Double Lawsuit?

Quite frankly, if that happened to me I'd be real glad he did that if the second lawsuit was filed within a year after the date he got that first validation letter.

Why did he file the second lawuit? There could be several reasons. Maybe the court dismissed the first one for lack of prosecution. I'd check into that at the court house to see what happened. If it hasn't been dismissed then I might want to file a motion for summary judgment, or maybe motion to deem admitted or any one of several different things depending on what happened in that first case and it's current status. We can't answer your question until we know what happened and the only way to get that info is to go ask the clerk of the court, not us here.
What I can't figure out is why you sent interrogatories. That would be the last of the 5 possible discovery tools I would use if I were sued. I'd use them one at a time starting with demand for admissions.

Another thing I can't figure out is why you haven't filed a federal case against that lawyer long ago.

 

Dumb Bob would set both lawsuits next to each other and search for any differences. Subtle shifts such as a change from a contract case to an account stated might exist as the lawyer seeks to win even as he's learned from discovery that his original plan probably won't. There are often limits to how long either side can amend his complaint without permission of the court. By refiling, he could be trying to evade these limits without getting permission from the court. That doesn't seem fair.

Do you have enough time to do this? Read the rules. And admissions, of all the means of discovery, are at least sometimes seen as not really being the same kind of discovery as the others. Often they will be given later as knowledge from the other tools makes the right admissions more clear. (Obviously don't wait too long)

If you ask for admissions right away, the other side might simply deny them on the basis that they don't yet have enough information. Admissions are intended really to narrow the questions before trial. This way the court isn't wasting time listening to proofs about things that are not in controversy.

Often in ostensibly simple cases such as the sort often discussed around here, the process of discovery includes all means to be used served to the other side at once. Dumb Bob suspects that that is a cost savings device if nothing else.[/quote]

 

If you don't have enough time then ask the court for more time. Simple as that. You can do that when you file your discovery plan. The goal of the defendant's discovery plan has to be to get the plaintiff to make admissions that can be used against the plaintiff in court. The plaintiff is supposed to have all the documentation. Interrogatories are not for the purpose of asking questions you don't know the answer to. Asking whether or not the plaintiff has an agreement which he plans to present to the court is simply dumb. Demanding that he admit that he don't have any written agreement is far more productive (for instance). If he denies it then demand a copy thereof through demand for documentation. I believe that a defendant should never ask silly questions as so many seem to want to do. Interrogatories are seldom productive anyway.

Not if you make the demands for admissions in the right way. if you state your demands correctly the only answers possible is an objection, a denial or an admission.

Everything must be in controversy if the defendant hopes to get anywhere at all. If the defendant cannot create controversy he has zero chance of escaping a judgment

That's not the way I see it. I would want to stretch it out to the max possible.

I don't know of any defendants that are interested in cost savings devices that don't really benefit him/her. They are more likely to be concerned with winning if at all possible. In fact, if I were to be sued I would want to increase their costs to the max possible. After all, I'm not going to be paying them. They are. And yes, I am well aware that in most cases the lawyers think they can simply tack those costs on to the judgment but that isn't likely to happen. After all, they already stated what their attorney fees are going to be so making them lose money is the name of the game as far as I am concerned. I like outcomes such as one a few years ago where a man was sued for some $1800.00. When the trial was all over the plaintiff got a judgment for $80 and the lawyer got 10 percent of that as his fees after having spent several days in court trying to get the full judgment. They were lucky indeed that the defendant didn't take them both to federal court and make them pay dearly as he could have easily done.

 

Why not just motion the court to join the two complaints in the interests of saving costs or whatever excuse that might be appropriate?

What is your cause of action?

 

Did you appear and answer on the other one? Once you appear, they have to send you everything and you have to send them everything, at least that's how it is supposed to work. If you appeared on the first one, why wouldn't you on the next one? It could get old filing hundreds of lawsuits against you for the same alleged debt only to have you respond each time by appearing.[/quote]

Are you asking if filing two lawsuits on the same alleged debt at the same time is a violation of some consumer protection law?

 

I have a second lawsuit YEARS later--it was dismissed before--any advice? I have the same attorney but I am afraid he will f*** it up?

 

Sounds like you may have a SOL defense. What state are you in and when did you make your last payment to the original creditor