Jump to content

macberk

Members
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About macberk

  • Birthday 03/23/1979

core_pfieldgroups_99

  • Biography
    Newly divorced, living with folks in Villa Park (so cal) as I am unemployed and @UCLA LAW
  • Interests
    Football, Basketball, Hockey, Baseball
  • Occupation
    DOE-Q Cleared Weapons Designer (unemployed)

Profile Fields

  • Location
    CA

macberk's Achievements

Member

Member (2/6)

10

Reputation

  1. i'll make this quick: brachfeld & assoc. sued me (ostensibly representing capital one), i answered, submitted case mgmt, and appeared in court. they were a no-show. the judge said he'd schedule a further case mngmt. where the brachfeld would have to show cause as to why they didn't appear (or initiate meet & confer). the judge, further, said that i needn't attend, but could do so if i wanted to. the court date was the other day, and i could not attend; i just looked online, and brachfeld was a no-show, again, too. HOWEVER, the judge's minutes indicate a new date where BOTH of us (plaintiff and defend.) are to show cause (i, for not showing up the other day). my question is this: must i wait until the court date to "remind" his honor that his honor said i didn't have to attend, or is there a way i can file a memorandum or other brief stating as much? this is limited, civil, in alameda county. thanks for any advice, DL
  2. I had my case management conference last week (I was sued by "Capital One Bank (NA) USA" [in quotes because the real plaintiff, in my belief, is junk-debt collector / attorney offices "Brachfeld and Associates"]). After Brachfeld failed to initiate meet and confer proceedings, as required by CRC and CCP, they ensued to file their case management conference statement just four days before the conference (again, in violation of state and local rules/procedure), *and* their representation failed to appear at the CMC itself. I am rather annoyed right now because, were it I who had made this series of blunders, I have no doubt that the opposing counsel would waste no time in *ensuring* that the court censure me--or that they win by default (or both). However, as I was relatively unprepared, in terms of knowing my options in the likely event that they'd not show (e.g., asking the judge to dismiss, file an intent to file a motion for dismissal), and the judge seemed to sense that. That is, although he assured me that he'd schedule an "order to show cause" as to why the plaintiff should not be censured (including possible dismissal of the action) for their no-show, failure to execute meet and confer, and failure to file a timely CMC statement, he was rather dismissive of me when I began to tell him about how, in addition to all of these sins, the plaintiff "had also done this and that…" (to which the judge, looking at me knowingly, replied "I know, I know, I realize that, but I need the proper paperwork…"). This is when I realized how wrong it was for me to arrive without an aggressive "counter-action" strategy--or any strategy at all, save for denying everything and demanding proof. It seems as though his honor would have been amenable to considering my "outrage" had I expressed it in the form of a formal motion, declaration, or…whatever. The judge, as I stated, ordered a CMC/OSC (I couldn't tell which, as he suggested the latter first, then the former; I will know shortly, when I see the schedule posted online). At first, when speaking of the OSC, he said that I needn't appear. But then, I think, when he revised the schedule for a continuing CMC, he said that I might show up--ostensibly to…? file motions? I'm not sure. He did, at one point, ask me something like "are you aware of the account for which they're seeking restitution…?" something like that. To which I replied "I have no knowledge of the account for which they allege I am responsible and, further, have never been contacted by Capital One Bank about any of this…" the judge cut me off, saying "well, they have their own lawyers…" At that point, I wanted to say that Brachfeld--the "plaintiff's counsel," is also a junk-debt buyer and collector--and has not shown, in any way, that they are remotely connected to Capital One Bank--much less endowed with the authority to collect funds from consumers they allege to be indebted to "their client." But I bit my tongue. Has anyone any advice or insight for me at this point regarding how I might commence with "reminding" the court of how flippant and lax the plaintiff has been in pursuing this action? My hunch is that the burden to do so lays with me--the court will not necessarily read my answer, CMC statement, etc., and come to their own conclusions. Thanks everyone--sorry I've been MIA about this, but my life is an absolute soap right now, and I barely had a chance to get to this conference on time (though I did), much less post about it well in advance. But I have received so much help here, and couldn't have come this far without the help of so many of you--thanks! KRC
  3. Sorry, I wasn't kidding; just a "student of credit." Thanks for the tip, however. When I read this about Ms. Brachfeld eslewhere--and got to the part where it stated that it was all about her status in TX--my heart sank, as I felt that it was then irrelevant to my case. At the same time, I was also a bit spooked by the wrath I'd been reading that some judges can pour on pro se litigants who bring up/say/allege something that cannot be said due to this rule or that, and I was feeling like the more I stay within a *defensive* mode, the safer I am (being a newbie)...
  4. P.S. bsulli: I didn't mean to offend when referring to/asking about your father's current station in all of this; I hope I didn't. Have you considered seeking legal advice--if only by way of a free consultation? You might find an attorney who sees potential money to be made in a counterclaim, etc.
  5. cbairey: I beg your pardon, I hadn't known that about Costco/AmEx agreements. However, whenever I am appealed to by AmEx to extend "charging priveleges" to my "loved ones..." I usually infer--from the salient small print (not the agreement)--that these AU's are mereley beneficiaries of my good will, etc. I believe I first got this impression when, in one such "invitation," "members" could give an "additional card" to their children, students, etc., making me surmise that these AUs, should they be caught as the sole living person attached account, would be impervious to responsibility. Also, I never noticed any disclosure or advice to disclose, in terms of AmEx-to-AU communications; AFAIK, the AUs received nothing but a shiny new card--with charging priveleges...
  6. Trueq: What do you mean by "the superior pleading..."? Are you saying that, in your opinion, the party's pleading that is more convincing, compelling, and...poetic, maybe, will prevail regardless of whether it demonstrates the party's (in)culpability? I'm sure you're not suggesting that; I suppose you mean that the better-written, more-convincing pleading will prevail despite the fact that it may be otherwise plain to the judge that the corresponding litigant is almost certainly "wrong" in terms of the truenss of their claim? For example, a defendant who pleads to solid defenses, cites all relevant case law correctly, and writes with deference and respect to the court will prevail over a plaintiff whose pleading is catch-all, not specific enough, text-book, and/or too broad? Anyway, I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, as I'm not naive and have witnessed time and again how verdicts can essentially be purchased by hiring the best attorney, etc. I guess I just wondered if you also meant that, in your opinion, judges can/sometimes do let the sheer poetry of a litigant's writing and spoken words influence their decisions (when such writing/speach also demonstrates, at least, a valid defense or complaint). Finally, I guess I am/was a little naive, thinking that judges exercised more "empathy," to use a buzzword, in their conduct--especially toward these *masses* of impoverished people being sued by CC issuers *in a time when taxpayers are loaning these very banks billions!!** GRR. And, to the extend that I did see a lot of plaintiff motions denied on technicalities (failure to file POS), I suppose they do sometimes try to insert some measure of justice into these cases they know are going straight to the plaintiffs... signed: even more cynical in berkeley, ca
  7. When I perused my county's tentative civil court rulings site for current collections cases, I was struck by how much money these JDBs are making--and how heartless they are. You see, almost all of the collections accounts cases I looked at could be categorized in one of two ways: those in the late stages of the default/summary judgement process due to the defendants' complete absence from the entire process and cases where plaintiff counsel had motioned for judgement in their favor due to the failure of the defendant to provide any defense or denial in answering the complaint. The saddest part for me was reading these *pitiful* answers, most of which were sublegibely scribbled out by the defendant, who would invariably fill in the names/parties, ignore the rest, and jot down something like "i got no income cos i lost my job and am living on unemployment, and i have kidney failure so i cant pay this bill...please let me talk to the judge about setting up a payment plan that i can manage--theres no way i can pay it all now..." These stories, again, were almost always written in what looked like a fourth-grader's hand, but they betrayed a kind of sincerity that was really rather tender, if sad. You could tell that the person had had to find out how to get the answer form, etc., and obviously didn't have a computer or typewriter. And then, after reading some such pathetic answer--and also invariably--I'd see a few lines down that the plaintiff counsel had motioned for judgement based on pleading; asking the court to rule in favor of plaintiff because the defendant's answer lacked any content that refuted, challenged, or otherwise defended against the plaintiff's action. so these atty's read these answers, pitiful as they are, and SEE the pleading for payment plans almost all of them contain (even as the defendant is struggling with any number of misfortunes), and not only do these scumbag attorneys immediately seek judgement in their favor, but they do so in a way that completely ignores and bypasses the defendant. I can only imagine that, perhaps the judge or clerk informs these poor people at some point why it seems as if they were totally ignored--and railroaded--even as they had tried, as best the knew how (none of these people, obviously could afford representation), to respond to the complaint and offered their willingness to pay, albeit in a way that was actually possible for them. Looking at all of these documents and transactions was like seeing an unproduced Michael-Moore documentary; this stuff goes on all the time, but most of us are ignorant of it--I've been--until it happens to us. And even with my education, "savvy," resources, etc., it wasn't exactly easy for me to produce and file my answer; I can't imagine how dauting it could be for someone working three jobs, making minimum wage, and unable to speak English, etc.! It's all rather depressing. It's making me want to become a pro-bono defense atty!
  8. good idea. in fact, i've been perusing civil cases in my county for this same reason; there are an awful lot of fia card services complaints--i counted at least fifty--and almost all of them are in the final stages of summary judgement (for plaintiff). there are also many capital one suits--most having been brought by some atty called "walsh" out of concord, ca. i've noticed that many of the judges in these cases frequently (well, more than i'd have thought) deny plaintiff motions. for example, the judge will deny application for judgemnet based on pleading--or request for default--because the plaintiff mis-served the complaint somehow ***and the judge discerned this; the defendant hadn't even answered!!*** so it looks like we've got some "activist" judges, lol, in alameda co (berkeley is here, after all). i saw a few other cases in which the judge denied plaintiff motions based on something "the court" found (rather than any appeal or objection by the defendant). what i'd really like to do is start a group of people on here who have been or are being sued by capital one, ms. brachfeld, or both, so that we can help each other/compare notes, etc. if anyone's game for that, pm me!
  9. i've seen that (i'm being sued by brachfeld in ca); however, she IS licensed to practice law in ca, and i don't see how her scams in texas can help those of us who are in ca... (this was in response to the poster who linked the bud hibbs url)
  10. ADMIN: i *love* how you always buck the trend and urge people to fight--especially when brachfeld/cap one are the plaintiffs--because i'm a defendant in such a case right now. i always become discouraged reading threads like this that become more and more pessimistic, but you always seem to pop in and write "i'd fight 'em..." it gives me confidence. and you're right--the true plaintiff may not be capital one; i've never thought for a moment that capital one had anything to do with the case that erica brachfeld brought against me (except that she listed them as the plaintiff, ostensibly to give her claim more legitimacy/scare-power).
  11. it seems doubtful that they could hold you liable if you were just "an authorized cardholder" on your dad's account. is that the case? that is, you weren't a co-signer on the account, were you? not to be rude, but that your dad "isn't around," moved in with you, and is now leaving you footing this bill, could it be that he did this deliberately? i mean, when you signed the documentation, what were the circumstances? did your dad say "hey bsulli, i want you to have access to my visa in case you have an emergency..." or what? you could probably discern/learn a lot by reading over the paperwork they have, because you need to know exactly where you stand, in terms of being related to that account. for example, some cards--like Amex--consider "authorized users" as merely people the account holder allows to have a card and use it, but the responsibilty is solely the accountholder's. may i ask who capital one's counsel was? what is the name of the attorney in the original complaint? i am being sued--supposedly--by capital one, but the attorney who brought the action and named cap one as the plaintiff was also the debt collector who hounded me for six months prior.
  12. hi there--i tried to send you a pm but i am too low on the totem to do so; will you send me a pm so that i can reply to it and we can discuss? thanks!
  13. I filed what I believe is a pretty sound answer to a complaint filed against me by Erica Brachfeld--supposedly on behalf of Capital One Bank. Would any of you who have prevailed against Ms. Brachfeld--or are dealing with a lawsuit brought by her now--like to peruse my answer and/or discuss things offline (email, 'phone, Skype)? I love this forum and all of the sound advice dispensed here, but don't want any of the JDBs who probably troll around here to know anything that might point to my identity, as the case is in progress, and easily learnt about via the Court's website or other means. Thanks to whoever runs this site and to those who keep it vital, relevant, and up-to-date; I still can't believe how difficult it was for me--a pretty savvy, educated, and discerning person--to know what to do--and how to do it--after being served!
  14. Thanks, all. Yes, 80,000/year doesn't go a long way in the Bay Area--especially these days. With rent, gas (100mi/day commute), and the high price of *everything,* it's difficult. Especially when my take-home pay was really about 45k year. I had a lot of debt left over from college days (I didn't qualify for fin. aid), and there's no way I could have accrued "assets" of any kind. Anyway, I'm out of work now, and am only making $450 unemployment, which doesn't begin 'til next month. Thanks for the advice, though. I will see a BK attorney for a consult soon.
  15. I was just laid off from my 8-year, well-paying job. I was already in trouble, credit card debt-wise, and was considering bankruptcy. From what I've read, however, when I file, they'll consider my income from the last six months in the means test. If I fail to find employment in six months, my income will be far below the means test minimum, because it will consist solely of unemployment benefits (for me, $450/week). Would it make sense to wait six months from now to file, since, even if I find contract or part-time work, my last-six-month's income will likely be a lot less than it would be if I filed now? Thanks for any advice. Stats: lost $80,000/year job three weeks ago. No savings. ~40k credit card/unsecured loans. live in southern California. No bankruptcies in the past. 33 years old, No assets-home, mortgage, etc. Always a renter. No children. At last glance, my credit rating with the three bureaus averages 677.
×
×
  • Create New...