Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/122900194/Kurentiz-v-Stellar-Recovery-Inc-Rule-26-f-Report-FDCPA-Lawsuit
Timestamp: 2017-07-24 20:50:14
Document Index: 561353785

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1692', '§ 325', '§ 1692', '§ 325', '§ 1692', '§ 1331', '§ 1367']

Kurentiz v Stellar Recovery Inc Rule 26(f) Report FDCPA Lawsuit | Discovery (Law) | Legal Procedure
Kurentiz v Stellar Recovery Inc Rule 26(f) Report FDCPA LawsuitUploaded by ghostgripRelated InterestsDiscovery (Law)Legal ProcedureCommon LawSeparation Of PowersPoliticsRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCASE 0:12-cv-00246-SRN-JSM Document 17 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 7UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 12-CV-00246 (PJS/JJK)
Steven M. Kurentiz and Maryanne Kurenitz, Plaintiffs, v. Stellar Recovery, Inc., Defendants. The parties/counsel identified below participated in the meeting required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), on April 24, 2012, and prepared the following report. The pretrial conference in this matter is scheduled for May 21, 2012, at 3:00 p.m., before United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes in Courtroom 6A, United States District Court, Warren E. Burger Federal Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. A. DESCRIPTION OF CASE 1. Concise Factual Summary of Plaintiff's Claims; Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant, Stellar Recovery, Inc., violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, (“FDCPA”), violated Minnesota’s Automatic Dialing-Announcing Device law, Minn. Stat. § 325E.27, and invaded Plaintiffs’ privacy by intruding on their seclusion when Defendant repeatedly made telephone calls to Plaintiffs’ home telephone in an attempt to collect a Debt that did not belong to Plaintiffs. Defendant used an “automatic dialing announcing device”
CASE 0:12-cv-00246-SRN-JSM Document 17 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 7
and pre-recorded voice in each telephone call made to Plaintiffs in violation of Minnesota law. 2. Concise Factual Summary of Defendant's claims/defenses; Defendant alleges that it did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, (“FDCPA”) or invade Plaintiffs’ privacy by intrusion upon seclusion because Defendant properly identified itself when it called Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs failed to notify Defendant that the account debtor did not reside at their residence, and Defendant reasonably believed that Plaintiffs failed to disclose correct and complete location information for the account debtor. Defendant
further alleges that it did not violate Minnesota’s Automatic Dialing-Announcing Device law, Minn. Stat. § 325E.27, because it received permission to call Plaintiffs’ phone number in an attempt to reach the debtor. Defendant further alleges that Plaintiff was not charged for Defendant’s calls, and that any violations alleged by Plaintiffs were the result of a bona fide error. 3. Statement of Jurisdiction (including statutory citations); Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, and supplemental jurisdiction exists for the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 4. Summary of Factual Stipulations or Agreements; None. 5. Statement of whether jury trial has been timely demanded by any party. The Plaintiffs demanded a jury trial in their Complaint.
CASE 0:12-cv-00246-SRN-JSM Document 17 Filed 05/07/12 Page 3 of 7
6. If the parties would like the case resolved under the Rules of Procedure for Expedited Trial of the United States District Court, District of Minnesota, a statement of the parties’ agreement. The Parties do not wish to have the case resolved under the Rules of Procedure for Expedited Trial of the United States District Court. B. DISCOVERY SCHEDULE/DEADLINES Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), the parties must prepare a discovery plan which is designed to maximize the efficiency of pretrial case preparation. The parties must review and address each of the matters set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f)(3)(A)-(F) and design a discovery plan which is appropriate for the circumstances of this case. The details of the discovery plan should be set forth in the Rule 26(f) Report. The following discovery schedule and limitations are intended to guide the parties and should be useful in the ordinary case. However, the parties are encouraged to reach agreement upon, and suggest to the Court, a discovery plan which takes into account the unique circumstances of the individual case. To the extent that the parties cannot reach agreement on any particular item about scheduling or discovery limitation, they should set forth their separate positions in the Rule 26(f) Report and this will be discussed at the Pretrial Conference: 1. All pre-discovery disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) shall be completed on or before May 8, 2012. 2. All motions which seek to amend the pleadings or to add parties must be filed and served on or before July 31, 2012, except motions to amend the
CASE 0:12-cv-00246-SRN-JSM Document 17 Filed 05/07/12 Page 4 of 7
pleadings to add a claim for punitive damages, which shall be filed and served in accordance with the deadline for non-dispositive motions. 3. Fact discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed on or before February 8, 2013. 4. No more than a total of 25 interrogatories, counted in accordance with Rule 33(a), shall be served by each side. No more than a reasonable number of document requests and requests for admissions shall be served by each side. 5. No more than six depositions, excluding expert witness depositions, shall be taken by each side. 6. Non-dispositive motions and supporting documents, including those with relate to fact discovery, shall be filed and served on or before February 15, 2013. 7. Each side may call up to two expert witnesses. Disclosure of the identity of expert witnesses under Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and the full disclosure required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), accompanied by the written report prepared and signed by the expert witness, shall be made as follows: a. Identities by Plaintiff on or before November 9, 2012. Reports by Plaintiff on or before December 7, 2012. b. Identities by Defendant on or before December 7, 2012. Reports by Defendant on or before January 11, 2013. 8. Each side may take one deposition per expert. Expert discovery, including depositions, shall be completed by February 15, 2013. All non-dispositive
CASE 0:12-cv-00246-SRN-JSM Document 17 Filed 05/07/12 Page 5 of 7
motions and supporting documents which relate to expert discovery shall be filed and served on or before March 8, 2013. 9. No more than one Rule 35 medical examinations shall be taken on or before February 15, 2013. C. PROTECTIVE ORDER If either party believes a Protective Order is necessary, the parties shall jointly submit a proposed Protective Order. The parties are encouraged, though not required, to use Form 6 to the Local Rules as a template for the proposed Protective Order, they shall present with this report any issues of disagreement. The Court shall endeavor to resolve any issues relating to the Protective Order in connection with the pretrial conference. D. INSURANCE CARRIERS/INDEMNITORS List all insurance carriers/indemnitors, including limits of coverage of each defendant or statement that the defendant is self-insure. Federal Insurance Company $1,000,000.00 limit of coverage for acts before August 31, 2011 $3,000,000.00 limit of coverage for acts after August 31, 2011 E. DISPOSITIVE MOTION SCHEDULE The parties recommend that dispositive motions be filed and served on or before April 26, 2013. For those cases assigned to Judges Magnuson, Kyle and Schlitz, this dispositive motion deadline will be for the filing, serving and hearing of the motion. F. TRIAL-READY DATE
CASE 0:12-cv-00246-SRN-JSM Document 17 Filed 05/07/12 Page 6 of 7
The parties agree that the case will be ready for (search bench or jury) trial on or after June 1, 2013; the expected length of trial is three days. G. SETTLEMENT 1. The parties will discuss settlement before May 21, 2012, the date of the initial pretrial conference, by the plaintiff making a written demand for settlement and each defendant making a written response/offer to the plaintiff’s demand. 2. The parties believe that a settlement conference is appropriate and should be scheduled to be held by the Court before: The parties will contact the Magistrate when they believe that a settlement conference with be productive toward settlement. 3. The parties have discussed whether alternative dispute resolution (ADR) will be helpful to the resolution of this case and recommend the following to the Court: The parties do not believe that at this time that ADR will be helpful. H. TRIAL BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE The parties have not agreed to consent to jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(c). (If the parties agree, the consent should be filed with the Clerk of Court.)
HEANEY LAW FIRM, LLC Dated: May 7, 2012 s/ Mark L. Heaney Mark L. Heaney (Atty. No. 333219) 13911 Ridgedale Drive, Suite 110 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305
CASE 0:12-cv-00246-SRN-JSM Document 17 Filed 05/07/12 Page 7 of 7
(952) 933-9655 (952) 544-1308 mark@heaneylaw.com
/s/ Benjamin N. Hutnick Benjamin N. Hutnick (KS Atty. No. 23666) Berman & Rabin, P.A. 15280 Metcalf Overland Park, KS 66223 P: (913) 649-1555 F: (913) 652-9474 bhutnick@bermanrabin.com Attorney for Defendant
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Kurentiz v Stellar Recovery Inc Rule 26(f) Report FDCPA LawsuitSkip carousel3:12-cv-30051 #123Thornton v. City of Kirkwood - Document No. 11130What of Mine is Yours, by John D. Rowell & Mary M. BennettMurray v Geithner 1 11SEC v. Williams Et Al Doc 28 Filed 27 Feb 12'HearingTranscript-Foreclosure - MiamiDadeDigital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc., - Document No. 38RuleDead Guy OrderWAKA LLC v. DCKICKBALL et al - Document No. 30United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. King Soopers, Inc. - Document No. 4Stephens v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. - Document No. 3Lederman v. Analex Corporation et al - Document No. 3Rules for Louisiana District Courts and Juvenile Courts and Numbering System for Louisiana Family Court Proceedings Effective 01 January 2012Altamaha Riverkeeper/Coastkeeper v. Gas Trak, Inc et al - Document No. 4Smart v. CSX Transportation Inc., et al - Document No. 2Acosta vs Honeywell,etal - Document No. 2Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al - Document No. 1263Pan American Grain v. Puerto Rico Ports, 295 F.3d 108, 1st Cir. (2002)Phillips v. 180Solutions, Inc. et al - Document No. 6Joanne Siegel et al v. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc et al - Document No. 280Hofer et al v. Old Navy Inc. et al - Document No. 40Motion to Compel Truthful Answers to Discovery by Former WifeAbell v. Babbitt, 10th Cir. (1999)14-anon-dataMoto v TiVo v TWCAdams et al -v- Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., etal - Document No. 2Webb v. G.D. Searle, LLC et al - Document No. 3Aellig et al v. G.D. Searle, LLC et al - Document No. 2Documents About Discovery (Law)Skip carouselK-Beech - Order &amp; Report &amp; Recommendation (Ordered 5-1-12)RP 2013 3010-19-16 Corgan Motion to Compel & Memo in Support OCR06-30-2014 Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary InjunctionKEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA - 90 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration - Gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.90.0"Bachelor" TV producers vs. "Reality Steve" LawsuitUnsealing Memo CosbyBundy wants govt to ID informantsFarrellJameswoods Doe OppoKEYES v OBAMA - 57 - ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FOR 10/5/2009 at 8:30 AMJudicial Watch v Dept of State Cosby UnsealJustice Department Reply brief 7.29.16Tracy Martin and Alicia Stanley DivorceArthur J. Usher Disciplinary OpinionBundy Report Jail Conditions02-19-2016 ECF 182 U.S.A. v A. BUNDY et al - Joint Status Report Filed by Ryan PayneTWIA lawsuit - 6th Amended PetitionBoa Answer to Freddie Objection in Re Taylor Bean &amp; Whitaker Mortgage Corp.Birthday EvidenceCourt Order Denying Motion Re iPhone 5 iPad 3In ReAE 17 Prosecution response to Defense request to file Ex Parte Supplement.pdfMontgomery v Risen #259 | P Opp to D Motion for PO Re BurgyanECF 28 RedactedPatricia Waldron, as of the Last Will and Testament of Gerald B. Waldron, Deceased v. Cities Service Co., 361 F.2d 671, 2d Cir. (1966)In ReCREW v. EOP2:12-cv-00578 #39More From ghostgripSkip carouselUrspringer v Pizza Luce ADA Discrimination ComplaintUnilever Hellman's Survey Questions - Hampton CreekMitchell v Chase Receivables Inc FDCPA Complaint Debt CollectorNicolai v NCO Financial Systems Inc Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Erstad RiemerPresqriber LLC v Practice Fusion Inc Motion to DismissPresqriber v Practice Fusion Patent ComplaintPresqriber v Practice Fusion Motion to DismissPratt v NCO Financial Systems FDCPA Complaint MinnesotaReflections of a Career Prosecutor James BackstromMinneapolis Police Officers Federation Contract 2012Scheffler v NCO Financial Systems Inc FDCPA ComplaintConopco Unilever Hellman's v Hampton Creek Just Mayo ComplaintChase Receivables Chase Payment CenterDeclaration of Michael J Wood Chase ReceivablesBien v Stellar Recovery Inc Complaint Caller ID SpoofingChase Receivables Collection Agency NoticeAcosta v Credit Bureau of Napa County Chase ReceivablesHellmans v Just Mayo - Declaration of Michael MazisDeclaration of Ryu Yokoi Hellman's - Unilever v Hampton Creek Just MayoDobson Chase Receivables Robert ArleoDiabate v University of Minnesota ComplaintJay Clifton Kolls DPPA ExhibitsKSTP Jay Kolls Profile PointergateJay Clifton Kolls v City of Edina Withdrawal of CounselMotion for Class Certification Acosta v Credit Bureau of Napa CountyMitchell v Chase Receivables Inc FDCPAGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Amended Appendix ECF 17-2 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald MinnesotaGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Amended Complaint ECF 17 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald MinnesotaGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Apr 3 Letter ECF 43 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald MinnesotaGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Order ECF 44 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald Minnesota