Comments – Resident47 – FDCPA


Hi all,

I am not convinced that I get all of the comments that you have been posting. If you post a comment and it does not show up after a day or so, please email me –

As you know, I just updated the website and there are some consequences. The dates on older post are not correct. That wouldn’t seem like it matters, but the blog displays then in chronological order.

As for the post, I have never rejected a post that wasn’t spam. I am sure there are post I would reject. I won’t approve anything racist. I won’t approve anything that has no value. You get the picture.

Here is a comment I was emailed:

So your CR video #11 a couple months ago suddenly became relevant to me two weeks ago. I have a new active FDCPA defendant which removed to Federal as expected, and then promptly filed an Answer which denies practically every sentence I wrote. That was also not a big surprise, but they responded line by line, I half think just to be annoying. My complaint has almost a hundred numbered paragraphs, making reading their Answer a repetitive chore.

Anyway, I last fought a FDCPA paper battle for eight months and won handsomely through a Judgment offer. The opposition tried to wear me down with a new pleading or dismissal motion every other week. Brinksmanship on paper I can handle. The pretrial conference is new to me. I’ve never been past the clerk’s desk at my federal courthouse. If you have any time I’d appreciate some defogging of what’s ahead.

I can read the court rules and instructions well enough, but my nerves twitch over untested ground. There are 784 stupid ways to do something for every 3 smart ways, give or take. I don’t want to be the stupid guy, shamed and rebuked as yet another pro se ninny.

I comprehend that I don’t yet have to react to all of the often absurd denials in the Answer, but those things are begging for rebuttal. Per local court rules I’m expected to submit a statement next week “summarizing the facts of the case” and “identifying legal issues”. So is that the time, without trying to prove my whole case, to fire off some barbs and/or establish that I have serious problems with the opposing positions?

Oh yeah, and I got the defense classics, bona fide error and failure to state. Also, the violations I assert were all my fault due to my own “omissions”. Cue the huge question mark graphic over my head.

Then days later came the cute letter tapping a finger on the court rules and twice stressing that we’re meant to discuss potential settlement. Of course, no offer was made yet. I don’t know about you, but I never like haggling until I’m in a position of strength. I also never toss numbers, since what I want to make me happy is already on the complaint’s final page. So … what are the Smart Things one could do to regain a sense of high ground before the conference?

/\  Resident47  \/

 Thanks for the comment Resident. A well written answer always just denies everything. It is almost shocking the first couple of times you see it. I hate to admit this and probably shouldn’t, but I don’t even read the answer in detail right away if I don’t need to. Just skim over it and put it in the case file in my office. At the federal court in Colorado, we don’t file a summary after the Answer. The next step is the scheduling conference or the defendants may file a Motion for Summary Judgement. Again, these activities seem to be cookie cutter activities to the defense attorneys.

I have never been to a pre-trial conference. I have been close on numerous occasions. I believe that is when the defending lawyers think all Pro Se litigants will fold. In my experience, it is a game of chicken. The closer you get the more nervous both parties get. If you do go to the conference, I would love to hear about it. The more we learn as a Pro Se group, the stronger and more formidable we all are.

Another idea is to check your court’s docket and go to a pre-trial conference of a different case. Learn from them.

Sorry I am not able to give you insight into the pre-trial conference. When I haven’t done something, I feel morally obligated to let you know.

Perhaps you should send the defense an offer of settlement that is the amount in your complaint. I don’t think you want the judge to slap you for not following the Rules if the Rules state you must attempt to settle.

Let us know what happens.

Thanks for fighting the essential fight, Boiler

One comment
  1. Whenever I comb through older cases for research I’m frustrated that the majority fizzle out early with a dismissal, often just ahead of pretrial. I’ve assumed either the complaints were all garbage or the parties keep cutting fast deals. It’s difficult to learn how to plead well and endure with such a dearth of examples.

    Since last time here I’ve read that pretrials are fairly perfunctory. I’ll have a long drive for a short meeting which merely establishes that one of the parties can’t be bought cheaply and then sets boundaries on discovery. I had the same idea of observing one, but here the posted fed judge calendars cover only the next weekday, making it pretty hard to plan ahead.

    I agree and have read elsewhere that the corpo lawyers want us to get lumpy throats and choke on the process before we ever get our claims properly heard. The more cynical view is that federal judges hope for the same thing, from a belief that FDCPA claims are low-wattage time wasters — never mind how violators contribute to the erosion of family stability and local economies. What the opposition finds is that I rebut every dismissal motion and every hostile movement with loving care, as opposed to their own pleadings which look pre-programmed and pasted up by paralegals.

    As to a settlement mandate, it’s more a suggestion. We’re merely expected to float the possibility, which has already happened. A good horse trader doesn’t start haggling at his best price and neither do I.

    Since my last go-round I’ve become a believer in the tenet that “the first one to blink loses”. Whenever I wasn’t sure what to do about some maneuver from defendants, and court rules did not require me to act or do what they wanted, I simply kept quiet. By accident it worked remarkably well. I think that’s the same strategy used on standardized testing in school, the ones which penalize for wrong answers but do nothing when questions are unanswered. Actually, the pressure of silence is something taught to sales people and others needing to negotiate matters.

Add Comment

Required fields are marked *. Your email address will not be published.