Valadez v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C.

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2019-cv-00295


Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR ICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVIS ION Lara Valadez § § Plaintiff § Civil Action No.: § 5:19-cv-0295-XR § v § § § § Portfolio Recovery Associates, § § LLC § Defendant Joint Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Report ____________________ 1. Are there any outstanding jurisdictional issues? None. 2. Are there any unserved parties? None. 3. What are the causes of action, defenses, and counterclaims in this case? What are the elements of the causes of action, defenses and counterclaims plead? Plaintiff has plead one cause of action: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: i. Plaintiff is a consumer; ii. The debt in question is a consumer debt; iii. The Defendant is a debt collector; and iv. The Defendant violated the FDCPA in any of a number of ways. Primaril y by representing that it is not obligated to accept payment in full of a debt. Defenses: PRA denies that it committed any violation of the FDCPA as alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint. Specificall y, PRA asserts that Plaintiff's reading of the letter is the t ype of bizarre and idiosyncratic interpretation that should be avoided in FDCPA matters. Gonzalez v. Kay 577 F.3d 600, 609 (5th Cir. 2009) . 4. Are there any agreements or stipulations that can be made about the facts in this case or any elements in the causes of action? Not at this time. 5. State the parties views and proposals on all items identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3). A) The parties do n ot anticipate any changes in the timing, form, or requirements for initial disclosures. B) Plaintiff anticipates discovery will be needed to prove the elements of his case. PRA anticipates discovery will be needed regarding the knowledge of Plaintiff's claims and damages. Both parties believe that the proposed scheduling order provides adequate time to conduct discovery. Neither part y sees the need to conduct discovery in phases. C) The parties not anticipate the need for a separate protocol to govern the disclosure or discovery of ES I. Both parties agree to produce written discovery in PDF format. D) The parties agree that the protective order available from the Western District of Texas' website will be used should either part y require it. E) The parties do not anticipate any changes from the limitations on discovery imposed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or by the Local Rules of this Court. F) None. 6. What if any discovery has been completed? What discovery remains to be done? Have the parties considered conducting discovery in phases? Discovery has not yet commenced. The parties do not see th e need to conduct discovery in phases. 7. What, if any, discovery disputes exist? None at this time. 8. Have the parties discussed the desirability of filing a proposed order pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502? Not at this time. 9. Have the parties disc ussed mediation? While mediation has not been formall y discuss ed, Plaintiff is in favor of meditation. PRA is unsure as to whether mediation will be beneficial at this stage given that PRA has already served a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment on Plaintiff. Dated: June 27, 2019 Respectfull y Submitted, /s/William M. Clanton William M. Clanton Texas Bar No. 24049436 Law Office of Bill Clanton, P.C. 926 Chulie Dr. San Antonio, Texas 78216 210 226 0800 210 338 8660 fax MALONE FROST MARTIN PLLC /s/ Cooper Walker ROBBIE MALONE State Bar No. 12876450 Email: EUGENE XERXES MARTIN, IV State Bar No. 24078928 Email: COOPER M. WALKER State Bar No. 24098567 Email: MALONE FROST MARTIN PLLC NorthPark Central, Suite 1850 8750 North Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75231 P: (214) 346-2630 | F: (214) 346-2631 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT