LoveIsPower

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

1 Follower

About LoveIsPower

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    California

Recent Profile Visitors

169 profile views
  1. TWENTY-TWO CASES!? WOW! 😂 And ... Mr. Magoo!! Wow -- takes me back (way back!). Hadn't heard that name in so long! Now it's much more fun visualizing your conversation with him 😁
  2. Haha! Wow!! Now this is a funny one! 😂 Gotta hand it to the rent-a-lawyer -- totally honest ("Well, my client said to take any settlement, and that's a settlement.") 🤷‍♂️😂 Perfect example of "litigate-by-numbers, while hoping we don't know what we are doing and make a mistake." The entire time they know they don't really have anything. Congratz again, @Inthedred!!
  3. Congratulations, @Inthedred!! Another win in Cali!! Out of curiosity, when did they dismiss? And was it something specific, in your opinion that did it? Thanks -- and congratz again!
  4. California Supreme Court's ruling on CCP 98 (February 15, 2019) Morning everyone! I posted something very similar in the @HomelessInCalifornia thread and I felt the need to do it here also, because of the relevance of California Law -- the recent California Supreme Court's ruling on CCP 98 -- and the importance of this thread. But, first, to @ASTMedic, I have to personally say, THANKS!! From the bottom of my heart!! This thread and your documents are so incredibly invaluable -- to me and to the incredible amount of people who read this post in its entirety! Now, I know this is an old thread -- but IMHO it is one of the most important ones on the forum (along with @HomelessInCalifornia, etc.). SO ... since I am sure California peeps will find this thread in the future, I thought it important to post this short thread from @calawyer regarding the California Supreme Court's recent ruling on CCP 98. No more fighting and ambiguity -- THE AFFIANT HAS TO BE SERVED the SUBPOENA PERSONALLY ... PERIOD. Modify your documents accordingly. Enjoy:
  5. thanks for the reply @Inthedred! Wish there were more resources for us Unlimited in California folks.
  6. Hi @Inthedred! I would love an update on your case, since I'm going through my own Unlimited one. Hope you see this and reply. Slim pickings when it comes to Unlimited examples. Thanks a million, in advance!! Any tips you could share would be most welcome!
  7. @HomelessInCalifornia -- All I have to say after reading this entire thread is ... WOW. I know this was almost 6-years ago, and I don't even know if you check messages/mentions/additions, but ... I have to personally say, THANKS!! From the bottom of my heart!! This thread and your documents are so incredibly invaluable -- I am awe struck. Now, I know this is an old thread -- but IMHO it is one of the most important ones on the forum (along with @ASTMedic's, etc.). SO ... since I am sure California peeps will find this thread in the future, I thought it important to post this short thread from @calawyer regarding the California Supreme Court's recent ruling on CCP 98. No more fighting and ambiguity -- THE AFFIANT HAS TO BE SERVED the SUBPOENA PERSONALLY ... PERIOD! Modify your documents accordingly. Enjoy:
  8. Hi @maxwell s -- curious as to how your case is going. I am also in the "Unlimited case in California" boat, and I'm finding slim pickings in the CiC forums that delineate differences, deadlines, plans of attack, what to expect from Plaintiffs, etc, etc. I would love if you could chime in. Help someone in need? Even if it is briefly -- with your experience during trial, forms you had to fill (instead of CCP 96, for example). It doesn't have to be long. After I win my case I'm going to make sure I detail the difference in a sticky post for anyone that follows! Thanks again, @maxwell s! Hope this message finds you well! And for cross-reference for anyone else reading, here is my thread:
  9. ** Before I say anything ... CAN SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE THIS A STICKY. And/or add it to the "Case Law" section of the forum. This is really important and useful case law! Thanks, fellas! ** I finally hunkered down and actually READ the ENTIRE official ruling of the California Supreme Court on this. So beautiful! Perfect. Legal. Logical. Amazing. At the end you're left going, "Well, of course! Duh!" Thank you California Supreme Court! Thank you Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye! Thank you Julia Meza! Thank you Raeon R. Roulston, Esq and the entire team at Consumer Law Center! And anyone and everyone involved in this win! If you want to see the actual oral arguments in front of the California Supreme Court, here's the link: http://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/856?view_id=12 The Meza v. PRA case starts at 1:01. It happens during the morning session of the "Supreme Court Oral Argument 2019-01-08" Great poise by Roulston in arguing in front of the California Supreme Court and answering questions from the Justices! Great win for all of us! Especially in California! Thanks again, @calawyer for keeping us informed! You rock!!
  10. Hi everyone! I have my Case Management Conference tomorrow morning (Los Angeles, CA). Any last minute advice for me? I keep hearing that these are a breeze, but would love any constructive advice! It will be my first one. Thanks so much to everyone!!
  11. Amazing news!! Thank you @calawyer !!!
  12. Not always. I've read in the forums of Unlimited cases where they have not provided them. If anyone knows of any California Unlimited threads you think I should look at, it would be most welcome! Thank you in advance!
  13. I've seen a few people recently win cases against JDB where the amount is bigger than mine. I thought that arbitration had to do with making the JDB say, "well arbitration is going to cost me $5k ... the debt is $3k ... not worth it." Since my amount is $25k, not sure the strategy will work for me. Remember, in my case (Unlimited) they actually have to produce witnesses. They can't rely on a piece of paper. Thoughts?
  14. Thanks @Harry Seaward ! I'm definitely keeping an eye on CCP 98 -- although my case is Unlimited -- so unlike limited cases, plaintiff cannot rely on ccp 98 to try to introduce the evidence without a personal witness. Yep, they are alleging the debt is owned by Absolute now, and identifying themselves as a "debt buyer" per the California Debt Buying Practices Act (FDBPA) of 2014. Here are the first 3 allegations in their original complaint (all standard scripted requirements that the Plaintiff must allege under the FDBPA): 1. Plaintiff is and at all times herein mentioned, ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, LLC, and successor in interest to original creditor, U.S. Bank National Association. 2. Plaintiff is the only entity that purchased the debt after charge-off and its name and address is as follows: ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, LLC 8000 Norman Center Dr. Suite 860 Bloomington MN 55437. 3. Plaintiff is is a debt buyer and is the sole owner of the debt at issue. **** Any thoughts on if I should add this line in my Demand for Bill of Particulars or not?: "... and any agreement assigning the account at issue to the plaintiff. You are further required to provide any agreement between defendant and the creditor that has created any account concerning which your lawsuit is based." **** Appreciate your reply, @Harry Seaward !
  15. Hi everyone! Trying to get a bump on my question. Hope someone can chime in, since I just got a tracking notification that my answer arrived at the lawyer's office, and I want to send this Demand for Bill of Particulars out today. I know my post was kinda long. I'll simplify the question: Is it necessary, appropriate, good, not-good ... to add this line to my Demand of Bill of Particulars: "... and any agreement assigning the account at issue to the plaintiff. You are further required to provide any agreement between defendant and the creditor that has created any account concerning which your lawsuit is based." Thanks, everyone! Truly appreciate it! (if you want more detail, you can read my post above)