CollectionDefenseGuy

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

CollectionDefenseGuy last won the day on June 20 2016

CollectionDefenseGuy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

18 Good

1 Follower

About CollectionDefenseGuy

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    California

Recent Profile Visitors

437 profile views
  1. Definitely defend against the case with the goal of not paying them any money. These debt buyer cases are usually very defendable in California. Obviously, it is best to have an attorney, although that might not be cost-effective for such a small lawsuit. Here is a link to a video about one strategy pointer in these smaller cases, or more specifically a mistake to not make: "How to Lose Your Case". Good luck.
  2. Unfortunately, in California, collection cases are special animals for purposes of case management, because the collection lobby basically helped pass special rules, including making inapplicable the rule that summons and complaint need to be served within 60-days after filing. They get 180 days instead, and that is usually not enforced into far longer than 180 days has transpired! The prior comment is correct that you will need to file a response within 30-days of being served to stay safe. EVENTUALLY, courts will dismiss an uncontested case if the debt collector does not obtain a def
  3. There is actually a multi-part video course on a consumer attorney website that is good on some of the basics you should know when facing a new debt collection lawsuit. Here is the link: https://consumerlawcoach.com/defending-collection-lawsuit-california/introduction/course-overview/ It is particularly useful when you have just been sued and can still avoid making big mistakes; Since you have just sued by portfolio recovery associates in California court, it should be good for you because the site pertains specifically to California collection lawsuits. In the spirit of full disc
  4. As for how to request that the court allow you to make monthly payments on the filing fee: If you are broke enough to qualify for a fee waiver at all, you probably are being too tough on yourself by asking for monthly payments: Consider filling in the FW001 form so as to ask for complete waiver of fees. If the court rejects the request for a complete waiver, then you can request a hearing (by submitting another form, which I think is FW009, but you'll have to make sure). At the hearing, then request, in the alternative, the ability to make monthly payments if the judge will not grant the f
  5. I know its an old thread, but the conversation makes me think of this post about how Portfolio's bloated case-load is going to be its own death (same could be said for many of these companies I think).
  6. Hello longstand. Unfortunately, plaintiffs in California state court have an almost absolute right to dismiss without prejudice. Sometimes it is a huge relief when they dismiss, and other times it can be really frustrating, because of course they dismiss whenever they fear that you might win, and then you cannot get a resolution. What you can and should do though, is seek "costs". To do so, you must file a memorandum of costs form (form MC-010), within 15 days of the dismissal. Often, courts ignore these memorandum of costs forms, but under the law you are entitled to a "judgment for cos
  7. I "second" Calawyer on this. I'm new here, but anybody on this board would have an interest in signing that petition. I have done so. A signature and a facebook share now, early on in the process is worth much more than signing it later, because then other people can see your social media "share" and it grows from there. If people sign on the last day, that doesn't happen and it doesn't get enough traction to get "noticed".
  8. The statutes under discussion, CCP sections 96, 98, 1987 and 1989 are not the direct basis for motions in the sense that I think you are indicating, so strictly speaking, the court's overcrowded motion calendar is not an obstacle to using these procedures. The motion calendar becomes a potential issue, at the point when you want to find some way to say to the court, essentially "because debt collector failed to properly comply with section 96 and 98 you should preclude their evidence at trial". For this purpose you sometimes hear people talk about a motion in limine (MIL), and different j
  9. You make a good point that Target v. Rocha finally acknowledges that CCP 98 actually means what it says and that should be enough. However, I think that other arguments, such as the CCP 1989 argument, are still useful, for the following reason: Target v. Rocha is a decision by a low-level court that is not binding on courts outside of Santa Clara County. Courts outside of Santa Clara county still need to be persuaded that they ought to rule in the same way as did the Target v. Rocha court. In that regard, I find the interaction of CCP 1989 (court has no subpoena power over over persons no
  10. CCP § 96 allows you to ask the other side to reveal the evidence and witnesses they are going to have at trial. You serve it at earliest 45 days before trial (count backwards from the trial date, when your finger lands at T-1 on the calendar count "one", then the next day back is "two" and when you get to 45 your finger is on the first day that you can validly send the §96 request). The latest you can serve it is 30 days before trial. An example of the benefit from this, is that if they fail to name a witness (for example if they simply say "person most knowlegable about your account), and
  11. Under the circumstances you described, technically you might be required to file a verified answer. Frankly, if an attorney were filing the answer, they probably would get away with filing a general denial plus whatever affirmative defenses. The reason an attorney would probably want file only a general denial (plus any defenses) is because it is always best to avoid providing sworn documents to the other side before it is necessary to do so (giving them a sworn declaration such as a verification makes it easy to question you on the stand using the sworn document to make you look like a liar
  12. @browniebrownie141, who requested this motion hearing? You or the other side? (i.e., who's motion is it?) Did you file any papers in connection with this hearing? A motion is usually decided by the court 99% based on the papers that are submitted to the court before the hearing and 1% based on any convincing that might occur at the hearing. There are certain time-limits before the hearing determining when you have to submit those papers. The judge will likely state at the beginning of the hearing what his inclination is on the motion, and then will likely ask the "losing" side if they wou
  13. Re whether Equable Assent and LRLO were violating the law for continuing to pursue the lawsuit after Equable transferred possession of the debt, it might constitute the basis for legal claim under the Rosenthal Act or FDCPA. "Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute" (California Code Civ. Procedure § 367). If LRLO and Equable were continuing to pursue that debt after Equable was no longer the "real party in interest" they might well be in violation of consumer protection statutes. For example, if LRLO sent any lawsu