Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/21/2014 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    From the Superior Court of California date 12/19 time 245PM Event Type: Ruling on Submitted Matter Appearances: The Court having previously taken the Court Trial under submission, now rules as follows: Judgment for DEFENDANT Clerk to give notice. Thank you everyone who helped me with this. @Seadragon@calawyer@Anon Amos@RyanEX@string If I missed anyone I'm sorry!
  2. 2 points
    I won yesterday. Way to go . It is so stessful waiting. Happy Holidays. Go get your costs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  3. 1 point
    I'm sure that @Az Piano Lady 14 would be the first to note the difference between justice and superior court in AZ, so she understands that you're not taking anything away from her hard work. She studied and learned the Superior Court rules and rules of evidence, did plenty of research, and prevailed. Most of us know and would never question that you did your research and knew your justice court rules and the rules of evidence. You did everything you could do under the circumstances.
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
    That's great, congratulations and well done.
  6. 1 point
    @Az Piano Lady 14 Congratulations! ♫ Another one bites the dust! ♫ You knew what was best for you, and you followed your gut.
  7. 1 point
    Just received our check from H & H in response to the memorandum of costs. Thanks everyone for your help on this case!!
  8. 1 point
    Glad you asked Shellie. Thank you first to the many wonderful people who helped guide, support, and give case law before I even came here. I declined to sign the atty 's settlement and release which offered MTD with P but no costs. and take it to trial. After our case was called , the atty motioned for a continuance as their witness was not available until March. Just to clarify he is 2 months out of law school. I objected and reminded the judge in his minute entry instructions there was to be NO continuance. The atty whined that it wasnt the expense to get the witness there (more on this later) but that Midland was a huge corporation that has suits in all states OMG he did say that. And that they were taken aback when the telephonic witness was denied 9 days before trial when it was ROUTINELY GRANTED (take note) The judge looked at his notes-- Iampraying not a calendar in March and denied the continuance. The atty said they filed a motion of declaration. I objected saying they filed it 2 days ago and I never received it (came today in the mail when we came home LOL) The judge agreed that that the timing was wrong I think its 10 days. The judge asked the newbie if he had anything else and he said we'd like to dismiss w/o p. I said since this is my second trial in 6 months (in AZ the arbitration IS considered a trial)that I am requesting that the judge find in favor of the Defendant's and dismiss w/o P and award their costs. He deliberated and said that pursuant to Rule 41(a) he would dismiss without prejudice, award the Defendant's their costs , AND if the Plaintiff ever brings another suit they will pay the Defendant's filing fees. After the trial there were 2 surprises. 1st The atty hoped that wasn't too stressful for me... I laughed-Hope it wasnt too stressful for YOU. Nice way to use your new law degree. He said "It Pays the bills". Then he proceeded to ask why I did not think the acct was mine?? Identity theft? Why was my address on the statements. I looked him squarely in the eye nd said "THE trial is over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2nd surprise is someone from CIC showed up to view the trial and that was really cool to meet someone from the site. I have been on here in one name or another for 3 years. This trial I learned something. The atty admitted he used an old form in the telephonic witness thing. I went on linkedin and told him the witness was in another state. Never assume the "atty" knows more than you do. And always reseach the judge. If you sense a unfair, ask for a different one. They will grant it once almost always. I am glad that it is over, and I will continue my quest to get people to this site. Thanks to all and mostly to this forum in the first place.
  9. 1 point
    In the end, we elected to only file the DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO ADMISSION OF DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF IN LIEU OF PERSONAL TESTIMONY AT TRIAL. In this, we cited CACH v Rogers (2014), California Stell Bldgs., Inc. v Transport Indem. Co. (1966), Elekins v Superior Court (2007), Gee v Timineri (1967), Herrera v Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., People v Khaled (2010) and Target National Bank v Lucy I. Rocha (I LOVE LUCY!!!!). Due to the fiasco with the two day express mail, my husband was prepared to object to all the witnesses listed in the PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE (Maria Marin, Colby Eyre (HA, HA), Evita A. Rodiguez, Johnny B. Tabor, Mark Lozano and Myrell Johns all with the address of 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92122 - interesting). Then, at 10 pm tonight, the night before my husband's readiness trial, we received on our door step, without a knock or a ring, from UPS, just like a fart in the wind, a Request for Dismissal from Hunt & Henriques, Attorneys at Laughable Law from San Jose signed by Anthony DiPiero . Funny thing, the proof of service was signed by DiPiero, as well, but that may be a another thread. So, I / we would like to thank all of those who aided us in preparing my husband's defense. Additionally, I would like to recommend to those who are going through this BS to read up, be thorough, respond timely and, in the end, you too can kick these sleaze ball types to the curb. We are still on the docket, though. My husband is showing up tomorrow and now he wants his money back. To be continued....
  10. 1 point
    Right. How can the purchaser, who did not create the documents, testify that they are correct when the creator of the documents won't give such a promise?