Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RyanEX last won the day on January 21

RyanEX had the most liked content!


About RyanEX

  • Birthday 04/09/1977

Profile Fields

  • Location
    San Diego, California

Recent Profile Visitors

3,429 profile views

RyanEX's Achievements

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet.... (6/6)



  1. POS-030 states it just needs to be someone who is both 18 years of age and not a party to the lawsuit. CCP 414.10 says the same thing.
  2. Ah, okay. Understood. I believe the answer is no - technically you don't have to include a POS with your BoP request; the risk being that plaintiff could claim they did not receive it. I haven't seen the BoP make much of an impact in CA cases, so if you don't include one I suppose it's no big deal. But there are important items that you definitely want to send with a POS (discovery responses, CCP 96 requests, memorandum of costs). Not having a POS for those items could be disastrous for you. Proof of delivery a good idea too. If you don't have anyone that can do it, send the BoP anyway & see what happens. This will be a long process and it will probably take a little time before the next item comes up that does need a POS, hopefully you find someone by then.
  3. Say what? On what are you spending $70-$100??? Proof of service should be attached to pretty much everything you send them, but we are talking about a simple form you can download for free: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/pos030.pdf When you serve them a document, request, etc the only things you should be spending money on are the envelope, the stamp, and a few dollars for certified mail/confirmation of delivery (not all the time, but most of the time) .
  4. You're absolutely fine. Filing on time is the important part. Serving your answer same day by regular mail is perfectly fine, overnight def not necessary. In fact you could have skipped the certified mail, no need for that expense when serving your answer, but cert mail is recommended for just about everything else from this point.
  5. jmeyerbiz@gmail.com Oh wow! I can't imagine the stress of going into trial with this - what an awesome job you did! Congrats! And what a crushing loss for them on a $42K account! Objections can be tricky since you have to know which ones to use. Speaking from reading another poster's experience (not my own)... sometimes hearsay isn't the right objection, it might be lack of foundation or something else, etc. I remember that member basically went thru their list of objections, repeatedly objecting to the same piece of evidence until they made the proper objection and judge ruled in their favor. My apologies on the Motion in Limine, didn't catch how you were going to name it - it is better to rename as "Objection to..." rather than "Motion in Limine..." for that reason. Regarding costs (my experience): I filed & served the Memorandum of Costs within the allowed time frame, then gave the JDB time to respond with a Motion to Tax (which they did not) or mail a check. I erred because after the allotted time for them to file a Motion to Tax, I should have sent a letter requesting the check, but I never did. Approx a year later I decided to get the costs and I filed a Judgment on Dismissal ( it was difficult, failed on first few tries) and then sent a letter. I received a check shortly thereafter. I think you can start with a MoC and letter, then go from there if they don't send your money.
  6. "Admit nothing, deny everything" is my motto. I admitted to my name when I responded to mine, denied everything else and objected to any interogs & documents requests that were worded in a 'tricky' fashion. Might be able to find a sample set of answers in a previous Citi/Mandarich thread - JDBs use the exact same questions just about every time so they usually aren't hard to respond to. When are your answers due, @NeedsHelpPlease ?
  7. This important to have handy as well, in case they attempt to ask for a continuance of trial. You can object citing Rule of Court 3.1332 http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=three&linkid=rule3_1332
  8. @ticklemore Judgement call I suppose. One of the strengths to filing/serving a written objection is that it communicates to the plaintiff that you are fully aware of the specific codes in CA law that are most detrimental to their case; many CA members have gotten their dismissals after serving an objection (and trial brief). Of course Covid protocols and remote witnesses are something to take into account as they can make it easier for a distant witness to appear. However I don't know if your typical JDB has much of a chance of getting an original creditor to 'green-light' an employee appearing in a trial - as I have understood it, OCs sell these account to JDBs with the understanding that JDB is own their own, OCs don't want the liability. They don't 'guarantee' the accuracy of information contained in the account files. I don't know this 100% for sure, but that has been my understanding. If plaintiff decides to take it into trial, I think knowing your objectikns well is key, as you should be able to successfully object to JDBs attempts to have their own employees authenticate OC records and you should be able to successfully object to JDB trying to submit affidavits as evidence in lieu of live testimony.
  9. @ticklemore Correct, affidavits #1 - need to conform to the CA penalty of perjury language if they are to be used. #2 - You have a right to cross examine the author of any affidavit, they cannot simply submit an affidavit as evidence without giving you a chance to question the affiant... SO LONG AS YOU OBJECT. CA doesn't allow trials by affidavit, the case to cite would be Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4th 1337 (Cal. 2007) And of course you have the inconsistencies with the notary's name(s). Did you send them a CCP 96 request (demand for list of evidence and witnesses)?
  10. Read up on your updates. Did they ever send you a CCP 98 Declaration/Affidavit In Leiu of Testimony. Didn't see it listed but wanted to make sure. Sounds like the main pieces of evidence they are trying to use are affidavits, bills of sale, statements... and testimony from their own employee (a JDB employee)?
  11. Here are copies of mine, from 2013. More recent trial briefs & objections (you should call it an 'Objection' rather than a 'Motion In Limine') would have some additional references to recent CA case law which is helpful; not sure if I remember this correctly, but I think there was a appellate ruling concerning CCP 98 witnesses appointing attorneys to accept service on their behalf, which should not be allowed - you could plug that reference into the OBJ. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9GTPfCCHh7lJkpV-HQwAtjrcEpJE7U2ZS9PKC3EPkk/edit?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BySXxIwHA4lVVi1yVjdOT1NNQkE/view?usp=sharing
  12. I think you're good re-sending the CCP 96 request (Disc-015). It's possible it's not necessary given that they responded to your previous request, but doesn't hurt to redo it according to the proper timeline.
  13. @SoStressed I have good news and bad news for you. Bad news is you served/mailed your CCP 96 request (DISC-015) too soon. Per code, it should be served "no more than 45 days or less than 30 days prior to the date first set for trial". That is in calendar days, not court days - based on your post you served it on Feb 8th which is 63 calendar days before trial, well outside of the '45 to 30 days before trial' window. The plaintiff is under no obligation to respond to your request. My guess is they will not respond at all or they will wait until after the correct window has expired to inform you that it was improper. The good news is that this is correctable...you are currently within the window to make a proper request; you can send it again and I suggest you serve a new DISC-015 immediately. You are 41 calendar days before trial. Make sure to include a proof of service with your request (POS-030), make copies of both, and send it via Certified Mail so that you can prove delivery.
  • Create New...