• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by h8spleadingpaper

  1. 1. Who is the named plaintiff in the suit? ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS V, LLC 2. What is the name of the law firm handling the suit? (should be listed at the top of the complaint.) RESURGENCE LEGAL GROUP, PC 3. How much are you being sued for? $3,xxx.00 4. Who is the original creditor? (if not the Plaintiff) CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), NA 5. How do you know you are being sued? (You were served, right?) Summons provided by someone claiming to be a process server 6. How were you served? (Mail, In person, Notice on door) In Person 7. Was the service legal as required by your state? Yes, as far as I can tell 8. What was your correspondence (if any) with the people suing you before you think you were being sued? Nothing 9. What state and county do you live in? Los Angeles, CA 10. When is the last time you paid on this account? Complaint alleges that the date of default of for this supposed account (while still with OC) was in October 2010. 11. What is the SOL on the debt? 4 years in CA (based on the dates provided in the Complaint, if true, it was filed approximately 2 weeks before expiration of SOL) 12. What is the status of your case? Suit served? Motions filed? Complaint filed, Summons Served. Answer served on Plaintiff. Demands for BOP and POD sent and Responses received. Matter set for Trial in early 2016. 13. Have you disputed the debt with the credit bureaus (both the original creditor and the collection agency?) No 14. Did you request debt validation before the suit was filed? No 15. What evidence did they send with the summons? An affidavit? Statements from the OC? Contract? List anything else they attached as exhibits. The Complaint (signed by JDB attorney), a photocopy of an old alleged CC statement from 2010, a photocopy of the alleged Bill of Sale Agreement for a multi-million dollar bundle of accounts with the sale price blacked out (containing no information germaine to Defendant), a photocopy of an alleged Assignment of Receivables from the CEO/president of the JDB Plaintiff (again, no specific info, just a statement that the Assignor is the owner of receivables) dated to 2014, and a Declaration in Support of Reduced Filing Fee.
  2. Hey, Anon! So good to see you still helping so many people on the site. You and calawyer have taught us all so much here and you both saved my bacon on the H&H case. Sorry if I jumped in on a question meant for you, but I had a moment and wanted to help out if I could.
  3. If so, that's great for you. My reading of my court's rules was that they suspended use of court reporters for civil trials in 2012 (which really makes you wonder where all of those filing fees are going). In my case, it got too expensive and time got too short to look for an outside reporter to step in. Luckily, in the end I didn't need one. I'm sure some judges love the idea of not having a record of how they run their courts.
  4. Hey again, John. So unfortunately, the pages I was referring to were part of my original thread, which I had deleted (but so wish I hadn't). I did try to resurrect as much of it as I could for posterity, but had to enter the exported posts as .pdf files. They can be found here: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/326374-portfolio-recovery-hunt-henriques-old/?p=1327446 I'm attaching the .pdfs that I think you will need to read from it here, so you don't waste time looking through them all. Start with the one labelled "Page 20." Start reading about halfway down that post (there is a timestamp on it for June 29, 2015). I think you will see that it is pretty much exactly the same situation you are facing regarding evidence not yet disclosed and (5) "witnesses" from San Diego. Let me know if you have any questions. Portfolio Recovery _ Hunt & Henriques - Page 20 - Is There a Lawyer in the House - Credit InfoCenter Forums20.pdf Portfolio Recovery _ Hunt & Henriques - Page 21 - Is There a Lawyer in the House - Credit InfoCenter Forums21.pdf Portfolio Recovery _ Hunt & Henriques - Page 22 - Is There a Lawyer in the House - Credit InfoCenter Forums22.pdf
  5. I can also give you a redacted copy of the letter that calawyer and I put together and which I sent to the Plaintiff before filing my Trial Brief and Objections (again, there is mention of this in my thread). To my mind, it lets them know ahead of time that you know your rights and won't be an easy mark. It is also something you can show the Court to demonstrate that the opposition tried to violate those rights and that you made them aware that any new evidence would not be accepted at Trial. The more similarities I hear about between what they sent you and what I received, the more I think H&H is using the "form letter" approach and may not be putting the individualized work into things that you may think. If so, this may be good for you. Of course, you still need to be vigilant and put everything into it that you possibly can. Arm for bear. If a mouse comes out of the woods, so much the better.
  6. That's really amazing of you! If my life ever gets better, I'd love to be able to do this for another human being. Kudos!
  7. Hey, John. Sorry I haven't been on your thread in a while. Had to fly back East to see a neurosurgeon and the trip has had me physically wrecked for the last week. Did you get the subpoena stamped by the court and in the hands of a process server today? You can do it online with many servers, as long as you have the ability to scan and upload the subpoena. Sending good vibes your way. Give 'em heck!
  8. I've never found a way to do it in a PM either. On my thread, I generally either attached redacted documents in a Post (hit the "More Reply Options" button in the lower right hand corner of your Post window to get this option). By the way, I'll be leaving for the East Coast to meet with a neurosurgeon tomorrow morning, and not returning until Friday. Just wanted to let you know, in case you don't hear from me.
  9. Strange. I would think that the only kinds of docs that would bear the 2015.5 verbiage would be affidavits or declarations (i.e. - the Dec In Lieu, Affidavits of Sale, etc). Don't get too hung up on 2015.5, though. I did for a while too, until some other members on CIC made me aware of the fact that it doesn't bear nearly as much weight as some of the other arguments (lack of standing, incompetent or absent witness, documents prepared in anticipation of litigation, etc). These you will want to understand inside and out. If you already have those down, 2015.5 might be some icing on the cake (just my humble opinion).
  10. Hey, John4600. No problems here. So sorry to hear about your bike, but really glad to hear you're okay. That's great that you got your CCP96 Request out, despite all that's going on. I found it was good to feel the tumblers start to fall into place as trial time got close and I got to check things off my list. I think it's also an important step in letting the opposition know that you're informed, serious, and not about to just roll over or not show up to trial (which is the premise that their business model is built on). I want to make sure that everyone knows what you're driving at in regard to CCP 2015.5. I assume that you're referring to the blurb that is supposed to be included in affidavits, whereby the affiant (signer) is stating, under the penalty of perjury and by the laws of the state in which the document is signed, that the statements they make within the body of the affidavit are true. As such, the blurb would not appear on the individual evidentiary documents, just the affidavit itself. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your question? Do you have some kind of strange affidavit that doesn't make particular statement about your alleged account/debt, but instead says something like, "I swear, under the penalty of perjury, in the state of California, that all of the attached documents are valid"? If so, it would be something I haven't seen before. It sounds like you've been through a lot lately and I know I've said this before, but if you have a particular document that you're wondering about, you may want to try to upload a redacted copy here for folks to check out. If you're really uncomfortable with that, you could trying sending it to some of us individually via PM and ask for feedback. I'm definitely no expert like some of the other folks here, but I'll help if I can.
  11. Thanks as always, RyanEX. The purported OC on this alleged debt (Citibank) is no longer reporting on my CR. However, Midland's trade-in indicates a "First Date of Delinquency" as February 2011, and SOL in California is 4 years. By my count, that would make this alleged account anywhere from 3 to 6 months beyond the SOL, even by the JDBs own assertions. I give this range because I've heard some people say that SOL starts ticking from the date of first delinquency, while others have said it begins 90 days later. Could someone who knows verify this and double-check my math, please? As I've mentioned, Midland has been pushing hard with the phone calls lately (including on weekends), which makes me assume that they probably think they can still sue without an FDCPA violation. Just want to make sure I'm right on the SOL before I send a C&D letter. Thanks!
  12. Hi, John. Yes, it sounds like the same documents that they sent me in my case (with the possible exception of the "affidavit of claim and certification of amount due of amount due" - not sure what this is). I too was knocked off guard when I saw the stack of documents they sent and (I believe) that is the point. What I realized after I calmed down was that it's human nature to be initially impressed by quantity; quality takes a bit more time and mental processing. I think that JDBs have started sending stacks of docs in the hopes that it will either (1) scare the Defendant into settling or (2) persuade a judge that is not hearing the proper objections at Trial. I am curious to know what the "affidavit of claim and certification of amount due" is. You might want to post a redacted copy so that some of the kindly folks here can take a look and give you a better idea of what it is and how to approach it. Aside from that, Anon's advice above really is spot-on. If you're going to fight, the key is to know the proper objections (it took me a long time to comprehend the truth of this). Please feel free to take a look at the redacted versions of the docs I used in my case and use anything that might be helpful to you. They may be found here: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/326248-portfolio-recovery-hunt-henriques-new/page-6 (on page 6, post #106 of the thread) Good luck and feel free to ask any questions you might have. I'll try to check back periodically over the next few days, in between doctor visits.
  13. Another quick update for those following the thread: got my 100+ bucks back for process server costs from the JDB. They actually paid up pretty quickly (within a couple weeks). Wish I hadn't dumped so much money on postage, but hey, it helped me win the case.
  14. The one time I picked up (which is how I found out who's been calling), there was a person on the other end. Not sure if they use an autodialer and then just have a person pick up on the other end if a consumer answers the phone ("predictive dialer"). Anyone know if those are allowable? And no, I never gave my cell number to any OC. The number I have now is newer than the alleged default of the purported account. Thanks.
  15. Okay, so Midland is really starting to tick me off on this alleged account, which is at least 6 months past SOL in California. I don't mind their ridiculous settlement offers in the mail (aside from the fact that it wastes trees and petroleum), but they're now calling my cell phone every single day, sometimes several times a day. So I'm planning to send a limited Cease and Desist letter, stating that I don't want to be contacted via telephone. My thought here is that they will either stop calling or will continue to do so and I'll try to hit them on an FDCPA violation (which I think they would be guilty of if they continue to call after receiving the letter?). However, I feel as though I remember someone somewhere on the site telling me that there's no such thing as a limited Cease and Desist and that a consumer would have to tell the JDB to cut-off all communications. Thoughts? I'm planning to send something like this, which is a modified version of a C&D letter that I found elsewhere on CIC: [My Name] [My Address] [Date] Midland [Midland's Address] Re: Debt Collection Activities Dear Midland Representative, I am responding to your correspondence regarding collection of an alleged debt. An employee of your company contacted me via telephone on [date] and claimed to be attempting to engage in collection activities on an alleged debt. You may contact me about this alleged debt, but only in the way I have authorized below. You may not contact me about this matter in other way, or at any other place or time. It is inconvenient to me to be contacted except as I authorize below. You may only contact me via the United States Postal Service at: [My Mailing Address] Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. [My Name] [My Signature] [Date]
  16. In other words, it was well-past the 4 year SOL in California when some of the tradelines were entered on my CR. Wondering if this would be a violation, particularly since the JDB hasn't yet sued. Thanks.