Consumer complaint received 2021-11-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit
Company: Rausch Sturm LLP
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
I am in the process of mailing a notice including this relevant information to Rausch Sturm LLP, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX. 

As a summary, the debt collection company is not following debt collection practices in the area of suing me, sending me the wrong information and notices of intent to apply for default judgment when they are disregarding three key Minnesota Court Rules : Minnesota Court Rule 5.02 ( c ) ; Minnesota Court Rule 355.02 Subdivision 2 ; and Minnesota Court Rule 5.04 ( b ) 2020 Amendments.

" This message is to inform you ( any practicing lawyer at that you are not following Minnesota Court Rule 5.02 ( c ). Effective Date Of Service; and Minnesota Court Rule 355.02 Subdivision 2. Service By US Mail. These rules state that service by US Mail, which is how you were served, is completed upon mailing. I have provided copies of my certified delivery receipts and tracking numbers and delivery notifications when entered into the United States Postal Service website, indicating both the date of mailing, XX/XX/XXXX, and the tracking numbers indicate receipt upon XX/XX/XXXX. Your message, also included, states your affidavit was served on XX/XX/XXXX. The mailing date is, therefore, within acceptable delivery timeframe pursuant to your Summons and Complaint. I have enclosed a relevant information page of your request for discovery rules, dated XX/XX/XXXX as proof of your receipt of my Answer as well. USPS Tracking Numbers XXXX and XXXX. 

You have not complied with Minnesota Court Rule 5.04 ( b ) 2020 Amendments to provide a separate affidavit of service of your Notice Of Intent To Apply For Default Judgment. Failure to send an affidavit in a separate delivery violates this amendment as : Rule 5.04 ( b ) is amended to expressly require that proof of service be provided either by : ( 1 )... or ( 2 ) by filing a separate certificate of service. The amended rule specifies that a certificate of service must be signed under oath or penalty of perjury by the person effecting service. The certificate must also establish the specific time and manner of services, as this information is often required to determine the deadline for response. As this was not properly provided in a separate envelope or other separate mailing package that does not include the form it describes, your Notice Of Intent To Apply For Default Judgment is not valid for your stamped date of XX/XX/XXXX and will not stand contest or appeal in court unless you can supply documentation of a separately mailed Affidavit of Service, typically via certified mail receipt ( s ). 

As I have complied with Minnesota Court Rule 5.02 ( c ) and Minnesota Court Rule 355.02 Subdivision 2, the included copy of relevant information from your message noting the intent of obtaining a default judgment, dated XX/XX/XXXX, is false. ''

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation