August 04, 2008, 12:20:48 pm »

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.

I assume Shannon's BK filing was recent?

I wonder what is going on with the other cases, then?  Someone should call them and see what they can find out.
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 #46 on: August 04, 2008, 12:33:05 pm »

Shannon's BK was in May, IIRC.
Logged
Prosper missed me.  They lifted my suspension a day early.

j9359

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
    • my blog
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #47 on: August 04, 2008, 08:42:10 pm »

No bankruptcy filing for Roger Treskunoff.
Looking at the original complaint they checked the box labeled "Rule 3.740 collections"  (right under the "Breach of Contract" check box)
I googled that phase and found this:
Quote
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/index.cfm?title=three&linkid=rule3_740
"Collections case" means an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit.
In the dismissal the reason cited was Other: Breach of Contract and it was dismissed without prejudice

Could it be possible that the wrong box was checked on the original complaint?  or that after the original complaint was filed Prospers crack legal team figured out that they really wanted to call this a breach of contract instead of Rule 3.740 collection ?

I'm too lazy tonight to look at the other complaints that were dismissed but I wonder if there is a pattern there.

john.

 
Logged

xraider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Posts: 6805
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper is only suing California deadbeats
« Reply #48 on: August 04, 2008, 08:45:37 pm »

No.  The Request for Dismissal is really pro forma.  I have no idea why Prosper dismissed the case.

However, I know from my years of dealing with collection attorneys (on work related matters, not personal matters lol) that there's no way in hell I'd get through.  And, if I did, Hunt probably wouldn't talk to me anyway.  Ugh.
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 #49 on: August 05, 2008, 12:28:04 am »

However, I know from my years of dealing with collection attorneys (on work related matters, not personal matters lol) that there's no way in hell I'd get through.  And, if I did, Hunt probably wouldn't talk to me anyway.  Ugh.

I agree that Hunt wouldn't talk, even if you did get through.  I think someone needs to call the Defendants -- they might talk (especially if the answer is "that wasn't me -- I never heard of Prosper before they served me").
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up