HomelessInCalifornia

Sounds like you have your ducks in line. Consider using the Sheriff's Department for your process service. (If you are on Food Stamps or in a low income status, the Sheriff's Department will do your process service for free. Otherwise, I believe it is $35 an attempt. I also like the message it sends to opposition to have an officer of the law show up on their doorstep and to sign off on the attempted service, service, or failure of service.)

Congratulations! Celebrate, get some rest, and be sure to file your Memorandum of Costs.

Yes.

@legallyflip01 I love this kind of conclusion. Great job! Congratulations! Celebrate. You're earned it, and I know the relief is immense. Be sure to file and serve your Memorandum of Costs.

Hi Sensei! Makes sense. Solid advice and the counsel to follow, as always. I'm still ticking.

Hi Ryan! That is all excellent news ... and a relief. Congratulations! And thank you for the clarification.

Calawyer beat me to the punch. Personally, whether or not I actually want to pursue a Rosenthal Act and/or FDCPA claim, I'd raise the specter of that possibility, definitely in the trial brief (particularly to anticipate an appeal if that became necessary), and possibly in a Motion for Summary Judgment (for which apparently you've run out of time). I'd consider firing off the "threat" in a M&C letter as a "Dismiss Now or I'll cross-complain or counter sue for the violations." They know already what that would cost them (up to $1,000 under Rosenthal and up to $1,000 under FDCPA, plus filing fees and attorney fees, if any). But, at the very least, I'd definitely want that SOL argument in my trial brief. If the case was filed in March of 2014, the SOL on your ability to sue for violations under Rosenthal and FDCPA would NOT expire until 2018 (as far as I understand; someone correct me if I'm wrong). The violation didn't take place until you were aware of it (whether by service of summons or in the course of discovery), and either way that would have to have occurred after the case was filed. My only hesitance in NOT trying to get the case dismissed before trial would be the question of a Motion for Costs. I've seen some activity here of JDB's claiming that the defendant is NOT a prevailing party in a suit if the case is dismissed (as opposed to being ruled under Judgment). I haven't heard how successful they have or have not been with that argument. But, if you are pro per, then the only costs you're likely to get are the costs of service of process and your filing fee (if you paid one) anyway. So, costs may not be a consideration in light of just getting this monkey off your back.

Agreed.

Happy Thanksgiving to all who struggle. May you find shelter from the rain. May your plate be full of food and not full of trouble. May you know that others care. May those who oppress you fall to your state. May you rise above greed and hate.

What he said ... no such law (at least in California).

In process. Trial to be set in 2015.

California Evidence Code 1119 governs confidentiality for the purposes of mediation (as in a settlement conference): 1119. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter: (a) No evidence of anything said or any admission made for thepurpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or amediation consultation is admissible or subject to discovery, anddisclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in anyarbitration, administrative adjudication, civil action, or othernoncriminal proceeding in which, pursuant to law, testimony can becompelled to be given. ( No writing, as defined in Section 250, that is prepared forthe purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or amediation consultation, is admissible or subject to discovery, anddisclosure of the writing shall not be compelled, in any arbitration,administrative adjudication, civil action, or other noncriminalproceeding in which, pursuant to law, testimony can be compelled tobe given. (c) All communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions byand between participants in the course of a mediation or a mediationconsultation shall remain confidential.

As to a Meet & Confer letter, there is an example in ASTMedic's thread "How I Beat Midland" and in my thread "Going to Trial in California."

How is it that you were served? Were you an officer with this defunct corporate entity? Are you just operating some other business at the same address as the business that is the subject of this lawsuit or are you living in a residence that happens to coincide with the former operational address of the defunct corporate entity? You say an answer was filed. By whom? You? In what capacity? As an officer or representative of the named defendant? I don't understand your involvement in this case (unless the defunct entity was a sole proprietorship), or why an answer was filed if the business is long gone. I get the impression that you were involved with this former business (perhaps owned it) and if so your case would involve corporate law as to your personal liability, if any. How was the corporation dissolved? Under bankruptcy? If so, when was that done, and was the plaintiff a named interest in that bankruptcy? Were they notified of the bankruptcy? If in whatever fashion this case is either your risk or responsibility, it sounds like key facts have yet to be disclosed and that you should solicit advice from attorneys and members versed in bankruptcy law and/or corporate law as well as civil litigation. I'll second the advice that you reach out directly to @calawyer (our resident California litigator and guru in collections cases) and give him a more detailed picture of your scenario.

No. They don't get to tell you what to admit or deny. They can rattle their sabre all they want. Let them file their motion to compel. BFD. Listen to Calawyer on this point. I am admittedly weaker on the discovery phase, as I came to these forums after that phase in my case. However, if you deny a point, the plaintiff does not get to coerce you into making admissions simply because they don't like your denial. Let them eat cake. It's not up to you to prove their case. Don't be intimidated.