Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Substituted Service'.
Found 2 results
Two debt collection suits were filed against me, both by Unifund but with different attorneys. I learned of these through a defense lawyer's mail solicitations, which listed the case numbers. One attorney filed substituted service on a Doe at an address I have no connection to (a large business - not a domicile and I've never worked there). I filed a motion to quash service and the hearing date is on calendar. The attorney in the other suit filed an application to serve by publication. The order was just posted as "received" about three weeks ago and forwarded to the judge for consideration. I have lived at the same address for years and have not moved. I'm just out of the house quite a bit and apparently hard to serve. Not sure what I should do, but I don't see how I can oppose the application and order to serve by publication without putting myself under the court's jurisdiction. But I also don't see why they should be allowed to serve me by publication since I have one address which they have and which is readily available and discoverable through just about any and all public records. Does anyone know how long it normally takes the court to decide whether to allow service by publication, or if such a request is routinely granted at the Chatsworth courthouse? I have not seen the application yet, but will not be able to go to the courthouse until next week at the earliest. One of Unifund's attorneys claims to have a valid address at which they substitute served me, but the other attorney claims they must serve me by publication, which I thought was supposed to happen if an address is not known. I'm also wondering if I can viably file a motion to quash the second service if the judge allows it by publication based on the fact that they have my home address and should serve me there. I am not hard to find.
A creditor filed suit against me in Los Angeles County. I have not been served, but when checking online I discovered this: 11/22/2013 DECLARATION RE: DILIGENCE FILED 11/21/2013 DECLARATION RE: DILIGENCE FILED Is this the creditor asking permission from the court to perform substituted service? Or are they claiming they have already performed substituted service? If the latter, I'm worried they could file a (bogus) proof of service and a request for default at the same time. Is this possible? There was nothing filed after that, at least nothing that has been listed online. And why two days in a row? Any thoughts would be appreciated. I don't know much about this stuff.