RyanEX

Members
  • Content Count

    1,173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    65

Everything posted by RyanEX

  1. Agree. @Lizzyb they now know you'll fight, and that is not what JDBs are interested in pursuing.
  2. Pasting this from another thread asking close to same question:) Case management conferences (CMC) are pretty simple.; usually they last 5 minutes or so. Judge just wants to make sure things are going okay (no discovery problems, etc), then potentially set a trial date if both parties intend to go all the way to trial. Judge may ask you if that's what you want. Know what dates over the next 6 months or year that you cannot attend trial, so that the judge doesn't schedule on those days. Case management conferences are NOT the time to argue your case, only to discuss the issues above. There is a case management statement (here: CM-110) that you need to fill out, file & serve to plaintiff ahead of the CMC. It's not a big deal and I think most judges don't even read them, but good to complete anyway. Dress professionally to the CMC - that always impresses the judges.
  3. BOPs aren't appropriate for Account Stated cases. But there's no rule that you can't ask, and it makes them work. So that's fine, you don't need to meet & confer over it Pretty standard documents that they sent you. You'll have a chance to attack those items later, closer to trial. What do you intend to ask for in discovery? You can if you want, but most people don't - the thought being: why ask them to look for evidence that is only useful in helping them with their case? Your aim is simply to disqualify what they intend to use as evidence, via the CA evidence rules. The less they come up with, the less you need to address. Case management conferences (CMC) are pretty simple.; usually they last 5 minutes or so. Judge just wants to make sure things are going okay (no discovery problems, etc), then potentially set a trial date if both parties intend to go all the way to trial. Judge may ask you if that's what you want. Know what dates over the next 6 months or year that you cannot attend trial, so that the judge doesn't schedule on those days. Case management conferences are NOT the time to argue your case, only to discuss the issues above. There is a case management statement (here: CM-110) that you need to fill out, file & serve to plaintiff ahead of the CMC. It's not a big deal and I think most judges don't even read them, but good to complete anyway. Dress professionally to the CMC - that always impresses the judges.
  4. Hope I didn't scare you off SoStressed. please let us know what has happened in your case so far so we can help.
  5. Looks like Calvary now owns the Citibank debt. If they sent a letter stating intent to sue, then it's very likely they will. Don't panic, you seem to already have an idea about combating it with arbitration - which has worked out very well for our members. See this active thread for a CA member compelling arbitration: https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/331706-california-sued-by-calvary-court-vs-arbitration/ The Mercantile Adjustments Bureau debt: do you know if they now own the debt? Or does BofA still own it and MAB is a collection agency representing BofA? Welcome to the board.
  6. Slow down. You've got several different threads going with different questions and none seem to have a summary of your case. If you stick to one thread, it'll be easier for us to follow/help you out. What has happened in your case so far?
  7. FYI: you may be mixing up two different witness types - a witness that would be named in a CCP 96 reponse vs. a witness that signs a CCP 98 statement. They are not necessarily the same. CCP 96 request is fairly simple process. You'll fill out the DISC-015 along with a proof of service & have them both mailed to plaintiff. Be sure to get proof of delivery (Delivery Confirmation, Certified Mail, etc). You don't file CCP 96 - just keep copies of it, the POS, and a print-out confirming delivery. They have to serve (mail) their response within 20 days of the date you mail the CCP 96 request; so it could potentially take as long as 25 days for you to get the response (assuming they respond). Any witness they may name in their CCP 96 response does not have to be subpoenaed, they are saying they plan on bringing that person; but they do have to supply a name & address for that person - it cannot be a "person most knowledgeable"...CA code & the CCP 96 request both specify that it must be a name & address - you can object if they list a "PMK". The witness that will need to be subpoenaed would be the CCP 98 witness (if they use one). That is separate from the CCP 96 request. They have to serve the CCP 98 declaration/affidavit at least 30 days before trial, you can subpoena that witness beginning 20 days before trial. CCP 98 requires that witness be available within 150 miles of your court, so you won't need to subpoena in SDakota.
  8. Check the online case file, it should identify what form of service they are claiming. It may have been "Substitute Service" which is common. If that's the case you'll have 40 days to respond starting the date they mailed the copy that you received; the packet should have contained a Proof of Service indicating what day they mailed it. Important to confirm both the service type and date. You'll have two good options by which to fight this in CA: arbitration or trial. Arbitration seems to be the quicker/less demanding route; you'll want to look for a card agreement (you can look for generic agreements online) and review the arbitration clause if it has one.
  9. Both arbitration and the trial route are good options in CA, as the CA code is favorable to consumers going the trial route. But the trial route (which is what I did in my lone case) is longer, and from what I've gathered, substantially more involved than arbitration. I don't know much about arbitration (one of these days I'll get to reading some of those threads), but you'll be in good hands with some of the other members who are & if for some reason that doesn't work out, you'll still be in good shape with the trial route too.
  10. One thing about the bold, even if the court has a deadline for a filing like this, a person absolutely still has the right to make objections verbally in court. Getting to know the objections by writing them up is helpful. Just as importantly, a written Objection served to plaintiff ahead of trial has the effect of communicating that a person does know how to beat them in court... and this is when they typically decide that they'll need to dismiss, IMO, (they don't like losing in court, they'd rather let it go and move on to lower hanging fruit).
  11. I think that CCP 96 and CCP 98 deadlines apply to original court dates, not continued dates. From what I've seen, these JDBs rarely come up with anything new when these continuances are granted, they just use the time to try to get a settlement. If that's the case here, I would tell them to pound sand. Prep an Objection (instead of calling it a Motion in Limine) to their alleged evidence. File it and serve it to them ahead of the continued date. For future reference: you could have objected to their request for continuance. Trial dates are firm, and if they needed a continuance then CA code says they needed a serious reason to do so (plaintiff or plaintiff's lawyer became gravely ill just before the trial date, etc). And code says they should motion for it ahead of time, even just a day or two, not while standing there in court realizing their pants are down; their lawyer being unprepared/under-informed is not an excuse. But if you're not armed with the right code you can't object. Rule 3.1332. Motion or application for continuance of trial
  12. Hi PleaseHelpConfused, We understand your fear of this situation - we have all been through it. You'll find a lot of help here. I noticed you started this thread on Dec 27 - sometimes it takes awhile for us to reply but please don't be afraid to bump your thread if you don't get a response within a few days... sometimes we overlook new posts. Let's get to some of your questions: The General Denial is the most commonly used form. To use it one of the following two options must apply: 1. The complaint is not verified; or 2. The complaint is verified and the case is a limited civil case (the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less), BUT NOT if the complaint involves a claim for more than $1,000 that has been assigned to a third party for collection. The exception you are worried about is in option #2 (that the amount needs to less than $1,000) - but that exception also requires that the complaint be Verified. Option #1 states that you can use the General Denial if the complaint is not Verified. Most of these complaints are actually not verified... so let's confirm this for you. A verified complaint will include a page where the Plaintiff or attorney states (more or less) that "the facts set forth in the complaint are true". Do you have such a page? If no, then it is not verified and you can use the General Denial under Option #1. *Please note that there is often a page that has a verification of VENUE - that is not the one we are talking about. Your timeline to respond starts on the date you were served: Dec 21st. Since you were personally served, you get 30 calendar days to respond which is Jan 20th. There is a specific process for filing your answer at your courthouse & serving a copy of that answer to the plaintiff. Let us know once you have confirmed the question of verification and we'll guide you through that. Welcome to the board
  13. Not sure if you can motion to compel arbitration this late in the game. What else has happened in your case? - Did they send you discovery requests (Admissions, Interrogatories, Doc Requests)? And did you answer? - Did you serve them a CCP 96 request for a witness & evidence list? - Did they send you a CCP 98 declaration/affidavit in lieu of testimony? Don't think the short-term disability will impact what they do. In their minds, should they prevail (not saying they would), they would get the judgment and wait til the situation changes and then try to collect.
  14. I went the trial route, so don't know the arb process - but there are some recent CA threads where people did, you should be able to find the guidance you need
  15. That was started a few days ago. It's up to you, though, whatever you are comfortable with & we're all here to help. As someone who has been on the board for a while, I can tell you there are quite a few OC threads from California (the state in which the suit occurs matters a great deal) that were fought and won. Some via arbitration, others via the trial process.
  16. Two things 1) Check your account agreement for an arbitration clause. If you have an arb clause it can be used to make this go away. Generic agreements for the year the account was opened can be searched for online. 2) While OCs technically have an advantage over a JDB in this type of suit (more likely to be able to produce a live witness from the OC at trial), I have yet to see one apply that advantage in the threads on this board. Every OC thread I've read, they followed the same playbook as a JDB. Of course there can always be a first time, but they are held to the same standard regarding evidence (a live & qualified witness to authenticate documents) and still bear the full burden of proving their case that a JDB does. CA members have beaten OCs using the same strategy.
  17. Take a look at these responses. I'm a little unsure about Adm #10, haven't seen that one before. ADMISSIONS 1. Admit the genuineness of the docs attached, monthly statements for OC C/C with the account # XXXX DENIED. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit, therefore Defendant denies. 2. You applied for and opened a CC account with OC. DENIED. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit, therefore Defendant denies. 3. A CC was issued to you by OC with the account # XXXX. DENIED. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit, therefore Defendant denies. 4. You used the CC and made charges and made payments to the OC. DENIED. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit, therefore Defendant denies. 5. Monthly billing statements attached were mailed to you at (my address) indicating monthly debits, credit and payments made on the account. DENIED. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit, therefore Defendant denies. 6. You were mailed and received a cardholder agreements for this OC. DENIED. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit, therefore Defendant denies. 7. The date of last payment or transaction occurred (lists date) on the OC. DENIED. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit, therefore Defendant denies. 8. On (specific date after date below) you were indebted to OC the sum of (lists amt) on an account stated for charges to your OC. DENIED. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him is insufficient to enable him to admit, therefore Defendant denies. 9. On (specific date before date above) you were indebted to Plaintiff the sum of (lists amt) on an account stated for charges to the account. DENIED. 10. All conditions precedent to payment of the unpaid principal balance due have been performed, waived, satisfied or extinguished. DENIED. Defendant states that after reasonable inquiry, the information known or readily obtainable by him/her is insufficient to enable him to admit, therefore Defendant denies. 11. You have no valid affirmative defenses to this action Admitted in part to the extent Defendant did not assert any affirmative defenses in his/her answer. DENIED in part to the extent that Defendant has not evaluated the validity of any affirmative defenses to this action. INTERROGATORIES 1. State your name, any other names by which you have been known, and your address. Your name, address, phone # 2. State the date and place of your birth. OBJECTION. The interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. State, as of the the time of the INCIDENT, your driver's license #, the state of issuance, the exp date and any restrictions. OBJECTION. The interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. State each residence ADDRESS for the last five years and the dates you lived at each ADDRESS. OBJECTION. The interrogatory is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objection Defendant states that he/she lives at [STATE YOUR ADDRESS]. 5. State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone # of each employer you have had over the past five years and dates you worked for each. OBJECTION. The information sought is improper as it goes toward post judgment remedies, which are provided for in the rules of procedure. Any attempt to contact any alleged employer of the defendant is strictly forbidden and will be met with a counter-suit if attempted. 6. Identify all documents that are part of the agreement and for each state the name, ADDRESS, and tele # of the person who has each DOCUMENT. OBJECTION. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the interrogatory assumes there is an agreement, and that defendant is part of an agreement. Without waiving forgoing objection: after a reasonable inquiry and diligent search, defendant has no agreements or documents supporting plaintiff’s claims. 7. state each part of the agreement not in writing, the name, address, and telephone # of each person agreeing to that provision and the date that part of the agreement was made. OBJECTION. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the interrogatory assumes there is an agreement, and that defendant is part of an agreement. Without waiving forgoing objection: after a reasonable inquiry and diligent search, defendant has no agreement supporting plaintiff’s claims. 8. Identify all documents that evidence each part of the agreement not in writing and for each state the name address and telephone # of the person who has each document. OBJECTION. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the interrogatory assumes there is an agreement, and that defendant is part of an agreement. Without waiving forgoing objection: after a reasonable inquiry and diligent search, defendant has no agreements or documents supporting plaintiff’s claims. 9. Identify each agreement excused and state why performance was excused. OBJECTION. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the interrogatory assumes there is an agreement, and that defendant is part of an agreement. Without waiving forgoing objection: after a reasonable inquiry and diligent search, defendant has no agreement supporting plaintiff’s claims. 10. Identify each agreement terminated by mutual agreement and state why it was terminated, including dates. OBJECTION. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the interrogatory assumes there is an agreement, and that defendant is part of an agreement. Without waiving forgoing objection: after a reasonable inquiry and diligent search, defendant has no agreement supporting plaintiff’s claims. 10. Identify each unenforceable agreement and state the facts upon which your answer is based. OBJECTION. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the interrogatory assumes there is an agreement, and that defendant is part of an agreement. Without waiving forgoing objection: after a reasonable inquiry and diligent search, defendant has no agreement supporting plaintiff’s claims. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 1. (Hereinafter, "request" refers to and means "a request for the admission of a fact which is made by plaintiff in Set One of Plaintiff's Request for Admissions, dated (date prepared) and served within) For each of your responses that is not an unqualified admission, please state all facts upon which you base that response, identifying that response by reference to the number of the request to which it is made. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information that is not within the current knowledge, possession, custody or control of the Defendant. 2. For each of your responses that is not an unqualified admission, please state the name, address and telephone number of all persons who have knowledge of the fats supporting your response, identifying that response by reference to the number of the request to which it is made. Your name, address, phone #. 3. For each of your responses that is not an unqualified admission, please identify all documents which support your response, identifying that response by reference to the number of the request to which it is made. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information that is not within the current knowledge, possession, custody or control of the Defendant. Defendant has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and is currently unable to comply with this demand because such documents have never been in the possession, custody, or control of Responding Party.
  18. Did your card/contract have an arbitration clause?
  19. Agree. Consult an attorney. If you feel you can prove your husband wouldn't have been there when they claimed they personally served him, you might have something; but an attorney would know best. In case you can't, you may have to consider making a deal with them and paying off the judgment thru your refi, if you have enough equity to cover it.
  20. They can ask the court to deem those unanswered admissions as 'admitted'. Since the Req for Admissions probably contained a few lines like "admit this is your debt" & "admit you owe plaintiff $9K", it could be a fatal error. Best you can do is get them answered, fast. And if they move to get them admitted anyway, fight it. I'm not sure how to address that Nov 5 packet that had a Nov 2 deadline. You never responded to the post with the sample questions/admissions, are they the same?
  21. Can certainly do that too - belt & suspenders approach, as calawyer liked to call it. It can be served on plaintiff and also filed with the court, putting it in the record. One of his recommendations is to name it "Objection to ..." instead of "Motion in Limine to..." - https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/324789-sued-by-midland-funding-court-date-in-31-days/?do=findComment&comment=1307801