Processo 0810403-26.2016.8.12.0001

Summary

The transcript captures a legal hearing where Gisele Costa Marques da Silva presents her case against the water company Águas Guariroba. She claims her water service was wrongly cut despite timely payment, causing inconvenience and distress. The judge questions both the plaintiff and her legal representative about the circumstances, including prior notices, payment confirmation, and the impact of the service interruption. No witnesses are involved, and only the plaintiff's personal testimony is considered. The discussion also touches on the possibility of settlement, which the company declines. The hearing concludes with the judge setting a 15-day period for the submission of final written arguments.

Takeaways

• 😀 The case involves Gisele Costa Marques da Silva suing Águas Guariroba for improper water service disconnection.
• 😀 The dispute centers around a cut in water supply at Gisele's residence in the Nelson Traje Residential, Condominium Bromélia, affecting approximately 200 residents.
• 😀 The disconnection occurred in December 2014 due to alleged unpaid bills from July 2014.
• 😀 Gisele claims she was not properly notified about the overdue payments before the water service was cut.
• 😀 She paid the December 2014 bill, after which water service was restored within a few days.
• 😀 The court clarified that there is no witness testimony; only Gisele’s personal deposition is being taken.
• 😀 Águas Guariroba made no settlement offer during the hearing, and the case is proceeding based on the contested points.
• 😀 The main legal issue is whether the water company followed proper procedures and if Gisele was informed beforehand.
• 😀 Gisele expressed that the service cut caused significant inconvenience, particularly because water is an essential service, especially for families with children.
• 😀 The judge allowed 15 days for both parties to submit final written arguments (memorials).
• 😀 It was confirmed that Gisele has only one water service unit but is involved in a separate legal action regarding similar issues with Águas Guariroba.

Q & A

Who is the plaintiff in the case discussed in the transcript?

The plaintiff is Gisele Costa Marques da Silva, who is represented in this case by her lawyer.

What is the main object of the legal action?

The main object is an indemnification claim for alleged improper procedures in cutting off water service at the plaintiff's residence.

Which company is the defendant in this case?

The defendant is Águas Guariroba, the company responsible for providing water services.

What event triggered the legal action?

The legal action was triggered by a cut-off of water service in December 2014, which the plaintiff claims was unjustified despite her later payment of the overdue bill from July 2014.

Did the plaintiff pay the overdue water bill? If so, how and when?

Yes, the plaintiff paid the overdue bill in December 2014 at a lottery house, after which the water service was restored within three days.

Was the plaintiff previously notified about the water cut-off?

No, the plaintiff stated that she was not aware of any prior notifications from the company regarding the cut-off.

How long did the plaintiff remain without water service after the cut-off?

The plaintiff mentioned that the water service was interrupted for approximately two weeks before it was restored.

Were there any witnesses or testimonial evidence presented in the case?

No, there were no witnesses presented. Only the personal testimony of the plaintiff was recorded during the hearing.

Did the parties attempt to reach an amicable settlement during the hearing?

No, Águas Guariroba did not present any settlement proposal, and no agreement was reached.

What procedural steps were set by the judge following the testimony?

The judge set a 15-day deadline for the parties to submit their final arguments in writing (memorials).

Has the plaintiff experienced similar issues with water service in the past?

Yes, the plaintiff indicated that this was not the first time her water service was cut off due to alleged non-payment, and she has another ongoing legal action regarding a similar issue.

Why did the plaintiff file the lawsuit?

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit because she experienced a disruption in an essential service (water), which caused inconvenience and concern, especially considering she has children at home.