Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/11/2014 in all areas

  1. ccp1987 likely doesn't apply; send a subpoena (SUBP-001: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/subp001.pdf) Mine are here: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/319956-sued-by-cach-llc-in-ca-update-i-win-its-over/?p=1295072 There are others posted. (For the MILs, you'd need to change the words "Motion In Limine" to "Objection." You would also need to add some discussion of a new case to the ccp98 Objection: the Rogers case. If you need help with that, let me/others know.)
    3 points
  2. Yes I sent overnight. Only response to BOP was their standard letter trying to say they did not need to respond, and I followed it up with another letter. Yes I'm following both astmedic's method and Seadragon's timeline. I've written up a calendar so I won't miss anything else. Good to know and yes the CCP 96 will go out on schedule . Thanks!
    2 points
  3. Do the SUBP-001, not the 1987. String's Trial Brief will give you a good template. The briefs floating around here are (most of them) quite similar, they're "plug and play". Same with the Objection. I'll reiterate what String wrote above about checking your local rules regarding deadlines for filing Briefs & Objections (MILs) - each county has their own rules, know yours. Also, deadlines for Briefs and Objections (MILs) are usually in Court Days, not calender days - important that you know the difference.
    2 points
  4. I had an account with GE for over thirty-five grand, Santander bought it and tried to get me to pay it. We went around a few times, they then turned it over to a couple of JDB's who then tried to collect. That one and another one worth about thirty-five grand too finally went SOL a couple of years ago, and will fall off in a few months. Lucky me....lol.
    1 point
  5. @BV80, I never had intent to sue them The life is too short to be little
    1 point
  6. @GDayMateAZ If you're interested in suing, note that in order to get statutory damages, you have to prove willfulness. 15 U.S. Code § 1681n. If you can only prove negligence, you have to show actual damages. 15 U.S. Code § 1681o. I know that you're going to dispute HSBC's entry with the CRAs. If it's verified, I would send HSBC a letter disputing the entry. If they refuse to cooperate, that could help you prove their willfulness to avoid complying with the statute.
    1 point
  7. Yay! I just got an email from my consumer attorney: He looked over Santander's paperwork and is going to file a class action against them for the problems in my deficiency computation letter. He said the notice of the sale, etc. doesn't meet the statute, is confusing, and there are $500 statutory damages. Times that by how many Idaho consumers, and we've got ourselves a class action. I guess I'm going to be the first consumer. One of his friends from a consumer attorney group is going to join with him in bringing the lawsuit up. He's already done many like it.
    1 point
  8. turns out you were right! Thanks!
    1 point
  9. You are being sued by Discover that is why there is no mention of a transfer so the defenses used in a JDB case are off the table. They are well within the SOL so that defense is also not available. This is A LOT of money and it won't be in Justice Court the case will be in Superior Court and you will HAVE to know all the rules of civil procedure and conform to them. This is really NOT a DIY pro-se project. I would start calling consumer attorneys. Use www.naca.net. There are a number of them in Texas and most if not all do the first consult for free.
    1 point
  10. We obviously don't half a$$ things like they do so always have your docs ready but I'll be surprised if they are allowed to use the evidence. Sounds like your court gave them a good slap when they didn't file for the CMC. As I said don't go and get lazy but I think you're doing very well and it will all look good to the judge.
    1 point
  11. I would (and did) file an Objection to the admission of any evidence or witnesses at trial.
    1 point
  12. Oreo, Assuming you have correctly accounted for the 20 days correctly, not a big deal that you mentioned they have not responded in a timely fashion. Personally, I don't help the other side by pointing out their errors, unless it benefits me. I don't see any harm other than some poor paralegal got their butt chewed for not filing or catching the error.
    1 point
  13. I would not have mentioned their lack of response, but if they failed to respond to the ccp 96 then the code states they are to be precluded from admitting evidence at trial, if you object. Make sure you counted the days right and they are indeed late. This is a good break for you.
    1 point
  14. I don't know Curtis Warner personally, I just know of him. If PRA violated any relevant federal or state law, it's possible he would take your case without charge. A consultation is free. I would just contact him.
    1 point
  15. ^This. That's exactly what they are trying to do. BOP & focus on your discovery responses.
    1 point
  16. I love your zeal! Be my neighbor? For us, this is a rarity in life's vast menu of events. For them, it is but one of very many thousands of cases. For us, this means setting down our widget template, or cobbler's apron, or our lobster pots - whatever we are usually occupying ourselves with in our workaday lives - and, abruptly diving into The Legal Pool. For them, this means sending Cindilou Who, in her size 0 mini dress & shoe size 2, off to the supply closet with a cart of envelopes to stuff until lunch, each getting 1 from each neatly stacked pile on shelf 1, Side Left for the top shelf
    1 point
  17. I would serve a BOP right away (sample: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/319956-sued-by-cach-llc-in-ca-update-i-win-its-over/?p=1295253),then start working on responses to the discovery. When are your responses due?
    1 point
  18. I'm not so sure. OCs sell lists of names, account numbers, and amounts for pennies on the dollar. Currently, OCs sell "proof" (statements, history, etc) for much more.. How much will these people have to pay to get documentation?
    1 point
  19. This is my method, I've had a lot of success removing paid tradelines. Dispute with the 3 credit bureaus. Wait, dispute again for a different reason. Dispute again. Most of the time, if they're paid, the creditor doesn't want to hassle with keeping it on your credit report. That being said, you should give yourself at least a year to clean things up and buy a home. In my opinion.
    1 point
  20. Before you panic, read the code section itself: The request shall be served no more than 45 days or less than 30 days prior to the date first set for trial, unless otherwise ordered. You "serve" it when you put it in the mail. Mail it today. If you send it express mail, that will cut down plaintiff's time to respond so you will get it sooner. If you go this route, make sure you do a proof by express mail.
    1 point
  21. To clarify, you received a ccp96 and a ccp98, right? You should serve a subpoena on the ccp98 declarant (Doug Hallock?) at the address provided in the ccp98, within 20 days of trial. Is that address within 150 miles of the court? Is that affidavit certified "under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California"? If not, it doesn't comply with ccp2015.5; in any event, affidavits aren't admissible at trial in CA - IF you object. (Elkins) OK, so you received a ccp96 request from them, and you need to send your own request to them, right? Send it via priority mail o
    1 point
  22. That's not true. By getting an affidavit stricken, the plaintiff has no affidavit in support of summary judgment. Therefore, summary judgment cannot be granted for the plaintiff. Just because a defendant claims there's a genuine issue of material fact doesn't make it so. You can raise every issue you can think of, but unless those issues are supported by your own affidavit, facts, or evidence, then they're not genuine issues. Your own affidavit must give the judge a reason to deny summary judgment. If your affidavit isn't enough, you have to support any issues you raise with y
    1 point
  23. The Maricopa justice courts use the summary judgment as a paper trial. The Justice court judges are for the most part not lawyers and are being mislead on procedure by collections law firms. To disrupt that you have to kill the initial affidavit to make the triable issues. That is the part that the justice court is abusing. It is their unwillingness to resolve the doubt in defendants favor like the statute says. Even with a counter affidavit they won't do it. I would say that because some people have won there, that the court being aware of the issues are fully covering for the plaintiffs. Ot
    1 point
  24. I know that my attorney's countersuit against Midland involved post purchase interest. When my wife & I went to court for the hearing on the JDB's motion to dismiss of our counterclaim, the rent-an-attorney's response to the judge when asked if he had anything to add beyond the briefs already filed was: "While there may have been interest added we don't feel it rises to FDCPA violation level." Seriously. Their MTD was denied.
    1 point