bluelife

Members
  • Content Count

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About bluelife

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Fields

  • Location
    california

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The law is so confusing, and intentionally done so for the direct or (indirect - giving benefit of doubt) reason to allow wiggle room and enough grey area to screw those that the [powers that be aka people with butt loads of money and using it towards unethical, lobby supporting causes] want and with that same law, protect their friends or family simply, its BS and corrupt, and I sincerely thought when younger than anyone saying government and laws were corrupt was just a whiny mess or conspiracy theorist. Now I know the truth.. well at least part of a part of it. Still learning
  2. Yes I certainly agree that this is a FDCPA violation. I am not sure which lawyers to trust or even look for at this point because the lawyer at the original company i made a contract with promised big things and shouted about their good customer service and such, especially pointing out their good reviews online. I should have paid more attention to the bad reviews and red flags. What is the actual type of lawyer, just any "credit collection" lawyer, or is there a better term to search for, and would i be paying an arm an a leg to have him send a letter? I am not familiar with the pricing structure and in which way i should be asking for his services. Ill definitely be taking the time to write some reviews of my experiences on BBB, yelp, and the lawyers personal page on avvo, Not sure where else is a good site, but i know bbb and yelp always pop up first when searching for them.
  3. So here we go, it seems they just keep ignoring the FDCPA, This is the 3rd letter I received after my C&D letter. Should I be replying or just sit tight?
  4. Ah ha! Ok, yes that makes more sense, all these documents, writing and different names and terms for each. One unsual thing is that I was served end of last year, and still no trial date, I guess they are really dragging their feet on this one, or maybe its a new strategy? Either way I have more time than most to read and prepare for whatever they throw at me.
  5. Congratulations!!! This is great inspiration for my case against CACH as well!!
  6. I noticed a lot of new action on unemployednomore's "cach llc vs me" thread and helpyoself's "sued by cach" threads. I think the JDB's must be coming up with new strategies, but yes i am just in the mode of reading and studying. is opposing a motion for summary judgement similar to a trial brief in content, just arranged differently? Im searching now, im sure ill find the answer after reading a couple articles. Yeah, fortunately I got the addresses ahead of time, but still no trial date.
  7. So i received responses back from SI and RPOD today...They sneaked one little document in this time that they did not last time. and have a few more pages to the terms this time. ill mark the pages that i dont remember seeing before, is there a significance to them? Also they seem to mention address to be "served" at. first page. followed by two pages, (a verification signed by anne gadjoro and proof of service signed by a karen venegas) the next page was pretty much just the signature by ryan vos and jo-anna nieves (attorneys for plaintiff) then this WaMu visa terms sheet
  8. This is definitely an awesome win, and a wonderful example of a case in which the JDB underestimated their competition, I've now read through your thread twice to learn and will probably go through all the documents you've posted. You have been a great inspiration and asset to this community for compiling all the information in the manner you have done. Again, congratulations on winning your case and thank you for posting all your documents and offering help to others in need. I wish you the best moving forward, and hopefully no more trouble from JDB,although if there was, i would be worried about the JDB getting embarassed and not your ability to win
  9. How was this addressed, what happened regarding the OC change, was it mentioned or it did not matter?
  10. So the fire dept sent me a little letter regarding the emergency services also, guess thats a total now of almost $22K Ill have to call tomorrow and see if the fire dept will work with me like the hospital was able to.
  11. Thank you!! I like the trial notes and witness questions, That is quite a bit to remember, When/If the time comes, am I to memorize those question and the flow or can i have the information in my trial binder that I am reading from? So for local rules, I got 7 days out from trial date for "exchanging MIL" http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/local-rules/docs/chapter-02.pdf I think I was looking in the right place, is this the same as the rest of california or specific to county? 2.95 Motions in Limine.(A) At least seven days prior to trial the parties shall meet and confer and exchange motions in limine 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.
  12. There is a topic "Did CA violate FDCPA" it talks about a CA making a phone call but I couldnt find specifics on what happens after receiving two letters, and violation of FDCPA, has anyone else experienced this before, would appreciate some input on the best way to proceed. From what I've read, My question is, They already sent me a letter before, this is their second letter after receiving my C&D, Is this a violation only if they do not follow through with the threat? Is this a violation right away? >> and in this case what should I be doing?
  13. Yes, you are right, I gave them 30 days for response on the Set 2 for ROGS and RPOD from the date I sent which was may 29th. But the M&C letters I sent in the same package required a response by june 5th. (maybe I didnt give them enough time, but 7 days seems enough time) just seems weird to receive a "supplemental" responses that doesnt seem to do anything but re-state what the first responses said, with just some wording removed, I wonder if there is some importance in that difference. For example as you can see in the link below this is what i received as first response http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/318204-next-steps-after-response-from-bop-cach-llc/?p=1246633 The supplemental i just received is almost the same except just the single word "Deny" for all responses 1-5. (The first time they had a brief objection and some wording, before stating deny)
  14. So I received a packet in the mail today. I sent them M&C letters for late responses to my RFA and ROGS, along with RPOD#2 and ROGS#2 I got a packet today and it seems they provided only supplemental responses for my first RFA and ROGS set one. They titled it "plaintiffs supplemental responses to defendants request for admissions set one" and "plaintiffs supplemental responses to defendants special interrogatories set one" both with verification and POS each. The supplement to RFA has general objections for the #1-5 and then for the responses a simple "Deny." by each request. The supplement to Special Interrogatories is similar in that is has general objections for #1-5 and then for the responses: #1 and #2 - plaintiff states any of authorized agents magic west, victoria mason, or christie coston may be called as witness at trial. PLaintiff reserves the right to amend.... #3 - Plaintiff states that on or about circa may 2008 Defendant opened this account with the OC. WaMU, which was later acquired by Chase Bank. The defendant was sent terms and conditions associated with the use of the account and the Defendant used the account to make purchases, cash advances, and/or balance transfers. Defendant made payments on the account with last payment being made on or about [circa aug 2010] the account became delinquent on or about Oct2010. and was charged off on April the following year. (2011) in the amount of about $2K. The OC then assigned all rights, title, and interest in the account to plaintiff on around may 2011. To date, defendant has failed to pay the outstanding principal balance of $2K. They have not responded to my last packet I sent them with my M&C letters and set #2 rpod and Rogs, but they sent this back. Seems like they are confused? Has anyone seen this before? Does this help them by sending out similar supplemental responses? It almost seems redundant and just another copy of the first they sent out?