From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III, L.P.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Sep 29, 2006
Civil Action No. 1:05CV938-VPM [WO] (M.D. Ala. Sep. 29, 2006)

Summary

In Thompson v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III, L.P., 2007 WL 1625926, *2 (M.D.Ala.), the court held that the defendant's failure to move to set aside the underlying state court default judgment after a summary judgment ruling that the underlying state court action violated the FDCPA because it was time-barred constituted an additional FDCPA violation.

Summary of this case from McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenberg Lauinger

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:05CV938-VPM [WO].

September 29, 2006


ORDER


For good cause, it is

ORDERED that this case be placed on the 26 March 2007 trial term in Dothan, Alabama with jury selection and trial scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. It is further

The Magistrate Judges are assigned two 2007 trial terms in Dothan — 26 March 2007 and 1 October 2007. This court is not inclined to schedule this case for the October, 2007 term.

ORDERED that the pretrial conference be held on 23 February 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5A, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, Montgomery, Alabama. It is further

ORDERED that the following sections of this court's Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. #20) entered on 21 March 2006 is AMENDED as follows:

SECTION 10. On or before 12 March 2007, the parties shall, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, identify any part of a deposition or other document that a party expects to use at trial. Adverse parties shall within ONE WEEK THEREAFTER identify any responsive parts of depositions expected to be used, and a party shall within THREE DAYS of the designation of such responsive parts designate any part which is desired as a rebuttal thereto. Unless specifically agreed between the parties or allowed by the Court for good cause shown, the parties shall be precluded from using any part of a deposition or other document not so listed, with the exception of parts of depositions or documents to be used solely for the purpose of impeachment. Except to the extent written objections are served and filed on or before 19 March 2007, each party shall be deemed to have agreed that one of the conditions for admissibility under Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is satisfied with respect to any such deposition and that there is no objection to the testimony so designated.
SECTION 11. On or before 12 March 2007, the parties shall, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, furnish opposing counsel for copying and inspection all exhibits or tangible evidence to be used at the trial, and proffering counsel shall have such evidence marked for identification prior to trial. Unless specifically agreed between the parties or allowed by the Court for good cause shown, the parties shall be precluded from offering such evidence not so furnished and identified, with the exception of evidence to be used solely for the purpose of impeachment. Except to the extent written objections are served and filed no later than 19 March 2007, the evidence shall be deemed genuine and admissible in evidence. The written objections shall set forth the grounds and legal authorities. All trial exhibits must be premarked prior to trial.


Summaries of

Thompson v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III, L.P.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Sep 29, 2006
Civil Action No. 1:05CV938-VPM [WO] (M.D. Ala. Sep. 29, 2006)

In Thompson v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III, L.P., 2007 WL 1625926, *2 (M.D.Ala.), the court held that the defendant's failure to move to set aside the underlying state court default judgment after a summary judgment ruling that the underlying state court action violated the FDCPA because it was time-barred constituted an additional FDCPA violation.

Summary of this case from McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenberg Lauinger

In Thompson, the Court noted that the bona fide error defense is not available where there is actual notice of an FDCPA violation and the FDCPA violation continues.

Summary of this case from McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenberg Lauinger

In Thompson, the Court noted that the bona fide error defense is not available where there is actual notice of an FDCPA violation and the FDCPA violation continues.

Summary of this case from McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenberg Lauinger

In Thompson, the court held that the defendant's failure to move to set aside the underlying state court default judgment after a summary judgment ruling that the underlying state court action violated the FDCPA because it was time-barred constituted an additional FDCPA violation. Thompson at *2.

Summary of this case from McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenberg Lauinger
Case details for

Thompson v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III, L.P.

Case Details

Full title:ALBERT THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. D.A.N. JOINT VENTURE III, L.P., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Date published: Sep 29, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:05CV938-VPM [WO] (M.D. Ala. Sep. 29, 2006)

Citing Cases

McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenberg Lauinger

See Martinez v. Albuquerque Collection Services, 867 F.Supp. 1495, 1506 (D.N.M. 1994) ("A collection agency's…

McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenberg Lauinger

See also Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F.Supp. 1480, 1487 (M.D.Ala. 1987). In Thompson v. D.A.N.…