RyanEX

Members
  • Content Count

    1,189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    66

RyanEX last won the day on August 10

RyanEX had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

894 Excellent

About RyanEX

  • Rank
    1-0 vs JDB
  • Birthday 04/09/1977

Profile Fields

  • Location
    San Diego, California

Recent Profile Visitors

3,024 profile views
  1. Looks like you have some time to file your answer. 30 days from the date of service. Your mom can use General Denial PLD-050 if the complaint is unverified. I know you wrote your mom doesn't want to visit an attorney, but I would strongly suggest you call a consumer attorney if this action was filed after the SOL. It's a violation of federal law to do so. You don't need an attorney to assert the affirmative defense, but you can counter sue for $1000 and an attorney could help with that. At least speak to the phone and get an idea of what that would look like, it may not involve much if any work/visits on you and your mom's part.
  2. Hi psz3s2143, We can definitely help you out. CA laws are favorable to us in these types of cases. I recommend you start your own thread & keep everything regarding your case in that thread. Start by answering these questions regarding your mom's case. You can keep some details vague. https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/242744-qs-to-answer-when-posting-in-this-forum-please-read/ And you should also read this thread as it will give you an overview of how we deal with these cases in CA. It's quite a few years old but everything still applies. https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/317277-how-i-beat-midland-in-california/
  3. I think you're correct, this is what I have found in the past and believe it says CA will go by the SOL of a different state if shorter than CA SOL https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=361.
  4. You'll find that most, if not all, of the affidavits they send you will have issues with the legal language. If they should send you something with proper language for CA, it is still subject to other evidentiary codes that will likely make them inadmissible (so long as you object properly) If you feel you may not get a fair shake with this judge, CA allows you a one-time peremptory challenge to have your case reassigned to a different judge. CCP 170.1 https://saclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sbs-peremptory-challenge-of-a-judge.pdf
  5. I'm not sure what to say. From OPs post, they have a copy of their answer and proof of service (from a 3rd party) that they sent said answer to the plaintiff. Common sense would dictate that it would be ridiculous to make it all the way to the courthouse, have the answer stamped & copied, and then fail to file it. On top of that, of course, there is the POS. Only thing I could think of is to go back to the courthouse and produce copies of those items to a clerk. And I would not leave until some rational explanation is provided.
  6. Well done!! CA law allows them to dismiss without prejudice at any time prior to commencement of trial. IMO your outcome is as good as 'with prejudice' - they've learned their lesson and won't be coming for you again. Get your costs back
  7. Absolutely. CAmembers here have an excellent track record against JDBs like Portfolio - the key is to learn about the civil codes that govern these types of lawsuits and use them to your advantage. Thankfully, the CA code is favorable to us. You have time to learn, start by reading this thread (it's from 2012 but the information still applies): https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/317277-how-i-beat-midland-in-california/
  8. I believe Yolo is simply looking to figure out what would work best for their trial brief, not what the winning argument will be in court. Serving/filing a trial brief & written objection are part of the strategy in CA; when served ahead of time, I've noticed plaintiffs are more likely to dismiss before the trial date, which is of course preferable to dragging things out until the morning of trial/showing up to the courthouse, etc. Not a bad idea to make the brief as solid as possible.
  9. Some good advice in this thread. I also recommend keeping details vague & changing dollar amounts, dates, names, etc.
  10. What entities are named in the intent-to-sue letter? Hunt & Henriques is one. Capitol One is mentioned because they held the original acct. Is any other entity named? Hunt & Henriques often represents JDBs like Midland Funding & Portfolio.
  11. The bar they have to clear varies from state to state. So long as a defendant follows the proper steps they can use CA code to require an original creditor to clear the same bar as a junk debt buyer: provide a witness, who possesses first-hand knowledge of record keeping/creation practices of the account, to authenticate plaintiff's evidence via live testimony. JDB employees don't measure up to that standard. An OC employee could measure up to that standard, so long as they worked in the proper department. OC lawsuits make up a minority of CA debt collection lawsuits posted here, but on this board I have yet to see an OC send a live witness to a CA trial. CA members have have forced dismissals in those cases too. We are lucky to have those codes in place. I don't think Ddjcplus4 has said if they are being sued by an OC or a JDB... @Ddjcplus4 ?
  12. Look up your county's court website, civil division.
  13. @cybersec There are a few recent CA threads that go over the arbitration process. Do a quick search when you can, I'll take a look too when in have some time.
  14. I wouldn't listen to that. BK is a pretty extreme option when you live in a state that has great laws for a consumer in this type of case. CA residents have a great track record against these lawsuits. They'll most likely file suit, keep an eye on your civil court's website. In the meantime you can determine if arbitration is an option - if it is, great, because that seems to be the quickest way to deal with it. If not, that's fine too - the CA Civil Code stills favors you, but the trial route takes longer/is more involved.