caligirl2012

Members
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About caligirl2012

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Fields

  • Location
    california

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hey h8spleading paper, that quote is very close to what they quoted me. For me it was 80 for standard and 120 rush to serve in San Jose. I chose rush and they tried to serve the next day, and then tried for the next 3 consecutive days. I was satisfied with their service. They kept me up to date via email about the status and if I had any questions, I could email them and they would respond within 30 min or less.
  2. I just used Valpro Attorney Services last week. They cover the entire state. I was pleased with the service and would recommend them.
  3. Mailed off my Objection to the Declaration in Lieu of Live Testimony, and my Trial Brief on Sat. Now to spend the week working on my trial folder, not stressing and crossing my fingers for a positive outcome on Friday.
  4. Thanks for the questions. Much appreciated. Also, Midland has never sent me an offer to settle. Do they normally send one?
  5. Couple more questions: My court date is Dec. 18 one week from today. I am going to try and get the Objection to the Declaration in Lieu of Testimony and trial brief out in the mail today. If I can't and get it out tomorrow, can I still send it regular mail cmrrr, or do I need to send it overnight. It usually takes 2 days to get from Northern Cali, to San Diego. Also, got the information back from process server. He was not available for service, of course, at the two locations 150 miles from trial. However, at the one location in San Jose, it was left with xxxxx at Hunt and Henriques. Do they normally send those to the witness so that he will appear? What happens if he does not appear? And in your opinion, do you think they would bring a witness with them from San Diego to Northern California? And just in case he does appear, does anyone have a list of questions to ask the witness? Thanks
  6. So, that would apply here because Midland state they intend to use the following evidence and testimony: 1. Testimony of Plaintiffs person most knowledgeable, employee of mcm. 2 Affidavit in Lieu of Live Testiomony and then it also states in the last paragraph: Plaintiff reserves the right to introduce rebuttal evidence that may not be included herein should it become necessary to refute evidence of testimony presented by Defendant. So I would I mail this with my Objection to the ccp 98?
  7. Ok, another question: On the final billing statement that they provided me, it states the Charge off date as 11/11 but a minimum payment due of xxx.xx on 11/12. Is this normal? I'm just wondering how it can be charged off one day before the minimum payment was due.
  8. Question: On my request for statement of witness and evidence, one of the things that Midland plans to present at trial is: A) Testimony of Plaintiffs Person Most Knowledgeable, employee of MCM. Affidavit in Lieu of Live Testimony by xxxx employee of MCM. Are these two the same person?
  9. Couple more questions: In the affidavit of sale of account by original creditor it is signed by xxx in Minnesota. It does not include: Under the laws of the state of California (is this called the CA perjury clause?). So, based on ccp 98, ccp 2015.5 and California Supreme Court holding in Kulshrestha v First Union Commercial Corp., 33 Cal. 4th 601 (Cal. 2004) it should not be allowed as evidence. Correct? Also, per the definition of account stated, would I be able to prove that this was not an account stated because they supposedly changed the card from discover to mastercard 2 yrs after it was charged off, therefore an element of finality was not meet because the parties continued to transact business. (post 128)
  10. I am working on my Declaration in Lieu of Testimony, just about finished with it, waiting on process server to finish. Started working on trial brief and have a question. In the ccp 98 the declarant states that,"These records are trustworthy and relied upon because the original creditor was required to keep careful records of the account at issue in this case as required by law and/or suffer business loss." First I have two affidavits of sale. One states Affidavit of sale of account by original creditor signed Oct. 2013 in Minnesota, the other one just states Affidavit of Sale signed Dec. 2014 also from Minnesota. This one is the one signed Dec. 2014: Can I argue that according to the affidavit of sale by xxx, an affidavit documentation specialist at xxxx bank, formerly known as xxx bank, issuer of the relevant consumer credit card, stated that they have reviewed the account records for wm master card account number 5678 (the account) issued to debtor and made payable to xxx bank. On 5/2011 debtor was issued a wm discover card with account number 1234. On 8/2014 debtors account was converted from discover to master card and the account number was changed to 5678. (The card was charged off in 2012 and I never received notice that it had been converted) On 9/2013 debtors balance on wm master card account ending in 5678 was xxxx.xx The account was sold to Midland Funding LLC on 9/2013. This sale, including the balance is reflected in the books and records of xxx bank. Now midland is suing on account 1234, statements reflect account 1234. But according to this affidavit the account belongs to 5678 and is reflected in their books as such. So, could I argue that these records are not trustworthy and should not be relied upon. Because according to this affidavit, 5678 is the one that the account belongs to. This affidavit was included in the ccp98 and plaintiffs response to defendants request for statement of witnesses and evidence. Should I include it in my mil also?
  11. Thanks calawyer. That is the way I was thinking, but just wanted to be sure.
  12. I have been going over everything that Midland has sent me and I have a question about something. On the Purchase Price Reconciliation/Funding Instructions. It is dated Sept. 19, 2013 But it states : This (redacted) receivables purchase agreement, is made this 30th day of July, 2013 between OC and Midland. How could they have made the agreement in July, but purchased my account Sept 19, 2013? Everything is redacted of course except for: Cut-off date Sept 2013 Transfer date Sept 2013 Date of funding Sept 2013 Is this normal, or am I just reading to much into it?
  13. Question about the MIL. Sacramento County says for MIL: A) At least 7 days prior to trial the parties shall meet and confer and exchange MIL and identify the motions that are contested. The parties shall file their motions, oppositions, if any, and a list of disputed motions in the assigned department on the first day of trial. So does this mean that the plaintiff will request a meet and confer and this is when I would give them a copy of my MIL or do I need to send it to them beforehand. And if I am understanding correctly I file the MIL on the day of trial.