Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by RyanEX

  1. Scam. Been awhile since my last one but I've received many of these calls over the past few years. I've had different responses to it, including telling the person I am absolutely available to receive their documents and am happy to arrange a meeting. Nothing ever happens. All they want is a credit card number that day.
  2. @BV80 @Clydesmom Little late responding here but thank you for correcting my assumptions regarding ยง 811 above.@Macslick sorry if I caused any confusion, even if only briefly. Want to say I think I've been corrected on this before but, if so, it's been a few years and forgot. Need to stay in my lane (CA), lol.
  3. Corrected in posts below. What the FDCPA says regarding venue below. To me, it seems the mere act of filing in the wrong judicial district is a violation regardless of whether or not plaintiff did so intentionally or mistakenly. Also that it doesn't matter where @Macslick lived at time of default. The one thing to note is that it does say they can sue you in the district where the "contract was signed". @Macslick 1) did you live in LA County when you signed up for the card? 2) (and I'm not sure about this angle) if you did, would they be able to prove you signed up for it in LA County? I think you should definitely reach out to a few consumer attorneys to ask about this. If they can confirm it's an FDCPA violation, that would be good leverage IMO. The alleged 7K might be a quite larger than the 1K award for a FDCPA violation, but the JDB would also have to consider attorney fees on both sides in a potential lawsuit (I believe they would be on the hook for your attorney fees if you prevail). That's not the kind of mess a JDB typically wants to get into. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text
  4. Process could be different in Oregon. I initially downloaded judgment forms from the state, which I filed at the court house. First few attempts were rejected, I don't remember why but I remember the clerks were mostly unhelpful (they didn't understand a pro se attempting to obtain a costs a from a JDB after a dismissal); I had to walk them through the civil code that described it. Eventually one of them suggested I look up "Judgment of Dismissal"; I found an example online and typed it up on pleading paper. Per advice from someone on the board, I addressed it directly to the judge (so as to bypass his clerk) for his signature and included a self addressed stamped envelope. I got it back a few weeks later, forwarded a copy to JDB and got my check. I could have waited on pursuing a judgment & simply asked the JDB to send me payment for my costs, but i guess I just felt like getting the judgment. I occasionally look up my name in the system and review the case and it still brings a smile to my face to see the line with the entry of judgment. Totally worth the effort for me. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BySXxIwHA4lVclpKU1czWFpnQms/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-UYqONg6-k65z_0jWRYmgYA
  5. Not the same thing. And yes it is good to object to all JDBs evidence in writing, ahead of trial. It puts it in the record & puts the JDB on notice that you know what you are doing. Memorandum of Costs comes after dismissal and when you receive the Notice of Dismissal from the court.
  6. Congrats! If you want to stick it to them you can reclaim your costs, specifically the filing fee. Process server fee as well but it sounds like you didn't get that far.
  7. Hey swim. You can send a BOP right away. It's not required, but it makes them work and is sometimes useful further along in the process. You can use the downloadable GD if your complaint is not verified. Here: PLD-050. Once you fill in case info, you just need to put your name on line 1, sign & date, and that takes care of the denial. If you want to include an affirmative defense, you can check box 2 and fill in - but the only affirmative defense I understand to be useful is the SOL, which you mentioned above does not apply. You'll want to include a proof of service with the BOP and/or GD. Here: POS-030. Certified mail is recommending for the BOP, but isn't necessary for the GD. You are dealing with an original creditor rather than a junk debt buyer. Technically speaking, an OC should have a better shot at proving it's case than a JDB does, but I have yet to see that happen with a CA member on this board. CA has very favorable rules for defendants in these cases. You can read up the following thread for a rundown on how a defense is executed & why we typically have the advantage. It's an old thread but still applies. https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/317277-how-i-beat-midland-in-california/
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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) .
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. "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 ?
  14. 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
  15. @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.
  16. @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)?
  17. 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)?
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. @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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.