Pleadings and Discovery

Motion to compel Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (over loan modification review procedures) Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.D. Ill. June 13, 2012 WIGOD, Finlinson and Finlinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

This memorandum by Florida attorney Robert Murphy filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia requests that the case not be dismissed because of an arbitration requirement, but rather that the case be stayed pending arbitration by the American Arbitration Association, and that the court retain jurisdiction. The attorney was concerned that the defendant would not participate in the arbitration or that for other reasons the AAA would dismiss the case based on the defendant's conduct. In that case, the consumer seeks to be able to return to court to

This proposed order by Florida attorney Robert Murphy filed in 2023 in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia requests that the case be stayed pending arbitration by the American Arbitration Association, that the court retain jurisdiction in the case, and that the parties be required to participate in the arbitration. The attorney was concerned that the defendant would not participate in the arbitration or that for other reasons the AAA would dismiss the case based on the defendant's conduct.

This is a declaration by Florida attorney Robert Murphy filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia concerning various grounds he has witnessed the American Arbitration Association use to refuse to arbitrate a case based on a business's conduct: failing to pay filing fees, failing to register the arbitration agreement, using an arbitration agreement that does not meet the AAA's due process protocols, and the business's conduct in past AAA arbitrations.

This is an FDCPA case filed by M. Stan Herring of Watts and Herring in Birmingham, Alabama, alleging FDCPA violations under 15 USC 1692c(a)(1), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f , 1692f(1), based on abusive phone calls and threats made before 8:00 AM, false threats of garnishment without a court judgment, and engaging in numerous other misrepresentations. The complaint alleges the defendant's liability under respondeat superior and alter ego.  The verdict is for $1000 statutory damages and $210,000 compensatory damages.

This is an FDCPA second amended complaint filed by M. Stan Herring of Watts and Herring in Birmingham, Alabama, alleging FDCPA violations under 15 USC ss. 1692c(a)(1), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f , 1692f(1), based on abusive phone calls and threats made before 8:00 AM, false threats of garnishment without a court judgment, and engaging in numerous other misrepresentations. The complaint alleges the defendant's liability under respondeat superior and alter ego.