LoveIsPower

Members
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by LoveIsPower

  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: https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/331706-california-sued-by-calvary-court-vs-arbitration/?tab=comments#comment-1386967 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: https://californiacollectiondefense.com/ 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.
  14. Hi @PleaseHelpConfused! Glad that you found the board! You are in great hands! The arbitration strategy is shown in amazing detail here: Hopefully @fisthardcheese can chime in and answer your question regarding "arbitration in California" and whether in California you have to do something specific after you submit your Answer/General denial, if you have to write down something specific in your General Denial, or if you already submitted your Answer/General denial, if you can amend it to include the arbitration statement. Here is another thread. This one is by @NetworkEngineer, who is currently pursuing arbitration in California. Perhaps he can chime in also. I keep hearing that arbitration is a lot easier than the regular "court" route, so it is definitely worth a shot. All my experience is through the regular route. I am sure some of our regular experts can give you some guidance!
  15. First of all -- congratz on this, @NetworkEngineer! Also being in LA County, I'm following your case and cheering you on! This will be great! It will help many that will come after you. We all appreciate it! Thanks! I'd love to have @fisthardcheese weigh in on this. Maybe he can guide you to how to use this law so you don't have to pay any fees. Or it could be like @Harry Seaward said, where you can recoup your fees after it's all done.
  16. LoveIsPower

    Thank you

    Somehow I just saw this post -- but I wanted to say, again, THANK YOU @sadinca!! You helped me and countless others win!! You have paid it forward a thousand+ times over!! Thank you for all you have done all these years! You will be greatly missed!! Best to you and your family!! Onwards and upwards!! @LoveIsPower
  17. You got it! Again, such is life -- it it makes money, someone will be out there making money on it! The JDB "litigate-by-numbers" business model makes TONS of money!!! The percentage of people who go to the trouble to fight back must be TINY!!! And the percentage of those who do it the right way must be TINIER still. It's a numbers game! They don't even bother with the people who have a clue. There is too much money to be made with those who don't!! That's why there are so many California dismissals in the forum lately! Just a numbers game! 🤪 Congratz, again!! You beat them at their own game!! 🥳
  18. I used to know this. I think there is some type of IRS write off that they do. Yep -- it is, as you say, a machine to be marveled at. And a business model that PAYS!! And PAYS WELL!! 💰 If not, it would not exist. Thankfully, in California, we have resources and the law more on our side. There is a way to get some of your money back!! I'll let @RyanEX chime in here, since he is a bit more familiar on this process. Although I will cut and paste something he said recently to someone we were helping (hope you don't mind, @RyanEX) ------- "Absolutely (you can still claim costs even though it is a dismissal without prejudice), code below. Once your court generates the notice of entry (for the dismissal - keep an eye on your online case file and your mail) you have 15 days to file a memorandum of costs (MC-010). They get time to dispute it (most likely they won't), then you can send a nice letter requesting the check. Usually you'll get it at that point, with minimal effort. If they don't send, you can go back to court to simply file for a judgment... very unlikely that they ignore that. www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=01001-02000&file=1021-1038 1032 (a) As used in this section, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (1) "Complaint" includes a cross-complaint. (2) "Defendant" includes a cross-defendant or a person against whom a complaint is filed. (3) "Plaintiff" includes a cross-complainant or a party who files a complaint in intervention. (4) "Prevailing party" includes the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. When any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the "prevailing party" shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034. ( Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. © Nothing in this section shall prohibit parties from stipulating to alternative procedures for awarding costs in the litigation pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034. First step is to "file and serve a Memoradum of Costs (MC-010) within 15 days after the date of mailing of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk" > California Rules of Court 3.1700. Fees that can be recovered are listed in CCP 1033.5. -------
  19. I agree 100% with what @RyanEX said. Plenty of OC wins in California. Plenty. But, it's important to go the route you're comfortable with. Just remember that California is a whole lot more consumer friendly than other states. As long as you do the work and don't miss deadlines. 😀
  20. I also have only done the regular trial route and never done arbitration. I am pretty curious about it, since so many people are getting great results with it! I'll be following your thread closely, @NetworkEngineer! Learn something new every day! Definitely curious! The regular trial route in California is working like a charm lately -- but arbitration may be a whoooole lot easier! Good luck! 🔥
  21. Well, now this merits a FULL CONGRATULATIONS, @MouseRabbit!! 🥳 And if this is well after the SOL, you're right, no need to worry! You're done! I hope you celebrated a bit! 😁 This is definitely interesting information. After the recent California Supreme Court decision on Meza vs. Portfolio Recovery Associates, it could be that the JDB's are realizing that winning in court will be too hard/cumbersome. We are definitely seeing a lot of California dismissals in the forum from awesome people, like yourself, who take the time to fight. Believe me, it will help!! Thank you for taking the time to reply with your update!! This is exactly at the core of the JDB's business model!!! That people will be too scared and/or overwhelmed to fight and they will just get an easy default or settlement. Glad you found the forum, too!! And, you're welcome!! It was such a relief to find this forum also. Glad I can pay it back a bit!! Again, congratulations, @MouseRabbit!! 🥳
  22. Well, first of all, I think a (mild) CONGRATULATIONS is in order! I'd give you the full congratz (🥳), but since you don't have anything in writing yet ... I'll hold off on that one for a few days 😁 Can't say I didn't see the dismissal coming, though. They had nothing and they know it. I had everything in signed and in writing and I STILL showed up to court. I didn't want to mess around because I kept on checking the status online and nothing was showing up. The day of the trial I went up to the main clerk's window and it showed that the dismissal had, in fact, been submitted by the plaintiff a week before and that it was already sent up to the specific department (judge's courtroom). I went up to the courtroom and spoke to the department's clerk who jumped on her computer to check the status. I had a printout of an email from the plaintiff's attorney saying that they had already filed the dismissal to the court, etc, and I showed it to her. She confirmed that the dismissal was there, made the official input on the department's system, and told me, "Ok, all done. You're good to go." I asked her, "That was a dismissal WITH prejudice, right?" She looked, smiled, and said, "Yep." I said, "thanks!" and went on my way. Didn't even talk to the rent-a-lawyer. I think there may be a way to call and talk to the clerk so you don't have to go all the way down to the courthouse, but I got crazy busy. Check online for your clerk's phone number, in case nothing shows online. Since your trial is the 22nd ... that means that TOMORROW is the "5 court days" deadline for submitting your objections (MILs), right? I'll be honest with you ... with the way their lawyers have handled this case (very sloppy and lackadaisical), I'd be wary of trusting them to file things on time. Many people will tell you straight out not to EVER trust the other lawyer, period. I totally understand why. I would call them first thing tomorrow and ask for something in writing and with a signature. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure exactly what would be legally binding *** REMEMBER THIS: Right now you have them by the cojones. If they don't dismiss, this case is yours to lose ... if you don't object. So ... YOU MUST OBJECT. If you object, you're golden ... they have a barrel full of hearsay, and no affidavit or live witness to authenticate it. So ... they have nothing. BUT YOU MUST POINT THIS OUT. If you don't point this out ... If you don't object ... then you throw yourself (unnecessarily) at the mercy of the court. It's a crapshoot. Maybe the judge gets up on the wrong side that morning and ... whoops. And that would be pretty silly, since all you have to do is object, object, OBJECT. So ... if they won't give you something in writing and signed, then I would recommend that you go ahead and submit your objections (MILs) to the court and serve them to the plaintiff (you can even serve it to them via fax or email, if they agree to receive them that way). Listen, I really am not doubting that they will actually dismiss ... this is textbook in California. You played it right, they know you know your stuff, there is no use spending any more time/money on a losing cause, so they dismiss. But ... YOU MUST OBJECT. Again -- (mild) congrats!