Legal Question in Credit and Debt Law in Georgia

First of all let me stress that attempting to defend a debt case without a lawyer is almost always a disaster. However you deserve credit if you defeated a MSJ, although that's nowhere near as easy as winning at trial. Having said that, judges set up ADR, and a really great way to lose points with the judge is to be seen as attacking their pet project (and their key tool to keep their trial dockets short).

If you had a lawyer, you'd know that ADR is an important part of trial prep (and it may even avoid trial). If you really have strong arguments, you get a chance face to face to advance them and might actually leave with a result you can live with. And if you don't succed at ADR, you'll know more about Plaintiff's positions if you do ADR mediation right (although again without counsel you are at a disadvantage.

Debt cases tend to be mostly issues of fact and not mostly of law (likely why you won the MSJ) so I'd be surprised that unless the plaintiff also wants to skip ADR that you'd get a good reception to a request.

I generally would agree with Attorney Ashman but note the following:

From your post it suggests that you want to be exempted from ADR upon beating a MSJ thereby suggesting that you really have not won the MSJ yet. Nor could a summary judgment have occurred because you assert that discovery is still ongoing. Summary judgment is only granted after discovery is completed. A summary judgment motion asks the court to consider entering judgment because the material (relevant key) facts are not in dispute; on a motion for summary judgment, the court considers the pleadings (complaint and answer and any reply), as well as all discovery (depositions, interrogatories, documents introduced in response to a discovery request and requests for admissions).

While you have posted in the credit/deb/collections area, you post no facts about your case at all. So I don't know if this is really a debt case or about something else.

If it is a debt collection case, then the only questions are: (1) is the lawsuit timely (i.e., have less than 6 years passed from the time of your last payment on the debt to the time suit was filed); (2) is this your debt or a debt you are financially responsible for; (3) did the creditor or any assigned junk debt buyer prove that they have a right to sue on the debt? If the answers to all the questions are yes based on the undisputed facts, there ain't gonna be any ADR or trial and the creditor is going to win on summary judgment.

The answers to the above imply questions of fact not law. Questions of law could involve the interpretation of a particular statute or an insurance policy or contract. Questions of law are decided by a judge, not a jury. Things like credibility of witnesses or disputed issues in a case (like whether a light was red or green when a car entered an intersection and was involved in a collision) are questions of fact. Good cause is not defined - but its like pornography (you know it when you see it). Good cause basically means a really good excuse or reason why. You wanting to get to a jury trial is not good cause.

If there is a disputed question of fact, then the creditor would not be entitled to summary judgment and there would be a trial. ADR is designed to avoid trials by getting the parties to resolve their differences. Trial in most cases is a crapshoot - nobody really knows what a jury would do if they heard the case. Most non-debt cases (like medical malpractice or auto accidents) involve very technical fact-based questions and there is usually enough evidence on both sides to make a judgment for either side questionable. ADR works in those situations to resolve things quicker and with less expense. It can take years for a case to get trial depending on the court and how busy it is because criminal cases eat up a lot of the judges' time.

I don't know that ADR works for debt cases. Either the lawsuit is timely or it isn't or you owe the debt or you don't. There is not a whole lot of gray area there so I am not sure why you would even go to ADR or get past the summary judgment stage unless this was a case of identity theft.

I do know that by representing yourself is like bringing a plastic toy gun to a conflict where your opponent is armed with the latest high-tech weaponry. I do not wish to discourage you but you are facing a very uphill and difficult battle. Judges do not like pro se litigants because things are always messed up procedurally, irrelevant requests are made and the judges would have to do work. Judges do not like having to do work or spending time on frivolous or irrelevant matters which a real attorney would not be bringing up.

Also, attorneys have gone to law school for 3-4 years. Unless you have some kind of legal background, most Joe Sixpack average consumers have not. However, judges expect pro se litigants to follow the same rules and procedures as attorneys. The rules and procedures can be your friend but they also can be your enemy if you don't know about them and they can quickly sink a case. I have seen many cases brought by pro se litigants and get dismissed for failure to comply with the rules (I used to work for judges so I know) and never make it to a jury or even get decided on their merits.

I would really encourage you to think this through and get a lawyer if you hope to best maximize your chances of success.

Good luck.