Themis

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About Themis

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Fields

  • Location
    California
  1. Congratulations!! I'm not sure but I think it has to do with hearing any objections to the proposed judgment. If the judgment is received prior to the hearing then no appearance should be necessary. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
  2. I would say anything that you attach needs to be mentioned in the Objection. But whether you decide to use it or not is up to you.
  3. That's similar to what I did last year. I served an Objection to the Declaration in Lieu of Testimony, but it was before the Target case, so I attached CACH, LLC v. Jones as Exhibit "A." It's always good to have several options
  4. You're absolutely right! I became very concerned that my friend wasn't ever going to be ready for trial and I posted about it in this thread three months ago. And that's exactly what would have happened. Thank you so much for understanding my position and for stating it so perfectly. I was starting to feel like everyone here was disappointed and thought I had failed or something, just because we didn't go for the "big win." But you reminded me why this was the best decision for my friend's case, and for him, it IS a big win. And I can still be proud of all of the hard work that I did, and of the outcome, too. Thank you
  5. That's not why I did it. In my last post I explained that I sent the Notice to Appear pursuant to CCP 1987b because of the title of the witness and the wording of the CCP 98 Declaration. Anyway, as I said before, if it was me I would have done things differently. But some people are gamblers and some people aren't. In the end, my friend decided that it was in his best interest to settle for a small amount and be done with it, rather than take his chances at trial and risk a judgment. And I respect his decision. Not everyone has the same tolerance for risk.
  6. Well, it's not what I would have done, but I'm happy that my friend is happy. I would have been happier if he would have put more effort into learning how to defend himself, but it's his choice and he's the one who has to live with it. I'm still very proud of the work that I did and I'm so grateful for this site and the people here who helped me so much. The CCP 98 declarant said she was an authorized agent and duly qualified custodian of records of Plaintiff. And the declaration said "the Declarant will be made available for live testimony at trial if Defendant serves a Notice to Appear at Trial upon Plaintiff's attorney," so that's what I did. I want to thank you, calawyer You give so generously of your time and your expertise. You are a truly wonderful person!
  7. It's update time! Here's what's been happening lately: I went to court to observe two trials in our judge's courtroom, but it wasn't extremely helpful because in one case the defendant didn't show up, and in the other case the defendant's only defense was "I don't have a job and I have 4 kids". Two judgments for plaintiff in less than 30 minutes. But I got to see how the judge did things, so that was good. He was really nice and he seemed more than fair. Then I spent some time at the law library. What a great place that is! I had a whole table to myself, so I piled it up with books and lost all track of time. Because of the wording of the CCP 98 Declaration, I decided to serve a Notice to Appear upon the CCP 98 Declarant's attorney (NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR AT TRIAL: APPEARANCE OF CATHERINE POTTS) rather than subpoena. Then I filed and served an Objection to the CCP 98 Declaration, and I continued working on the MIL and Trial Brief. Meanwhile, I kept trying to educate my friend so he would be prepared to represent himself in court (trial scheduled for May 6). Let me tell you, that has been the most work I've had to do so far! He's about to drive me insane Then I found out that there's been a different judge in that department recently. I have no idea what happened to the nice judge that was assigned to the case, or who this new judge is. It was at about this same time that it finally became clear to me that my friend was NEVER going to be ready for trial. So, yesterday he offered to settle out of court for a very small fraction of what they were suing for and they accepted his offer. Done. He's happy he doesn't have to go to court and risk getting a judgment against him, and I'm happy I can now go back to my regularly scheduled life I imagine that they're probably happy, too, but I really don't care about them And there it is. Thank you all so much for helping me get through this. I've learned so much from all of you and I truly appreciate it. Oh, by the way, one of the lawyers said that I have a brilliant legal mind and I should go to law school! That makes me happy (and proud) but I couldn't have done it without all of you So, let's celebrate! The way I look at it, any time you don't lose, it's a win!
  8. 1. Yes, you can serve the subpoena. 2. You don't file the CCP96 with the court. You just serve it on the other party. 4. As for the MIL, call the civil court clerk and ask what your judge's time frame is for filing and serving the MIL. Good luck
  9. I know how you feel. I'm in the same situation of having to explain all this to someone who is going to have to represent himself in court, so I'll do my best here 1. Plaintiff's Account Stated doesn't fly because: Account Stated requires proof of (1) prior transactions that establish a debtor-creditor relationship between the parties, (2) an express or implied agreement between the parties as to the amount due, and (3) an express or implied promise from the debtor to pay the amount due. How is Midland going to prove there has been a past relationship, an agreement as to the amount due, or an agreement to pay the amount due? 2. Midland Funding lacks standing because: Midland cannot prove that they own your husband's account. The Bill of Sale proves that Midland bought some random accounts from the OC, but it doesn't prove that your husband's account was one of them. Unless, of course, his particular account is identified on the Bill of Sale or attached ledger of accounts. 3. The Affidavits and Bill of Sale of Accounts are hearsay because: They are out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The principal justification for exclusion of hearsay is that the statement is not made on the stand by a witness subject to cross-examination. They are inadmissible unless an exception applies. 4. The business exception to the hearsay rule doesn't fly because: The hearsay documents lack the proper evidentiary foundation required for a business record. An employee for the debt collector is generally not competent to offer testimony concerning the records of an assignor, because the employee will often lack the personal knowledge to testify as to those records. In other words, an employee of one business (Midland) can't authenticate the business records of another business (OC). They never worked for the OC so they don't have personal knowledge as to how the OC's business records are created and maintained. Midland would need a witness from the OC to authenticate the documents for the documents to qualify for the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
  10. The timing and place of the filing and service of the MIL are at the discretion of the trial judge, so you need to check your court's local rules to find out what the timeline is. And yes, you need to serve them the MIL, too. I'm not sure about the trial brief... sorry
  11. I found this in the local rules for the San Bernardino County Superior Court: Hope this helps