• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RyanEX last won the day on January 9

RyanEX had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

872 Excellent

About RyanEX

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

Profile Fields

  • Location
    San Diego, California

Recent Profile Visitors

2,347 profile views
  1. There is still window of a few days that you might receive a CCP 98 declaration. If plaintiff intends to use one, the code says it must be served (placed in the mail) at least 30 days before trial. Keep an eye out for that in your mail this week, may show up in your online case file too. If it comes in, you'll want to subpoena that person once you're within 20 days of trial. In the meantime you can start working on a Trial Brief & an Objection to their evidence.
  2. You may have a point there. If an original creditor goes by the laws of a different state, a state that has a different SOL period for a given contract, then CA may recognize whichever SOL law is shorter. I'll need to look up the code.
  3. There is a CA attorney or two that post on occasion, but not very often. Mostly it's non-attorney members doing the posting. Are you being sued?
  4. Gotcha. To be clear - they didn't file a CCP 98 (a Declaration/Affidavit in Lieu of Testimony)? They would have served you with it around a month before trial. Also, it would show up in your online case file - double check that since it's an important item. When is your court date?
  5. You should start a new thread to get a little more attention to your situation. Get a few more details in there: when was suit filed, when was the default given to Midland, where was it filed (same county where you live?), did you get/not get served, what type of service did they claim (personal/substitute),who was the original creditor etc.
  6. SOL in CA on written contracts is 4 years. Generally speaking, you start the SOL clock when a payment is missed (the due date comes and you no dot send any money). Regarding the account where you made a payment on 04/2019 - that would have reset the SOL clock, so them filing a lawsuit 3yrs & 11 months later is within the SOL.
  7. You would have needed to object to what was happening, the extension itself vs insufficient evidence. http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=three&linkid=rule3_1332 #1 if they needed a continuance they should have made a noticed motion/ex parte application ahead of time and # 2 have a good reason. "Witness couldn't make it" isn't a good reason. What happened was, seeing that you weren't going to settle at the last minute, they tried this delay tactic and it worked. You should print out a copy of CRC 3.1332 and take it with you next time. As it is, they bought themselves some more time to try and get you to settle. Have seen this before. What did you do ahead of trial? Did you make a CCP 96 request? What did they do, did they file a CCP 98? Copies & reproductions of documents can be submitted, but are subject to CA rules of evidence, you can object to those.
  8. You can always go to the courthouse and get a copy to find out the details - otherwise you can wait, sooner or later they will get around to serving you . Keep an eye on your online case file for any updates. In the meantime you can browse the forum, get a feel for CA cases, etc. Hard to say anything else without knowing the nature of your suit.
  9. I haven't dealt with this code before - but I always understood that the plaintiff needed to file for a default judgment in order to get one. @wakingupnow If you haven't done so yet, file an answer.
  10. Oh no, don't do that. You don't want to admit to any details of the acct, ownership of the account, anything that ties you to the acct. If you do that, you're giving them evidence against you and, potentially, a trial victory. Force them to prove anything and everything, don't help - that is the basic CA game plan and it works very well in these lawsuits because CA code places the burden of proof on them to show that this is your debt, not the other way around Besides, the answer forms don't require you to explain anything anyway, if you'll be using the general denial it'S just a simple fill-in of your name on the correct line & that will deny the complaint in it's entirety (you don't have to check box #2 if you don't want to). https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/pld050.pdf This is a good read on CA strategy, it's from 2012 but most everything still applies: https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/317277-how-i-beat-midland-in-california/
  11. Regarding Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, everything is fine. See calawyer's thread: https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/330400-ccp-98-decision/
  12. Don't concern yourself with CCP 98 at this point - that comes into play if you answer the lawsuit as is and you are further along in the process, approaching trial. It will indeed help you if that's what you end up doing. Your bigger questions are 1) dealing with the issue of your address, that you live in Los Angeles but are being sued in a different county. 2) whether it was appropriate for them to sue on two accounts in one lawsuit (maybe it is, but I have not seen that before). And 3) exploring arbitration as an option.
  13. You'll be fine. What I wrote is the "proper" procedure, but many (including plaintiffs) have done it the way you did. Yes, ASTMedic's thread/strategy works for Account Stated.
  14. Procedures vary from county to county. I didn't have MSC in mine (San Diego County). Though I think an MSC is likely to be scheduled closer to a trial date? Anyhow, keep an eye on your online case file, if you just filed your answer then the case file will probably get updated in the nest few weeks.