Complaint #1581828 submitted on 09/26/2015 relating to Javitch, Block & Rathbone LLC. Complaint relates to Debt collection Credit card - False statements or representation Indicated shouldn't respond to lawsuit.
Complaint was submitted via Web and sent to the company on Saturday 26th September 2015.
What the Defendant as surmised of this case and the way it was mishandled is as follows : Plaintiff and XXXX XXXX acquired Defendants XXXX mailing address from credit card report, XXXX, without prior permission and tried to use it as evidence of Defendants residency.
Defendant received a summons addressed to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX to appear in this Court on XXXX XXXX, 2014. Defendant answers the summons on XXXX XXXX, 2014 that stated he resides in the State of XXXX, and would be unable to attend the hearing, due to employment obligations.
Defendant receives another summons addressed to the XXXX address to appear in Court on XXXX XXXX, 2014 at the request of Plaintiff, without giving an option to XXXX 's circumstances.
Plaintiff supplied numerous XXXX XXXX Statements and a copy of the Contract prior to XXXX XXXX, 2014, to the Defendant and the Court for viewing as evidence.
Defendant discovered that the documents had been altered to show the appearance that the Defendant had been receiving these statements in XXXX.
Defendant has never received any Bank statement documents from XXXX Bank at a XXXX address.
Defendant has supplied the Court with factual evidence to proof his XXXX residency. To prove that the Plaintiff has filed in the wrong judicial jurisdiction, and case must be dismissed.
Defendant on XXXX XXXX, 2014 notified the Court and the Plaintiff that the Defendant would not be able to appear on the XXXX XXXX date, due to his XXXX employment obligations. The filing returned address was my XXXX.
Well the case was heard on XXXX XXXX, 2014, without the presence of the Defendant. The Plaintiff had prepared an Order Judgment document for the Judge to sign at the hearing, and through some persuasion his wishes were granted. Along knowing that he had won the case without having to argue against a Defendant objection.
WHY WAS THIS CASE HEARD, without giving consideration to a Defendant rights to present some defense. When everyone knew the Defendant was not going to be present.
What type of " Dog and Pony '' show was this hearing?
Defendant has submitted several requests to have this Case Vacated, based on the facts ; that ALL the evidence brought to this Court by the Plaintiff and client XXXX XXXX Bank is false.
This was just a clever, disrespectful and unlawful attempt to try and show that the Defendant resides in XXXXThe Defendant after receiving the shocking notice of Summary Judgment several months later as it was sent to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and then forwarded to Defendants legal residency address in XXXX.
Defendant filed a Dismissal request with the Court and the Plaintiff in XXXX 2014 with a return address receipt showing his XXXX address.
IF the Defendant is to be held contractually obligated with the XXXX XXXX Card Contract and all its contents that the Plaintiff presented to the Court as evidence. If So ; then the whole contract has to be recognized, not just bits and pieces.
The Plaintiff should be obligated to follow the Contract agreement under " Arbitration and Hearings '' and propose a means of arbitration and possible mutual settlement.
At no time during these proceedings has Arbitration been presented to the Defendant by the Plaintiff or its client XXXX XXXX. Violation of XXXX XXXX 's contract with Defendant.
Plaintiff should consider their decision for Dismissal as they did in Case XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, when it became perfectly clear that I was not a XXXX resident, and you were filing in the wrong jurisdiction.
Defendant is returning to XXXX residence.
Older American
| Company | Javitch, Block & Rathbone LLC |
| Complaint ID | 1581828 |
| Date Received | 09/26/2015 |
| Product | Debt collection Credit card |
| Issue | False statements or representation Indicated shouldn't respond to lawsuit |
| State/ZIP Code | CA 926XX |
| Consumer Consent | Consent provided |
| Company Public Response | Company chooses not to provide a public response |
| Company Response To Customer | Closed with explanation |
| Submitted | Web 09/26/2015 |
| Result | Timely Response: Yes, Consumer Disputed: Yes |
Leave your comments and feedback below.