Select Page

We all agreed to a settlement conference with a magistrate judge at the 2nd case management hearing.   So last Thursday attorney David Kaminski with Carlson & Messer LLP in LA called me to inform me that they wanted to appear by telephone.   My first reaction was that I sure don’t need to drive to Phoenix if they won’t go.

We talked for a while, attorney Kaminski was not at all familiar with the case, he really had no clue whatsoever about my FCRA claims and I tried to explain a few things to him.  And I agreed to a joint motion for all parties to appear by telephone.

When I checked my email after we got off the phone, they had already filed their motion and after I read it, I realized that I have to attend the settlement conference in person.   From their motion:

… Midland denies Plaintiff’s allegations. Midland reported accurate information regarding Plaintiff’s debt. As such, Midland is not liable to Plaintiff for damages under the FCRA.

What a bunch of MORONS!

It has LONG been established that Midland and MCM reported FALSE information to the credit bureaus and just a few weeks ago they VERIFIED the false information with Equifax according to the Equifax investigation results.

The million dollar question:

Why on earth would they agree to the settlement conference if they are not liable?  After all, Midland and MCM have been litigating against me for years and they never once made any settlement offer whatsoever.

WHY did they agree to the settlement conference?

From their motion:

Midland respectfully contends that the costs of a personal appearance by its settlement representative and its counsel at the MSC are significant and thereby not conducive to settlement negotiations. Furthermore, the MSC will not be hindered if Midland’s settlement representative attends by telephone because Midland can still meaningfully participate telephonically and has done so in MSCs in the past. …

Due to the claims in their motion and attorney Kaminski’s lies during our phone conversations (he claimed that they had agreed to my requests for extensions which is completely false), I decided to attend the settlement conference in person.  If I’m on the phone, I won’t have a chance to properly respond to their lies.

I’ve attended settlement conferences before and I found magistrate judges to be quite competent and settlements are much more likely if the parties appear in person.  One time the conference lasted over 7 hours, but we did settle.

So here is my email to attorney Tamar Gabriel who emailed the joint request for telephonic appearance on Friday:

June 15, 2014

Dear Ms. Gabriel,

I will be attending the settlement conference in person as I had originally planned.

I am quite unhappy with the motion for telephonic appearance filed last Thursday and Mr. Kaminski made several false statements to me during our telephone call on Thursday.

It is outrageous to claim that my requests for extensions were agreed to by Midland & MCM when in fact my requests were usually opposed or ignored.  It is outrageous to claim that having to work 12-hour days was not a good reason for an extension.   And the icing on the cake is the Notice of Non Opposition to the Midland & MCM Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, claiming that I had failed to timely oppose the motion when I still had 2 days to respond.

If Midland & MCM want to engage in telephonic settlement talks, we can certainly do that prior to July 7.  However, continued lies and insults are not likely to lead to a settlement.

The fact that I filed this lawsuit over false claims and false credit reporting should be a clue.  If you and your fellow attorneys refrain from insulting and offending me, we can get this case settled before July 7.


Christine Baker

Quite frankly, I might as well take this to the jury.   I expect to get substantial punitive damages since I’ve had to litigate against Midland since 2012 and I have REPEATEDLY advised them of the false credit reporting in proposed amended counter claims and other filings when they sued me for a time barred debt.  Because the judge did not allow me to amend my counter claims, I filed a new lawsuit against Midland & MCM a year ago.

They couldn’t possibly care less about their false credit reporting and even had the nerve to verify false information with Equifax.

How will the jury feel about this?

Since Acarta finally decided to dismiss its claim against me at a status conference and I accepted their offer of judgment regarding my counter claim, I’ll finally have a little more time to deal with Midland and MCM.

I’ll be uploading many of the filings in the justice court case as well as this case in the next couple of weeks as I  prepare for the settlement conference and then partial motion for summary judgment as soon as Equifax provides me with its initial disclosure (the MCM verification of false data.)