h8spleadingpaper

Members
  • Content Count

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by h8spleadingpaper


  1. I think this debt was purchased before the new laws went into effect.

    Thanks for the tip on the Refusal to Pay letter, letting them know it is past SOL, Anon.  Seems like a good idea.  I’ll have to see if I can find an exemplar letter on here somewhere...  

     

    When you mention the new laws above, are you referring to what CommoSGT said about dunning letters?  I’d love to know more about this, as I’ve never received any such letters.  Midland claims they purchased this alleged debt in late summer of 2014.  Though the supposed OC is not currently reporting on my CR, I dug up an old one that indicated that the last alleged payment on the purported account was February 2011.  I’m hoping to get this thing moved into the dustbin of history before I move somehow.  Thanks.


  2. Hey, folks.

     

    Sorry to belabor this topic, but I did have another question.  I’m considering sending Midland a Cease & Desist letter, in an attempt to get them to drop things, since the alleged account is well past SOL in California.  My only concern is regarding the fact that I will likely be moving out of state in a few months.  If Midland were to decide to file a Complaint after receiving my C&D letter in California (an FDCPA violation, due to SOL), would I be able to have it dismissed quickly due to the SOL, or would I have to go through the whole process of filing an Answer and waiting for a court date to argue the case?  I ask because cases are currently being scheduled for a year or more out in my area and I don’t want to have to fly all the way back to California a year from now, just to fight a suit that never should have been filed in the first place.

     

    Thanks for any insights you may be able to provide.  If I haven’t explained my question well enough, just let me know and I’ll try to clarify.


  3. Hey, @caligirl2012.  

     

    Valpro just got back to me and advised that standard service (attempted within 48-72 hours) would be $100, while rush service (attempted within 24 hours) would be $150.  Does this sound like what they quoted you as far as price and time frames?  Seems kind of high and slow, but if you were happy with them, that counts for something.  Thanks!


  4. You can save money and use standard mail because you don't care if they say they never got this document from you.

    Thanks a bunch, Anon!  Sending it out today, with no CMRRR, but including a POS, signed by a neighbor.

     

    EDIT - Still looking for a process server in San Diego, if anyone has ideas.  Valpro just got back to me (they claimed they never got my request for a quote) and advised that standard service (attempted within 48-72 hours) would be $100, while rush service (attempted within 24 hours) would be $150.  These are the highest estimates I’ve ever seen for a process server and a 48-72 hour window right around the holidays sounds very detrimental to my efforts in this case.  I’ll try to keep shopping around, but if anyone else has a name, it would be much appreciated, since I need to decide by the beginning of next week.

     

    Also, still wondering if it’s okay for me to get the subpoena from the court a few days before the 20 day mark, so long as I don’t have the process server make the first attempt until day 20.  Thanks.

    • Like 1

  5. You actually have no legal obligation to respond to this at all. I think it's better if you do, and what you have found here from Calawyer is very good and is the one I was suggesting you find earlier. The one from Sadinca is also good. They are al saying the same thing basically.

     

    Thanks for the advice, Anon!  I'll be sending my reply along with a POS within the next few days, using calawyer's wording.  It sounds like my response isn't so critical, but I assume that I should still send it CMRRR anyway?

     

    When you respond to it it is often annoying for them. 

     

    May I ask how so?  Is it only because it's one more document they have to read, or because the wording mentioned above sends them the message that I intend to try to impeach the witness?

     

    Confusing, and I'm sure there are others better at explaining it, but I do believe you have this under control.

     

    Thanks!  If I do have it under control, it's only through the kind help of you and others on CIC!   :-)


  6. Maybe @RyanEX can recommend one. I think he is from down there.

    Thanks, sadinca.  According to his post on one of my other threads, the process server RyanEX used before is no longer in business.  Valpro has yet to get back to me with a quote (never a good sign).  Anyone else know of a reliable process server in the San Diego area?  Seems like they're hard to come by.  Thanks.


  7. Thanks, HomelessInCalifornia and sadinca.  Unfortunately, I've had the same experience as sadinca mentions above.  I like the idea of sending the sheriff to a JDBs doorstep, but they just don't seem to be interested in helping citizens in this way these days (no money in it for them).  

     

    Just contacted Valpro Attorney Services to get an estimate for serving the subpoena, on the recommendation of another member here.  I used another process server last time, but I had to constantly chase them to make sure they were doing their job and to get the Affidavit of Due Diligence.  So I'm hoping to find someone more reputable this time and try to avoid a little stress.  It's going to be touch and go because my 20 day mark fall right before the Christmas holiday.    :roll:

     

    On a related note, I plan to send the subpoena next week, starting 20 days before my trial.  Does anyone know if I can go down to the courthouse a few days beforehand and have them issue the subpoena in advance?  I'd like to get it to the process server a couple of days early, then instruct them to start attempting delivery exactly on day 20.

     

    Thanks!


  8. Hi, All.

     

    Does anyone have a reliable process server they can recommend (based on past personal experience) in the Greater San Diego area?  I need to have a subpoena served on a JDB employee there.  The job will require that they attempt personal service up to (3) times before leaving it with anyone else, sending me an Affidavit of Due Diligence (preferably in both electronic and hard copy form), and do it all in a very timely fashion.  

     

    Any leads are very much appreciated, particularly if you can tell me a little bit about your experience with the company or individual being recommended.  Thanks!


  9. No but homelessinca has a trial brief posted in his thread

    Thanks, @shellieh98.  I actually have my brief from my last trial.  I was just hoping to peruse Mopar2u's, in case he had anything new in there that I could use in my upcoming case.  

     

    Seems like there's a real problem with attachments on the site of late; I couldn't attach anything in my post the other day (and from the looks of the post above, @sadinca can't either), and I can't download the ones on this thread.  I think the administrators may want to look into the issue.  Thanks.

    • Like 2

  10. There is a good response to this from Calawyer on here somewhere. You just want to say that defendant plans on using any evidence or witness testimony of plaintiff for impeachment purposes only. Technically you don't have to respond, but if you, mention the above it sends a better message.

     

    That’s interesting.  You mention using “any evidence or witness testimony of plaintiff.”  Is there a hidden strategy in mentioning the plaintiff’s evidence or witness testimony specifically?  Or am I just reading too much into it?

     

    Also, if anyone has a good process server they can recommend in the Greater San Diego area, I’d love to hear about it.  I have an old screen grab of one of calawyer’s posts on another thread recommending VLDCA’s process server, but I can’t find the thread it’s from.  Thanks, friends.


  11. I think this is the response to the CCP96 you are looking for. im pretty sure I copied it from one of calawyers post but I didn't save the source.

     

    "Defendant does not intend to call any witnesses or introduce any documents except for purposes of impeachment."

    Thanks, sadinca!  

     

    I actually found a screenshot I had taken of one of calawyer's posts on another thread, in which he suggested, "Defendant reserves the right to call witnesses for impeachment purposes."  I also had a redacted exemplar saved which essentially says the same thing (i.e. - "Defendant has No Witnesses at this time.  However Defendant reserves the right to call witnesses and use evidence for impeachment purposes.”).  I’m thinking I like your suggestion better, since it leaves the opposition wondering what I may have that they’re not aware of.  Does anyone know if "Defendant does not intend to call any witnesses or introduce any documents except for purposes of impeachment” fully satisfies my legal obligation in responding to a CCP 96?

     

    Out of curiosity, how is it that I’m allowed to reserve witnesses and evidence for impeachment, since all evidence and witnesses are supposed to be disclosed in the CCP 96 Response?  Put another way, why is it okay to introduce things not previously known at trial for purposes of impeachment?  Thanks!


  12. Annnnnd a curiosity question I've been wondering about for a while, if anyone knows.  One of the exhibits is an alleged Bill of Sale between Cap. One and Absolute Resolution Corp (for a mass sale of $30 million in alleged accounts, of course).  Then there is an Assignment of Receivables, which purports to transfer assignment of the alleged account from Absolute Resolution Corp to Absolute Resolutions V, LLC.  My other case (Portfolio) followed the same pattern.  Does anyone know why JDBs would buy accounts with one business entity, only to transfer them to another within their corporate family?  Is it to limit liability?  Dodge taxes, perhaps?  lol


  13. So I recently received a CCP 96 Request from Plaintiff.  At this time, I have no evidence or witnesses I plan to present at trial.  I feel like someone had the correct wording to express that in my response (on pleading paper, of course) in another thread, but I can't seem to find it.  Can anyone point me in the right direction?

     

    Also included was the CCP 98 Declaration and half-a-dozen exhibits.  According to LinkedIn, the Declarant is the President and COO of Absolute Resolutions in San Diego, though his job title was omitted from the Declaration.  He's not a competent witness anyway (since he's not a custodian of records for the alleged OC), but I feel pretty confident in saying that a President/COO is unlikely to show up at Trial in Los Angeles for a 3-4K case.  Am I wrong?  What I'm also wondering is if having him subpoena'd increases the likelihood of him actually showing up to trial (since a subpoena is something along the lines of a court order)?

     

    Note - the CCP 98 Declaration is also a photocopy (probably robo-signed by someone lower on the food chain, I would guess).  


  14. Anyone have this doc?  Again, the link takes me to a page that says, "Whoops!  Something went wrong...”  Not sure why this keeps happening, unless maybe the folks posting docs are using an outside Google drive that’s no longer available, maybe? 

     

    @Mopar2u, @Seadragon, @Anon Amos, @credit2011, @sadinca, @shellieh98 ?    Thanks, all!


  15. Also, I'm only a touch over 30 days out from trial and just read Sammyvill's thread.  Therein, I finally understood the strategy behind going after the forward flow after reading calwayer's input:

     

    "...That is why I recommended a single RFP seeking the purchase agreement.  Plaintiff will not want to give that to you  but it will not have a good reason for refusing.  An order from the Court requiring its production might just get the case dismissed."

     

    I did very little Discovery in this case, though I've read that it can be ongoing until 30 days from trial.  I'm assuming it would be too late for me to go after the forward flow in this case, since the Discovery request would have to be followed up with an MTC when the Plaintiff refuses to produce it, and there's not enough time left before trial at this point.  Can anyone please verify if I'm correct about this?  If not, I'll send out the request for it tomorrow.  Thanks!

     

     

    EDIT - I just re-read Anon's post above.  It's obviously way to late for this.  Apologies.


  16. Sammy,

    I think these 2 questions are fine, get the document sent so the clock starts ticking.

    I have attached a document that should be useful in helping you and others understand how you will defend your case. It is somewhat general, but does have enough specificty to apply to your case and documents you have already recieved.

    It was written by a California Attorney, which is good becasue you are from CA.

    Hey, @skippy1960.  Do you still have this document?  When I try to download it, a page opens saying that it's not available.  Thanks!


  17. Hey, folks.

     

    ....I received a packet of documents in the mail today from Plaintiff's attorney.  Essentially, he/she is telling me they are sending me new documents which the Plaintiff received after my previous rfPOD.  Mostly, the docs consist of under a year's worth of photocopied cc statements (they had previously only sent me one), which are no big deal, as I'll apply the same arguments as in my other case to them.  However, they also included a photocopy of the alleged credit application from the OC, which was not expected.

     

    I'm assuming that my argument for this document should be that there is no witness from the OC with personal knowledge to testify as to the application's authenticity and accuracy, and therefore it would be hearsay?  I should note that as yet, I have received no CCP 98 Declaration (though I expect I will soon), nor any Affidavits (with the possible exception of a Verification page from an employee of the Plaintiff, produced as part of the response to my rfPOD).

     

    Also, if anyone has a good defense for the "Breach of Contract" or "Indebtedness" Causes of Action cited in this Complaint, I'd be most grateful.  I think I'm covered on the "Account Stated" and "Open Book" causes from my other case.  Thanks!

    BUMP

     

    @calawyer, @RyanEX, @Anon Amos, @HomelessInCalifornia ?  Thanks!


  18. Thanks H8!  Sorry for the delayed response.

     

    Hey, jrome1228!  No problem.  I'm just seeing your reply now.  Life gets crazy for all of us sometimes.

     

    This clerk lady is is one nasty...you know what! She's even like that in person. Actually, they are all like that in person.

     

    I concur.  My experience with numerous clerks I dealt with on my first case was that all of them were incompetent, nasty, bi@tches.  Of course, I have exactly the same experience with medical office staff.  Hope you stuck it to H&H and got your costs back.

     

     

    As for your questions:

     

    1) I dropped the CCP 96 in the mail on Day 41. After that I sent in my M&C Letter on Day 15 and started the Subpoena service that day.

     

    Would that be the M&C Letter regarding the Evidence & Witness List we discussed?  Sorry to hear about all of the problems you had with the process server.  I had to pretty much keep my boot on the neck of the one I used last too.  I'll look into Jack at Process Server Express.  Sounds like he really saved the day!

     

     

    2) I knew that my particular judge was a stickler on CCP 1271 in a previous case because when I went to the Court on that Monday afternoon to file my Proof of Service and Declaration of Due Diligence, I went by room where my trial was to be held. I wanted to make sure I knew exactly where it was so that I would be looking for it the following morning. I saw a paper on the door with my case information and it had the judge listed for my trial. I took a pic of it with my camera phone and when I got home I googled the judges name and "in pro per" and a few other key words. Some how it directed me to this site:

     

    http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=2797

     

    That's an interesting site.  Didn't know it existed.  Oddly, the judge that I was so concerned about in my last case has no entries there, though I know he has quite a reputation for being pro-Plaintiff.  I sure wish there was a way to know ahead of time what judge a Defendant was going to get.  Seems impossible to invoke 170.6 (Peremptory Challenge) the necessary five (5) days before trial, since the court's won't tell a person who will preside until the week of.  Defeats the whole purpose of 170.6.

     

    Cheers!