• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LoveIsPower last won the day on January 30

LoveIsPower had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

25 Excellent


About LoveIsPower

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

778 profile views
  1. I second what @ConquestShaas said — keep us posted! It's always good to hear of California victories! There are many, but they still feel great! Especially good to see their bs attempts at a settlement —just to see if you know what you're doing. Once they realize you do ... they tend to settle. @NetworkEngineer also had a good Cali arbitration thread. Just in case you're looking for more info.
  2. In Limited cases there is a limit of 35 discovery items. It's not so much as the number of times they ask for discovery, but the amount of discovery items they ask for. And, also, there is a timeline for when to ask for discovery that includes deadlines. I'll attach a couple of documents below that may be helpful. Also, even though your trial is a year from now, you have to keep a close watch on dates and deadlines. Especially as it gets close to the trial date. 45 days before trial you MUST send out a CCP 96 request. Here is a pinned post from @calawyer with some VERY helpful information. There is a detailed breakdown by me in that post also. It's about the California Supreme Court ruling on CCP 98 (it's great for us consumers!): Read the whole thread. It will be well worth your time. Trust me. Hope that helps! See attached docs: California_Courts_Timesheet.pdf How-to-Conduct-Discovery-in-Limited-Civil-Case.pdf
  3. There may be a penalty for the lawyer/plaintiff if you complain to the judge. I haven't seen any strong consequences (if at all) in the forums. In some of my cases they never bothered to file a CMC-110, but still showed up to the Case Management Conference. Or if they filed it, they did it the same day ('cause I never got it beforehand). It wasn't a big deal to the judge. The CMC is such a "formality" with these cases (in my experience). It's been just an appearance to set a trial date. What do you think, @RyanEX ?
  4. I'm 99.9% sure that SSDI cannot be garnished by a creditor (only by the federal government for back taxes or SS overpayments, etc.). So by you letting them know that this is your only source of income it may incentivize them to dismiss. Then again, you may not hear anything for a while and/or you may not get an early offer to dismiss. These law firms representing JDB's or OC's in these suits are generally overwhelmed with cases and are on a paint-by-number work schedule. So, just keep doing what you're doing. You have over a year until trial. If you plan your calendar well, check all the boxes, dot all the i's and cross all your t's, you have a good chance to outlast them and have them dismiss near trial. I'm guessing you didn't go the arbitration route? Who's the original creditor? Target? I don't have any experience with them in California. You @RyanEX? Who is suing you? Which law firm — since you mentioned there was another law firm involved — Mandarich?
  5. Congrats @kcoble24!! This is a total win! Hope you get your costs back! 🥳
  6. Hey @NetworkEngineer! I know this happened some months back, and with this COVID thing I'm now catching up on some emails — I just wanted to say CONGRATULATIONS!! Glad the arbitration route is working in Cali!! 🥳
  7. Why not send a personal message (PM) to @NetworkEngineer and @fisthardcheese at the same time? A lot of members give more detailed help on PM's. Especially if it is sensitive info that we don't want posted publicly. Go to the little "envelope" on the upper right (to the left of your name), click "compose new," and in the "to" field type their names in (without the @ sign). Their names will pop up and then you can message with them direcly.
  8. Try here: This is @NetworkEngineer's thread (read it from the beginning). He is currently pursuing arbitration in California and he just got his MTC (Motion to Compel) Arbitration granted not long ago. He posted his documents on the last post.
  9. Agree 100%! If for some reason arbitration doesn’t work out, then the regular court/trial route is working like gangbusters for us in California. @Harry Seaward post above (#2) has the main link for the arbitration info. It’s @fisthardcheese’s quite brilliant breakdown. Also @NetworkEngineer is going through arbitration in Cali right now and can give you some great guidance. If you are quite serious about hiring a lawyer in California (or at least talking to one), I keep seeing Ian Choudhury’s name on the forums. I know of two contributors who have used him and gotten dismissals. I cannot vouch for him because I have never used his services, let alone talk to him, but, if I am not mistaken @calawyer has recommended him before. Here is his website: Again, I have never used his services, so I cannot vouch for him. But, I am sure, if you do a forum search you’ll see his name pop up. You can then talk to the contributors who have used his services. Keep us posted!
  10. Agree 100%. This is a decision that, obviously, no one can make for you. If you feel like you really don't have the time or energy to fight this through arbitration or court, then it is a good idea to think about settling if you can afford to do so. With that said ... you must know that if you decide to fight, you have a good chance in getting a dismissal -- especially in California, which is a very "consumer friendly" state. (NOTHNG IS GUARANTEED, but, read on ...) It is important to understand that the business model of the JDB (junk debt buyers) is based on a "numbers game": - MOST people don't do anything at all after they are sued (usually because they are scared/stressed/in bad mental & emotional places in life), so the JDB's end up with a "default judgment" in their favor and collecting all the money they sued for by garnishing wages, etc. - Most people are not lawyers/cannot afford lawyers/do not have access to the law/are overwhelmed about the law/are not educated enough about their rights ... so when they try to fight the lawsuit, they are easily scared/bamboozled into settling. Because of this, the JDB's know that if they sue enough people (the "numbers game") they will keep turning a HUGE profit. In general, "Business" is about spending your resources (money, people, time, energy, etc.) on what is most profitable to you. - Those very, VERY FEW who fight back while knowing what they are doing, are not worth their time and energy ... - ... Why would they be? When they can spend their resources on those who are truly profitable: the overwhelming majority who don't fight, or don't know what they are doing. Hence ... all the dismissals. Because this, like any business model, is about maximizing profits. IN CALIFORNIA (the only state in which I have any experience whatsoever), it has been the experience in the forums -- especially since the CCP 98 ruling of the Supreme Court of California last year -- Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. S242799, 2019 WL 641517, *12 (Cal. Feb. 15, 2019) -- that the JDB's prefer to dismiss the lawsuits before they get to court. As a matter of fact ... I'm not sure if I can remember an instance in almost a year where there has NOT been a dismissal by the JDBs. Maybe @RyanEX can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong. And that is with the regular "court route." For those who arbitrate (which I have no experience with), it is my understanding that they are almost all dismissals from the JDBs across the board. In this perhaps @fisthardcheese, @Harry Seaward, @Goody_Ouchless, or @BV80 can give you more accurate numbers. All of this to say that if you decide to fight, you have a good chance. Now, I am not a lawyer (MOST contributors to this forum are not lawyers), and NO ONE can guarantee you a dismissal. Not even a lawyer. And if you decide to fight, it is an investment of time and energy. You, and only you, know if you have that time and that energy. If you can afford a lawyer, that is always the best route to take. They can advise you in depth of all your options. But, if you decide to fight, the community here is dedicated (as non-legal volunteers) to guide you. Many of us found this forum because we were in your same shoes. We are here to pay forward the help that we received at one time in the past. All the best, @LoveIsPower
  11. @lolazu -- A few weeks ago I sent you (via PM) a few templates for MIL's to get you started ( @RyanEX is right -- it is best to call them "Objections" now a days in most counties -- you have to check the Riverside County Local Rules, just in case). Please work on those and if you need help reviewing them, post your questions so we can help you iron them out. Please do not wait until the last minute. I know the whole thing can seem overwhelming and scary, but putting things off and missing deadlines can truly hurt your case. What did they the clerk tell you about deadlines for Objections/MILs? By how many days did you miss the deadline?
  12. Yeah, Riverside county has some weird -- ahem ... different -- rules and quirks. This is why it's important that you are well versed as to your local court rules. You already downloaded a copy from the Riverside county courthouse, right @lolazu?
  13. Hi @lolazu -- I'm going to ask @RyanEX to step in and offer some advice. He is one of our most trusted California contributors. Just remember that every state has different laws, systems, and steps to take. California is, admittedly, very consumer friendly, but you must be careful to take the right steps. I know we've had some conversations in your other thread, although, as you've said so before, you came at this a little late, and thus missed a few windows and useful tools. Now that you have a continuance, you may be able to use some of those tools again (like the CCP 96 request that we talked about before). @Harry Seaward -- the Motion in Limine/Objection in this case was to object formally that the Plaintiff had not presented a CCP 98 affidavit in lieu of live testimony, thus they had to bring a live witness in order to authenticate the few hearsay documents that they had provided. In this case @lolazu missed the window for the CCP 96 request of her own, so we were flying a little blind. It was recommended that she make a formal on the record objection with the MIL/Objection, but she missed that window also.