rte

Members
  • Content Count

    561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About rte

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

core_pfieldgroups_99

  • Biography
    Female
  • Occupation
    unemployed

Profile Fields

  • Location
    California

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My pro bono attorney has already obtained a continuance based on health reasons (from 5-20-13 to 11-18-13). When I'm feeling better, I'll have to work on my case again (with the assistance of counsel this time), so we can be ready for trial. However, he does not think the other side will want to go to trial, knowing any judgment they might get is only a piece of paper. Besides, even before Target v. Rocha, this attorney had already been winning cases based on the same concept of CCP 98 requiring personal service. He says the judges in my county are smarter and get the point. And of course, I know purported plaintiff is not going to produce that witness from Minnesota who works for a different company. Opposing counsel has already told my attorney that they'll take a smaller settlement, but what makes them think I'm made of money, or that I want to give them any?
  2. I don't have caselaw applicable to collection cases. What I found are two cases that discuss proof of mailing, but they don't seem applicable: DOUGLAS MELVIN CALL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL-USC MEDICAL CENTER et al., Defendants and Respondents. Christine CRAIG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BROWN & ROOT, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents Hope you can find something better.
  3. They exceeded the 35 request limit, especially with detailed questions about the Answer I filed. What I did was to answer their detailed questions one by one, and when their questions hit the 35 limit, I stopped answering the rest. That meant I was able to skip some of their silly questions that I preferred not to answer anyway. Their discovery responses were quite unsatisfactory, and I filed an MTC, thus keeping them too busy to file their own MTC, or even to file their infamous MSJ.
  4. Hi, Sorry for the delay. I've got a case of "chemo brain" LOL! Definitely the request for jury trial put me into arbitration. Apparently that's the deal in my particular court. About the caselaw on documents being mailed, are you referring to proof that the plaintiff mailed documents to me? My mind isn't functioning the way it used to.
  5. Wow, this is what defendants have been struggling with. Finally there's progress in that point about personal service. There have been courts that don't care if the witness was not available at the address they provided, and they admit the declaration! I'm not sure if this case may be referred to in other lawsuits, but it sounds like a good start. Well, this makes my day. Nice change from doing cancer research. Thanks, Calawyer!
  6. I just love posts like this! Good luck to both of you!
  7. CONGRATS! Glad I popped in to get the good news. :everybodyclap:
  8. There's a case which used this kind of reasoning for defendant's MIL. It apparently settled so we can't know if the MIL made the difference. Anyway, here's the link, and the case number is 515041: http://webaccess.sftc.org/scripts/magic94/Mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAME=casenumberprompt22 Note that the MIL counted 31 days and avers that it's got to be 32 days.
  9. From Feb. 19 to March 21 is 30 days, the count starts the day after Feb. 19. Even if it did turn out to be 31 days, it's still one day less than 30 days PLUS TWO. And the Supreme Court won't allow for excuses: If 1-day late filings are acceptable, 10-day filings might be equally acceptable, and so on in a cascade of exceptions that would engulf the rule erected by the filing deadline, yet regardless of where the cutoff line is set, some individuals will always fall just on the other side of it.
  10. You know what, I believe the CCP 98 is supposed to reach you 30 days PLUS TWO before trial, if it's sent by overnight delivery. You got the CCP 98 exactly 30 days before trial, so Midland has missed the plus two days. Here's something I lifted from another pleading (CASE method, you know): 1. The Affidavit Was Not Timely Served An affidavit served under Code of Civil Procedure § 98 must be served on the opposing party at least thirty days before trial. Service by Express Mail or other method that provides for overnight delivery extends the period of notice by two court days. Code of Civil Procedure § 1013c. PLAINTIFF served its Declaration in Lieu of Testimony Pursuant to CCP § 98 on DEFENDANT on October __ 2012. Service was made by overnight delivery. A true and correct copy of the proof of service is attached as Exhibit __. Code of Civil Procedure § 1013© thus requires the addition of two court days prior to trial. In addressing late filings, the United States Supreme Court states that If 1-day late filings are acceptable, 10-day filings might be equally acceptable, and so on in a cascade of exceptions that would engulf the rule erected by the filing deadline, yet regardless of where the cutoff line is set, some individuals will always fall just on the other side of it. Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). PLAINTIFF has failed to serve the affidavit in a timely manner and has violated Code of Civil Procedure§ 98. Since PLAINTIFF has not followed the prerequisites for admitting its affidavit, the Court must exclude the affidavit from admission into evidence at trial. _____ Other issues about the CCP 98 are that the declarant did not provide an address 150 miles from the courthouse; the declarant was not available for service of process at the address provided; and the affidavit shows lack of knowledge and authentication, and reliance on hearsay. Good luck!
  11. I'm sorry to hear about your insurance mishaps. This is a common experience, unfortunately. I hope you can get some kind of public health coverage. That's what I had before the hospital applied me to Medi-Cal because of the particular diagnosis involved. I also had a negative experience with free legal aid. If they had said they were working for the OC, I would have believed them. That's why I ended up representing myself. I simply did not want to offer my head on a platter, without a defense. They are so afraid of OC's. Providentially, I managed to get pro bono assistance from an attorney to whom I made a cold call. He is handling the motion for trial continuance, so that is a load off my mind. I'll be mailing him the signed substitution of attorney and the signed declaration today. If the judge wants to question me for more details, he will get a generous helping of applied medical research in oncology and surgery relative to my case, more than he ever wanted to know. It's certainly more than I ever wanted to know. These days my research efforts have to focus on medical stuff, rather than my case law reading. But should the continuance go through, there'll be time for me to work on the trial brief that I had meant to write. At any rate, I will be reading the posts here and learning something new everyday. Thank you so much for responding. Best of luck to you and everyone here.
  12. Thank you for responding. I really appreciate the reassurance and the good wishes. I'll try not to feel too disappointed about not facing them in court lol. I won't miss the stress, that's for sure. Anyway, hopefully the continuance will go smoothly. Keep up the good fight, everybody.
  13. Hello again, I have an update. I've been able to get pro bono assistance for filing a motion for continuance of trial date. This wonderful attorney has called the other side and apparently he was told they would be okay with continuing the date to November 2013. They even asked if I wanted to make a settlement offer (with what?). Anyway, he's preparing a joint stipulation and he has sent me a declaration to sign, explaining why I need a continuance. It includes mentioning the specific cancer involved and the need for potentially debilitating therapy. I suppose this information has to be in there, but I'm wondering if my privacy is compromised as a result. I'm looking for second opinions, just like, he he, I sought a second opinion about my breast cancer diagnosis (and am now changing doctors as a result). Maybe I'm being paranoid, but then, I really am paranoid LOL! OTOH, these illnesses are so common that there may be no need to keep everything under wraps. Comments are appreciated. Thanks.
  14. CONGRATS! Love the narrative and will keep it for future reference.