Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/122900194/Kurentiz-v-Stellar-Recovery-Inc-Rule-26-f-Report-FDCPA-Lawsuit
Timestamp: 2015-05-05 20:59:33
Document Index: 214575219

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

P. 1Kurentiz v Stellar Recovery Inc Rule 26(f) Report FDCPA LawsuitKurentiz v Stellar Recovery Inc Rule 26(f) Report FDCPA LawsuitRatings: (0)|Views: 16|Likes: 0Published by ghostgripMore info:Published by: ghostgrip on Jan 30, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/122900194/Kurentiz-v-Stellar-Recovery-Inc-Rule-26-f-Report-FDCPA-Lawsuit12/17/2013pdftextoriginal U
Civil No. 12-CV-00246 (PJS/JJK) Steven M. Kurentiz and Maryanne Kurenitz, Plaintiffs, v. Stellar Recovery, Inc., Defendants.
Rule 26(f) Report 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 1 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 2 of 7
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
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 3 of 7