RyanEX

Members
  • Content Count

    1,181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    65

Everything posted by RyanEX

  1. 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.
  2. Some good advice in this thread. I also recommend keeping details vague & changing dollar amounts, dates, names, etc.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 ?
  5. Look up your county's court website, civil division.
  6. @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.
  7. 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.
  8. @kcoble24 Unfortunately I'm not aware of any. Perhaps "cover/face page" meant this??:
  9. Agree. @Lizzyb they now know you'll fight, and that is not what JDBs are interested in pursuing.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Hope I didn't scare you off SoStressed. please let us know what has happened in your case so far so we can help.
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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).
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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