Sevanski

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About Sevanski

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

450 profile views
  1. @seadragon what is the issue with LA courts? Thank you sadinca and calawyer for all your help.
  2. Plaintiff is a debt buyer. Is there a difference in approaches? And thank you for taking the time to respond!
  3. Hello All, I'm an attorney in California and am looking for a little insight from you all. I am helping my uncle deal with a collections lawsuit and have a very specific question. We have filed an answer and served a bill of particulars on the plaintiff. Is it wise to send a follow-up letter asking inquiring about a settlement? If so, when? Anything that must be included/excluded from the letter? All advice is greatly appreciated. @calawyer @sadinca Regards, Sevanski
  4. Hi Shellieh... Yeah, I had a case like that last year; however, because of other circumstances, the argument didn't work out in my favor. Because of the split in opinions, I'm curious to see whether trial judges are following the Rodgers/Rocha decisions, or have gravitated the other direction.
  5. Hi All, Its been a long time since I've checked in. I did a little browsing on westlaw earlier today, and found a few federal decisions that viewed the Rocha and Rodgers cases unfavorably. As general matter, how are limited civil courts ruling based on this law when the affiant is found to be more than 150 miles away? Perhaps this is a question for Calawyer and Sandinca?
  6. Hi AstMedic. I hope you are well. I've been lurking this thread and was hoping you could forward me a discovery package I can use for a debt collection suit. I already have the BOP, but need the remainder. 

    Any help would be much appreciated. 

     

    Thanks!

     

     

  7. @Kzita let me know when you are 60 days away from your trial. I'll help you all I can and Im sure the community will pitch in as well.
  8. Alrighty, gang. Trial was continued until November based on some question as to whether CCP 96 noticed were timely served. Had that issue not come up, I think my arguments were winners. Oh well, we will wait for November. Definitely not as stressful as I thought it would be today. It was a good warm-up for the next one.
  9. Alrighty, gang... T-minus 18 hours. Not worried about all the prep I've done, but have some nagging concerns about my fear of the unknown. To anyone who reads this months or years down the line, if it's scary for an attorney, you shouldn't feel bad for having nerves. If there is anything you guys want to tell me before I go Braveheart in court tomorrow, now is your chance! Thanks for all the help... I promise to pay all this forward to the next person who needs the help.
  10. I don't see how this changes my strategy at all... I'm just going to keep pushing forward. I have documented everything for the record. If things go haywire, I'll not only have my first trial, but also my first appeal.
  11. So I just checked the court's website and a notice of withdrawal of ccp 98 testimony has been submitted. Now they want to present live testimony. This keeps getting whackier by the day!
  12. @calawyer I plan on throwing everything, including the kitchen sink at them. Hopefully something sticks. Objection to CCP 98 + Declaration Objection to introduction of witnesses not named in CCP 96 responses + declaration Judicial notice of some of the pleadings where Cust of recs claimed she would be available for service and distance between Mass and CA. P&A on Motion for Judgment (short) P&A on necessity of ex parte or noticed motion for trial extension (short) Trial BriefI think I've done a pretty decent job of giving my client a chance to succeed. I'm just going to hammer home that there was no good cause to drop new witnesses on me last minute, so the trial needs to proceed as is. I'll let you guys know how this works out...
  13. Again, I'm just going to throw this out here to memorialize it for everyone down the road who may read this. I get an envelope today (roughly 80 hours away from trial) from Plaintiff's office. Inside, I find the witness and exhibit lists they intend to present at trial. Here is the issue... They have named two different parties as prospective witnesses, neither of which were on the CCP 96 disclosures. To make matters worse, neither of these parties were the custodian of records who answered my discovery questions OR the person who submitted the CCP 98 declaration. In short, they expect me to cross examine two people who I have never heard of, who's addresses I don't have, and who I never had a chance to depose. Am I going crazy, or should the judge laugh at this when I mention it? I've heard of home-court advantages where creditors get into certain judges that are anti-debtor, but I think in this case it would be laughable to allow either of these two "custodians of record" to present testimony that would lay foundation for the documents. Still pushing forward and getting ready to fight like my life is on the line Friday! Thanks for all the help, gang!
  14. It looks like the Judge is Benny Osorio. Not sure if any of you have any input on him...
  15. @calawyer On the notice page, it's phrased as follows" Pursuant to theCode of Civil Procedure 98, and for purposes of this action, service may be made as follows: XXXXX Custodian of Records for Plaintiff c/o Zwicker & Associates 199 S Los Robles Ave,. suite 410 Pasadena, CA 91101 HOWEVER, on the final page of the declaration, the declaration states that in accordance with CCP 98, I am available for service of process at the following address: Zwicker & Associates 199 S Los Robles Ave,. suite 410 Pasadena, CA 91101 I agree that the first example leaves a little to be desired in terms of requesting sanctions, etc. However, the second one clearly references the code and makes no mention of "care of". The closer I get to trial, the more I realize how little they can prove. Unless I get stuck with a terrible judge that completely disregards the law, I feel like it should be an easy morning...