Print

[Fred93]

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil

Looks like Prosper has settled the civil fraud case against Victoria Crawford.  (for applying for loans in ten other people's names if I recall correctly) 

Details of the settlement are apparently not yet available online.  The LA court web site says I can pay to see any of the documents on this case filed before 04/27/08, but of course we want to see the ones filed in June & July.

What now, I wonder.  Will there  be a criminal proceeding?  Has Prosper engaged the criminal justice system? 

Case Number: BC368266
PROSPER MARKETPLACE INC VS VICTORIA CRAWFORD
Filing Date: 03/21/2007
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)

Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)

08/07/2008 in Department ADR, ADR Clerk, Presiding
Closed-ADR - Not held-Rmvd ADR-Other

08/06/2008 at 08:32 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, Presiding
Final Status Conference (*NTC.OF SETTLEMENT FILED 6/11/08*) - Case Deemed Settled

02/01/2008 at 08:31 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, Presiding
Further Status Conference - Trial Date Set

11/02/2007 at 08:33 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, Presiding
Order to Show Cause (RE DEFT'S.COUNSEL FAILURE TOAPPEAR AT CMC OF 8/6/07-DISMISSAL) - Completed

08/06/2007 at 08:31 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, Presiding
Conference-Case Management - Completed

07/26/2007 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, Presiding
Hearing on Demurrer (NOTICE OF CHANG OFDATE FOR HEARING ON DEMURRER;(C/FR 7/11/07 ON C.O.M.)) - Completed

07/11/2007 at 08:30 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, Presiding
Hearing on Demurrer (NOTICE OF CHANG OFDATE FOR HEARING ON DEMURRER;) - Not Held-Continued

05/30/2007 at 09:30 am in Department 86, David Yaffe, Presiding
Order to Show Cause Re Prelim Inj - Granted

05/04/2007 at 09:30 am in Department 86, David Yaffe, Presiding
Order to Show Cause Re Prelim Inj - Proceeding continued

04/17/2007 at 08:30 am in Department 86, David Yaffe, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Granted

03/23/2007 at 08:30 am in Department 86, David Yaffe, Presiding
Exparte proceeding - Motion Denied

-------------------------------

Documents filed...
07/23/2008 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

06/11/2008 Notice-Settlement
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

03/10/2008 Notice-Assignment-Mediator
Filed by ADR Clerk

02/01/2008 Order-Case Management
Filed by Court

01/28/2008 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

01/28/2008 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

11/14/2007 Notice of Change of Address (600 S. LAKE STE.305 PASADENA, CA. 91106 )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

11/02/2007 Order-Case Management
Filed by Court

11/02/2007 Answer to Second Amended Complaint
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

08/14/2007 Second Amended Complaint (FOR DAMAGES AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

08/14/2007 Notice (OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL; )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

08/06/2007 Order-Case Management
Filed by Court

07/23/2007 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/23/2007 Statement-Case Management
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/06/2007 Stipulation ((JOINT) TO CHANGE DATE OF DEMURRER HEARING; )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

07/06/2007 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

06/21/2007 Notice-Case Management Conference
Filed by Clerk

06/13/2007 Notice (OF CHANGE OF DATE FOR HEARING ON DEMURRER; )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

06/07/2007 Opposition Document (TO DEFT'S DEMURRER TO FAC; )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

06/07/2007 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

06/05/2007 Stipulation and Order
Filed by Defendant

05/31/2007 Proof of Service (RE: P/I )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

05/31/2007 Bond
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

05/30/2007 Notice (OF CANGE OF DEPT. FOR HEARING ON DEMURRER; )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/22/2007 Miscellaneous-Other (NON-OPPOSITION TO P/I )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

05/07/2007 Notice of Continuance (OF HEARING FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

05/07/2007 Declaration (OF JAEMIN CHANG IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

05/07/2007 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

05/07/2007 Proof of Service (AMENDED )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

05/04/2007 Proof-Service/Summons
Filed by Plaintiff

05/04/2007 Proof-Service/Summons
Filed by Petitioner

Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
TOP   04/27/2007   

04/27/2007 Proof-Service/Summons (PARTY SERVED BANK OF AMERICA CORP )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

04/27/2007 Proof-Service/Summons (PARTY SERVED BANK OF AMERICA, N.A )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

04/19/2007 Proof of Service
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

04/19/2007 Proof of Service (PARTY SERVED BANK OF AMERICA-SAN VICENTE BRANCH )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

04/19/2007 Proof of Service (PARTY SERVED BANK OF AMERICA N.A )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

04/19/2007 Proof of Service (PARTY SERVED BANK OF AMERICA )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

04/17/2007 Ex-Parte Application (FOR TRO/OSC )
Filed by Plaintiff

04/17/2007 Miscellaneous-Other ($40.00 )
Filed by Commissioner

04/17/2007 Order for TRO/Appt Recvr/OSC re PI
Filed by Plaintiff

04/17/2007 Points and Authorities
Filed by Plaintiff

04/17/2007 Declaration
Filed by Plaintiff

04/17/2007 Declaration ( TOM PIGOSKI )
Filed by Plaintiff

04/16/2007 Summons Filed
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

04/16/2007 First Amended Complaint (FOR DAMAGES AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; )
Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

03/23/2007 Ex-Parte Application ( TRO/OSC RE PI )
Filed by Plaintiff

03/23/2007 Points and Authorities (MEMO OF P/A'S )
Filed by Plaintiff

03/23/2007 Declaration
Filed by Plaintiff

03/21/2007 Complaint

[ira01]

I forget if you are here in LA, but you can see the documents filed for free at the courthouse.  But it is unlikely to be interesting -- it is probably just a form that says "case settled."  It might, but probably doesn't, include any of the terms of the settlement.  And if there hasn't been a criminal case filed by now, there probably won't be.

[112233]

why wouldn't there be a criminal case?

[Fred93]

I forget if you are here in LA, but you can see the documents filed for free at the courthouse.  But it is unlikely to be interesting -- it is probably just a form that says "case settled."  It might, but probably doesn't, include any of the terms of the settlement.  And if there hasn't been a criminal case filed by now, there probably won't be.

Bummer.  Then considering a preponderance of the evidence, I'd say justice was not served.  Prosper caved.

I figure they got back some fraction of the cash she fraudulently obtained from Prosper, so they decided to stop there.

PS: For folks who haven't been following this forever, here's a quick summary of the Victoria Crawford situation posted by ira01 on the old Prosper.com board on 2/22/07...

1. victoria crawford allegedly took out 10 Prosper loans using false identities.
2. A forum member figured out something was hokey with these 10 loans (they had certain points of similarity besides all failing to make the first payment).
3. After much discussion on the forums, Prosper repurchased all the loans.
4. We recently learned that Prosper apparently had reason to believe that some of the money was still in certain Bank of America bank accounts a few months ago.
5. Prosper brought a civil action for fraud in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking (and obtaining) an injunction freezing the bank accounts.
6. Further proceedings are scheduled.

[Fred93]

I just did a search for a criminal case, and found none.  Of course it is possible that I didn't do it right.  Maybe should have searched only on last name or something, but I didn't want to do it over 'cause the damn LA court charges for every query.  This was a search of the "index of defendants in criminal cases" in LA superior court.
https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/onlineservices/criminalIndex/index.asp

Result of query on Saturday, September 13, 2008    4:53:24 PM
Last Name:  Victoria(Exact Match)
First Name:  Crawford(Exact Match)
Filing Date Range:  01/01/2006-07/01/2008

No records were found matching the information you provided.

[bamalucky]

I forget where Victoria worked but i'm sure the ID theft victims will/are going after criminal charges.

[Fred93]

I forget where Victoria worked

One of Prosper's court filings says...

DMS Production Services of El Segundo, California, where Defendant was employed, verified that most of the identities Defendant used were somehow associated with DMS Production Services, and that Defendant could have accessed significant amount of personal data from DMS's files

but i'm sure the ID theft victims will/are going after criminal charges.

I don't yet see any evidence of that. 

[Oak_Hill_Fire]

Last Name:  Victoria(Exact Match)
First Name:  Crawford(Exact Match)

I hate to ask, but did you copy and paste this? If so, aren't first and last names transposed?

[Fred93]

Last Name:  Victoria(Exact Match)
First Name:  Crawford(Exact Match)

I hate to ask, but did you copy and paste this? If so, aren't first and last names transposed?

Oh my    I screwed that one up.  Here's a 2nd try...

Result of query on Saturday, September 13, 2008  5:37:56 PM
 
Last Name:  Crawford(Exact Match)
First Name:  Victoria(Sounds Like)
Filing Date Range:  01/01/2007-09/13/2008

Click on the name to view detailed case information. You may select up to 10 name entries that most closely match your search criteria.
 
Name Filing Date
CRAWFORD, VICTOR  10/22/2007
CRAWFORD, VICTOR  03/09/2007
CRAWFORD, VICTOR  10/05/2007
CRAWFORD, VICTOR  10/22/2007

Besides getting the names in the right order, I checked the "sounds like" box on the first name, hoping to include things like "Vicki", and used a better date range.  I have no idea whether "Vicki" would be included by their "sounds like" algorithm.  I would expect a criminal case to use the more formal name, but hey, who knows.  I looked at those Victor Crawford cases just in case.  They're all narcotics.  I assume that's a different person, different crime.

[ira01]

I forget if you are here in LA, but you can see the documents filed for free at the courthouse.  But it is unlikely to be interesting -- it is probably just a form that says "case settled."  It might, but probably doesn't, include any of the terms of the settlement.  And if there hasn't been a criminal case filed by now, there probably won't be.

Bummer.  Then considering a preponderance of the evidence, I'd say justice was not served.  Prosper caved.

I figure they got back some fraction of the cash she fraudulently obtained from Prosper, so they decided to stop there.

That's probably exactly right.  But don't forget that Victoria Crawford probably has little or no money, so it isn't like Prosper was going to get rich off of her even if they wanted to.

PS: For folks who haven't been following this forever, here's a quick summary of the Victoria Crawford situation posted by ira01 on the old Prosper.com board on 2/22/07...

That date cannot be correct.  I didn't join Prosper until mid-March 2007, and I don't think I posted on the forums before that.  More to the point, Prosper didn't even sue Victoria Crawford until March 21, 2007, according to your OP, and in the quote I say that it was a "few months ago."

[Fred93]

PS: For folks who haven't been following this forever, here's a quick summary of the Victoria Crawford situation posted by ira01 on the old Prosper.com board on 2/22/07...

That date cannot be correct.  I didn't join Prosper until mid-March 2007, and I don't think I posted on the forums before that.  More to the point, Prosper didn't even sue Victoria Crawford until March 21, 2007, according to your OP, and in the quote I say that it was a "few months ago."

Oops again.  The date was 08/22/2007
http://www.prosperreport.com/prosper/forums/archive/threads/2/9/9/29906.1.htm#post367240

[msava]

Just to clear my head. The only case Prosper seems to be successful at winning is where they are recouping the money from loans they bought back.

Shouldn't Prosper be spending that time collecting on some of the money in the +4 default files.

I really don't give a rats azz what Prosper collects or does in their own behalf. What are they doing for me?

[HollowOak]

Just to clear my head. The only case Prosper seems to be successful at winning is where they are recouping the money from loans they bought back.

Shouldn't Prosper be spending that time collecting on some of the money in the +4 default files.

I really don't give a rats azz what Prosper collects or does in their own behalf. What are they doing for me?

Playing Devil's Advocate here for a minute. Legally, Prosper has no obligation per the Lenders' Registration Agreement to sue borrowers on behalf of note holders (formerly known as Lenders). Check your LRA. Also, they are not beholden to you for the (non)-performance of the collection agencies. The only place where Prosper is in breach of its agreements with note holders is where they are failing to sell off the +4 month delinquent loans for pennies on the dollar. A case can even be made that they are contractually within their rights as far as their 100% buy-back on ID theft loans. After all, buy-back happens when Prosper determines that an ID fraud has occurred. If they don't so determine, then it has not occurred, per the ID Theft Guarantee.

When, now, after the fact, I look at the LRA, I realize how little is in there to really protect my rights.

It brings to mind the old story about the tax laws, "What, to the legislature, appears to be a brick wall, is, in fact, a triumph arch for a competent tax attorney." The LRA was never written to protect note holders, but to protect and limit Prosper's liability vis-à-vis note holders.

[ira01]

Just to clear my head. The only case Prosper seems to be successful at winning is where they are recouping the money from loans they bought back.

Shouldn't Prosper be spending that time collecting on some of the money in the +4 default files.

I really don't give a rats azz what Prosper collects or does in their own behalf. What are they doing for me?

Playing Devil's Advocate here for a minute. Legally, Prosper has no obligation per the Lenders' Registration Agreement to sue borrowers on behalf of note holders (formerly known as Lenders). Check your LRA. Also, they are not beholden to you for the (non)-performance of the collection agencies. The only place where Prosper is in breach of its agreements with note holders is where they are failing to sell off the +4 month delinquent loans for pennies on the dollar. A case can even be made that they are contractually within their rights as far as their 100% buy-back on ID theft loans. After all, buy-back happens when Prosper determines that an ID fraud has occurred. If they don't so determine, then it has not occurred, per the ID Theft Guarantee.

When, now, after the fact, I look at the LRA, I realize how little is in there to really protect my rights.

It brings to mind the old story about the tax laws, "What, to the legislature, appears to be a brick wall, is, in fact, a triumph arch for a competent tax attorney." The LRA was never written to protect note holders, but to protect and limit Prosper's liability vis-à-vis note holders.

Yes and no.  The LRA provides (and provided in stronger terms in past versions that apply to most of us) that Prosper has to act in various respects in a "commercially reasonable manner."  I have doubts as to whether they have.  Moreover, Prosper chose to undertake the NAT (regardless of whether they had an obligation to do so).  In so doing, I believe they incurred a duty to perform the NAT in a competent and dilligent manner, which I also doubt they have.  Furthermore, Prosper unilaterally chose to fire Penncro and replace them with AmSher, in contravention of the LRA.  I believe that may well make Prosper the guarantor of AmSher's performance (and liable if AmSher does worse than Penncro).  Moreover, every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  In most contexts (outside of insurance contracts) that doesn't add a whole lot to the mix, but it still imposes some limits on a contracting party's ability to screw the other party.   

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

01/16/2009 at 08:34 am in Department 47, Aurelio Munoz, Presiding
OSC RE Dismissal - Case Dismissed/Disposed