JAM- QUICK help PLEASE!

I have a "answer" from a CA that I'm suing. I'm suing them for violations: 808(5), 809(a)(3,4,5), 807(11), 807(8) and 623(a)(3).

The CA had caused me to incur cell phone and toll call charges to unidentified numbers, didn't disclose in the phone recording nor in verbal phone conversation that they were a deb collector or hat info gathered yada yada.... and they didn't report the account as in dispute to the CRAs.
\
This was the incident where you advised me to have the verbatum conversation notarized. (I did).

Here is their response to my TIMELY filing and appropriate administrative procedures prior to filing the suit. I even sent them a copy of the notarized transcript.

1. That I fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

2. That all or part of the complaint is barred by SOL.
(it's not past sol)

3. That all or part is barred by doctrines of equitable estoppel

4. that I assumed the risk of damages.

5. that I failed to mitigate my alleged damages

ANY response or insight you can give would be GREATLY appreciated.

 

I agree with you pd and Jam, I have to read carefully over your reply and digest it. But I wanted to thank you AND tell you what happened today so far.

Now as I do that, I want to pick your non-atty, non-actor brain. on one other issue.

At a pre-trial conference today (I had 3 of them back to back - same judge) here is what happened with one of the CAs.

He is a CA/ATTY. I'm suing his firm (well HIM actually) on continuing collection practices and threatening me with legal action.

Short version, I sent dv to both CA & OC. (OC never billed my med. insur.)

OC never responded. CA sent me 2nd letter threatening to sue me. I sent 2nd letter to CA informing them of billing issue, asked for proof of insur. billing (my insurer already said they never rec'd it) and told the CA that they were in violation and made demand for damages. Gave them 7 days.

Also contacted OC and informed them of insur. issue, they claimed never rec'd 1st notice. I faxed and mailed them proof & they said they would pull it.

Mean time, CA never responds so I file. Day after I file, in the mail from the CA is a copy of the "bill" from the OC. CA says they sent it once before I never rec'd it. Copy of bill is dated AFTER when the CA says he sent it.

Now for the issue:
I say CA violated because they didn't provide validation. CA says they didn't because they don't have to "validate", just "verify" the debt. AND that by sending a copy of the "bill" to me, it "verifies" as required by the law. CA says they don't "validate" until they get to court if they sue me. But until then, they only have to "verify".

Regardless of verify vs validate (although I do need to clarify that issue too), they didn't do anything until AFTER I filed.

Now - one other short note: CA/ATTY asked me in front of judge if I had rec'd the "verification" in time, would that have satisfied. Judge wanted me to answer. I said "no". Just because they have a "bill" with my name, doesn't mean it's mine - and until they prove that it's mine, they have to cease collection.

More of your wisdom is again GREATLY appreciated. I'll write more tomorrow.

Thanks!!!!!!!!