I recently discovered I have an ongoing case at the local court for a cc debt from 5 years ago. At the end of all the recent files for the case I came across this one that stated "Ruling on Motion to vacate/set aside dismissal taken under submission"
And under that, it says 'Ruling on Motion to Vacate/Set Aside Dismissal Taken Under Submission denied'. Can someone please explain to me what this means? I only heard of this case now, any was never served any summons to appear to court.
Apparently there was a lawsuit filed against you that the court probably dismissed for failure to prosecute (such as serving you with the summons and complaint, and then filing a proof of service of summons). Consequently, the court dismissed the case without prejudice.
Then I suspect that the plaintiff's attorney made a motion to the court to set aside the dismissal. The judge took the matter under submission, which meant that the judge needed additional time to study the motion and consider the oral arguments before rendering a decision. Ultimately, the judge decided not to set aside the dismissal, so the case remains dismissed.
If the credit card debt was from 5 years ago, the plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations from refiling a new lawsuit to collect the old debt. Good for you! No more worries.
2 found this helpful
Estate Planning Attorney
The answer above is correct. The docket entries indicate that the case was dismissed, and that the plaintiff sought to have the dismissal set aside or vacated. The judge denied the motion, so the case remains dismissed.
Whatever claim was asserted against you in that case is likely barred by the statute of limitations now.
Disclaimer: This general information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship.
Trademark Infringement Attorney
There must have been some lawsuit against you, and you likely were served via publication in a local paper. If you have not moved out of state in the last 5 years, then you might be able to challenge the service upon you in this manner. In any case, it looks like the Court entered a dismissal of the action, which the plaintiff sought to set aside, which has now been denied. All good news for you.