Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'trial'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Announcements
    • Polls
    • PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING / Board Announcements
    • Resources
  • Credit Repair Forums
    • Credit Repair
    • Collections
    • Credit Bureaus/Reports/Scores
    • Credit Article of the Week
  • Legal Issues
    • Is There a Lawyer in the House
    • Bankruptcy Q and A
  • Debt Validation
    • While You are In It Debt Validation Q and A
    • Debt Settlement
  • Loans and Banking
    • Obtaining Credit Cards, Auto Loans and Financing
    • Mortgages
    • Student Loans
    • Banking and Finance
  • Non Credit
    • Off Topic
    • Wine

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location


Biography


Interests


Occupation

Found 25 results

  1. Or, should the title be: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (and how much of a win is this?) Ok, I realize there may be some pitfalls in that PRA could re-open my case. But, do they/would they do that? I ain't gloating. The lead up was stressful, I was flailing and there were some things I could've done better. See my original post. A recap of the past two weeks: My last hearing was to set a trial date of Feb 8. The judge handed us both an Advance Trial Review Order. ( Look it up for California to see samples of it.) I was confused by the document. It basically was an inventory of case evidence and witnesses. The contract attorney for the plaintiff filed it with nothing listed. (Suspicious: No evidence? No Witnesses?) I did the same. I was late to send out my Discovery/ Demand for Documents to the Plaintiff. This was a mistake. The deadline is tricky. I understood it to be 30 days before trial. But it closes 30 days before trial. I feel I still don't completely understand the deadline, but I now at least know to get it done early, at latest 65 days before trial. That being said- it would have been understandable and permissive for the Plaintiff to just ignore my discovery requests. However, they ended up replying the day before the trial with a point by point refusal of each of my discovery demands per my violation for CCP 2024.020(a) So, why even bother sending me that? Did they have to? Or, were they trying to psyche me out? Anyway... TRIAL DAY! I wake up early, keep a positive attitude, go the gym, "Mama Said Knock You Out" on repeat! Get to the court house early. Breathing deep. Courtroom doors open at 9:00 am sharp. Friday trial call. Everybody signing in. All kinds of people and civil matters stacking the day's schedule. Contract lawyer for the Plaintiff strides in, calls me out while he signs in and announces "I'm going to dismiss your case" . We wait for the judge to call us into the octagon to make it official. And that's it! 5 minutes. So, what happened here? Am I lucky? Did I simply answer and show up? Did I use the Magic Words? Well, like I said- no gloating here. I got TWO MORE of these things on deck.
  2. Received summons from Portfolio Recovery for pre-trial mediation. I read up on a forum from 2013 about proving ownership of debt. With summons I received: pages: 1. Served page 2. Right to venue 3. Complaint for damages and on this page account stated count 1 #1-3 nothing unusual #4 capital one has assigned the subject account and plaintiff is the owner of debt. 4-5. old capital one statement 6. Your account has charged off from capital one. 7-12. Old capital one statements. There is absolutely nothing that shows they own the debt. Went to mediation today and asked the mediator for proof of ownership. He did not have anything, not even a copy if the summons. I told him I do not owe Portfolio Recovery because I am not under contract nor do I have proof they own the debt. He asked if I wanted to go to trial to get that proof? I said yes. Of course sent to judge for trial set up. I told judge I do not owe Portfolio anything. Judge said you are denying oweing Portfolio Recovery. I said yes. He then asked if I deny owning capital one and I said no. He then set up trial for May and set it for 15 minutes. Now what do I do. Also I have been unable to work since May 2015 and made my last payment to capital one in May 2016. I am on disability and that's my only income and that is the reason I could no longer pay Capital One. I don't know if it helps but I have 35 different phone numbers that I have blocked from Portfolio Recovery after I told them numerous times Do Not Call me. I just need to see what I need to do next.
  3. Dear Forum Members (@SeaDragon, @CALawyer, @RyanEX, @AnonAmos, and others), Lost a trial vs AMEX, FSB here in California. Judgement filed in favor of Plaintiff on Nov 30th. - Affiant XXXXXX, who signed on Declaration in Lieu of Testimony (with exhibits/documents) was the Live Witness at the trial. - Affiant XXXXXX perjured in his Declaration by giving a false address. Was served by process server - but unavailable for personal service. - Judge allowed Declaration and perjured Affiant to take the witness stand. Judge allowed the exhibits and documents as evidence. - Judge mentioned verbally, there maybe some doubts about his testimony as Custodian of Records - towards the end of the trial. Was wondering, if I might have an Appeal case? Kind Regards.
  4. URGENT HELP NEEDED My husband (who I have POA for) was served summons May 2016 for credit card suit Discover Bank c/o Brock & Scott PLLC . Details below: Answers & Affirmative actions filed within 30 days June 2016. He is pro se right now as no income Meditation and/or trial Magistrate Court Ellijay, GA on July 20, 2016 Discover Bank c/o Dorian xxxxxxxxx (his location is Conyers GA but states on complaint Brock & Scott PLLC in Winston Salem address) versus the hubby Question: On July 20 what motions can be filed? Debt amount stated $2,7xx.38 is not accurate as Discover card accepts payments April, May & June 2016 - less than min amount This is first communication from Discover - no prior settlement offers or contacts from collections Letter rec'd from Discover Feb 2016 offering lower interest rate and stated charge off date end of Feb 2016. Only attached to summons is an affidavit from Discover Bank Litigation Specialist, Feb to Mar statement - not reflecting lower interest rate which we accepted or so thought we did via letter. 1. Asked for verification to attorney when we received summons - not afforded to prior as we did not know it was in collections - asked second time with answer - NO REPLY 2. No cardholder agreements or anything else. Q: I believe we can request Motion to Dismiss? OR Motion to Comple Discovery? OR Strike Affadavit of debt? OR Motion to compel Arbitration? (JAMS) Should we present arbitration request at mediation followed by trial...Very confused! HELP We can not afford an attorney to assist us due to very low income and no resources to borrow money for attorney. Please any help as he can't speak well for himself & I must help him
  5. I WON, I WON, I WON, I WON, I WON, I WON, I WON, I WON, I WON, I WON, I WON, I WON, I WON, They called us all into one courtroom with a judge. She read through ALL the cases and they where dispersed to various other courtrooms. Mine was 4B. I met with the para legal in the hallway. I showed her my answer and requested to see their Bill of Sale. etc. She went over to the attorney, he handed her my file. She came back and said "this is what we have" and it was all the documents they'd sent me previously. I re-iterated what I was requesting. She stated they didn't have it, I stated I wanted a trial. We all go into the courtroom. Everyone made a deal for payments. People who didn't have any money etc had their cases dismissed- but with the verified plan to re-file in a couple months. I was the last person called- as the only "request for trial". I went before the judge. Attorney stated "Defendant is requesting documents that we are not in possession of, therefore we will be dismissing this case" Judge says "GOOD JOB young lady!!!". He went on to state that "the case will be dismissed, but if they obtain all the documents you requested, they will be able to re-file if they should choose to". I asked him to dismiss with prejudice. He said because the case is lacking evidence that CAN be obtained, he can't rule that way. He asked what I do, I said "I'm a social worker". Judge says "well you should be a lawyer! You did a great job!". Then CASE DISMISSED. Attorney spoke with me in the hallway and stated that he is recommending to Midland that they drop this case and will pursue no further legal action against me. Hope this is true! I didn't even need the Trial Brief I'd prepared or any of the documents, case law, legal statutes. Once they saw what I wanted, they went away. WHOOOOO HOOOOOO this trial has been stressing me out for months. Now it's over. Let's hope he keeps his word re: no further legal action against me My original thread pleading for help....http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/323664-please-help-served-by-midland/ I could NOT have done this without all the info and comments available on here. Thank you so much! Edit: if there's anything I can do to help any one else (especially ppl from Rhode Island) pls feel free to PM me. I prepared soooo many legal docs, but didn't have to use them. And I found so many samples on here- but made them my own with R.I. Case law, Civil Procedure Rules, Evidence Rules and legal citations etc. I am proof- you just have to do the research and it will pay off.
  6. Hi Everyone: I have a "Case Management" trial date next month in front of a judge set by Moore Law Group. Does anyone know what the expectations for this trial date? After reading one of the posting, it seems like it's more of a meet and confer infront of the judge and a trial date will be set. Can I serve them with discovery right there? Should I serve them with discovery? Any comment is valuable.
  7. this is my case: 1. Who is the named plaintiff in the suit? - Toyota motor credit 2. What is the name of the law firm handling the suit? (should be listed at the top of the complaint.) - Patenaude & Felix 3. How much are you being sued for? - $1300 when the complaint was filed in 2007/ after default was a set aside they have increased to $2600 4. Who is the original creditor? (if not the Plaintiff) - ToyotaMotor Credit, but in their cause of action they say they are the assignee for consideration 5. How do you know you are being sued? (You were served, right?) - Summon was not served, filed motion to set aside default for no servicee 6. How were you served? (Mail, In person, Notice on door) - no service 7. Was the service legal as required by your state? - no 8. What was your correspondence (if any) with the people suing you before you think you were being sued? - None 9. What state and county do you live in? - California, los angeles 10. When is the last time you paid on this account? (looking to establish if you are outside of the statute of limitations) - According to their claim, in 2006 11. What is the SOL on the debt? - 4 years in California 12. What is the status of your case? Suit served? Motions filed? You can find this by a) calling the court or looking it up online (many states have this information posted - when you find the online court site, search by case number or your name) - Complaint filed: 01/2007; Summons & Complaint served: no - General denial (PlD-050 form) Answer filed: 05/29/13 - Plaintiff's RFA, Special Interrogatories, and RFP served :no - Defendants Answers to RFA, Special Interrogatories, and RFP served:no - Defendant's RFA, Special Interrogatories, and RFP served:no - Plaintiff's Answers to RFA, Special Interrogatories, and RFP served :no - MSC scheduled for : never had one - Trial scheduled for 09/11/14 13. Have you disputed the debt with the credit bureaus (both the original creditor and the collection agency?) - No 14. Did you request debt validation before the suit was filed? (Note: if you haven't sent a debt validation request, don't bother doing this now - it's too late.) - No 15. How long do you have to respond to the suit? (This should be in your paperwork). If you don't respond to the lawsuit notice you will lose automatically. In 99% of the cases, they will require you to answer the summons, and each point they are claiming. - Already responded 16. We need to know what the "charges" are. Please post what they are claiming.Common counts,account stated,breach of contract,claims of debt for goods sold and delivered,for work performed,for money loaned or advanced,for money paid and repayment is due,for money received on behalf of the plaintiff,money due on an account stated or, indebitatus assumpsit, quantum meruit,quantum valebant,unjust enrichment. - Breach of Contract, Common Counts on an open book account for money duebecause an account was stated in writing by and between plaintiff and defendant in which it was agreed that defendant was indebted to plaintiff.For money paid,laid out,and expended to or for defendant at defendants special instance and request.Plaintiff entitled to attorney fees according to proof, in terms of contract and the automobile sales finance act 17. Is the complaint "verified"? A verified complaint is one in which the last page it has a declaration from someone stating that the information and allegations are true and correct under penalty of perjury. - No. The complaint is not verified. 18. Did you receive discovery or interrogatory or Admissions (questionnaire) regarding the lawsuit? -no. 19. What evidence did they send with the summons? An affidavit? Statements from the OC? Contract? List anything else they attached as exhibits. When they filed for default judgement in 2007 this is what they included in summons:Order granting copies in lieu of originalsRequest for dismissalRequest for entry of defaultWaiver of interest & attorney fees declarationAffidavit in support of request for entry of default judgement* stated in affidavit they are unable to obtain the originals, there not lost just misplaced* for evidence code sect. 1553Copy of a copy of a retail sales contractNotice of plan to sellAuction detailExplanation of deficiencyRepo invoiceOrder to show cause hearingWhen I found out in 2013 Filed -MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT : MOTION IS GRANTED Filed- NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Order - MOTION IS DENIED./ TRIAL SET 7/2014 Filed - APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE ORDER RE: FOR CONTINUANCE ON TRIAL HEARING *They never gave notice* APPLICATION GRANTED/ trial hearing continued to 9/2014 08/07/2014 NOTICE OF TRIAL FILED. 08/07/2014 NOTICE IN LIEU OF SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AT TRIAL FILED. 08/07/2014 PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL BRIEF FILED. 08/07/2014 DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF IN LIEU OF PERSONAL TESTIMONY AT TRIAL CC. 98 FILED. 08/07/2014 PROOF OF SERVICE RE: NOTICE OF TRIAL, NOTICE IN LIEU OF SUBPOENA FILED. In there trial brief they have added a different witness for declaration. They say that they appoint electronic document processing legal services to to accept service of process in this matter on their behalf. That dos not seem right to me. All help appreciated. Thank you kindly.
  8. http://www.taylorblessey.com/documents/Verdict_Article_Patricia_Tazzara_Andrea_Hilbert.pdf sad but true "Partiesin civil cases do not have a constitutional right to have a Court reporter.Parties do, however, have statutory rights to noticeand to arrange at their own expense for thepresence of a certified shorthand reporterthat the court may appoint to serve as anofficial Court reporter pro tempore for theirhearing or trial."
  9. We go to trial in a week from today. LVNV Funding did not respond to discovery, so we had to file a motion to compel admissions and req. production of docs. LVNV funding finally responded last week, but simply gave us the same paperwork they originally provided when we asked for a Bill of Particulars back in December - nothing new, except the answers formulated admit, deny etc. The exhibits are the same. They have provided no signed agreement which they reference in their complaint, no contract, no statements, and no itemization of account to show how they came up with the amount owed - we don't believe this is our debt. We are concerned that they might try to enter evidence at our trial that they have not provided us, and want to be prepared to object to this with citations of case law which support objecting to the plaintiff entering this info after the discovery period is over. From the research we have done, the cases seem to be from CA Reporter 3rd series: 84Calap3rd771 195Calap3rd213 200Calap3rd372 and another from Cal Reporter - 235CR430 Does anyone have access to these cases? I can't seem to find them at the law library! I am hoping if someone does, it will not only help us, but also help others to have these cases as a resource for trial. Thank you for any help and advice as we get ready for trial.
  10. I have trial in a few weeks and just want to know from those that have gone to trial with Cavalry (or any JDB) what your experiences have been.
  11. We received a Summons from Mandarich, which we answered with denying the allegations. The complaint was for 1. Breach of contract 2. Breach of personal guarantee 3. Unjust enrichment 4. Account stated. they did not provide any documents regarding the account in the paperwork. We are planning on filing for bankruptcy and answered the complaint, but now the bankruptcy will take a bit longer to file than we anticipated because there is some business property at stake. The trial is set for March 7. 2014. I have been reading through a lot of posts and it looks like I cannot do discovery at this point. Can anyone help me in how I can salvage this? I dont want anymore judgements. Thanks
  12. I've read every trial related post I could find. I've been prepping for a month now and feel ready. I have a thead detailing more into my case, but I'm looking for more general trial experiences. Wondering if anyone else would like to chip in on things that came up at trial, situations, JDB strategies, anything unforeseen or that caught you off guard and how to deal with?
  13. I'm being sued by a JDB. My case was originally in Beverly Hills. About 2 weeks after I filed my answer at BH, BH closed and my case was reassinged to Chatsworth. I received a notice in the mail that my date is in early May 2014. My question is....is it a Case Management Conference or the trial? At the top of the notice below the case info summary it says 'Case management Order/Notice of Trial' and then it says 'The court has ordered the following: Case Management Review Held. The case is set for Court Trial on dd/mm/yyy and then in the clerk's certificate of mailing it says they are serving 'Case Management Order/Notice of Trial'. Does this mean they had the case management review and the date they gave me is the trial? Or does this mean the case management is on the date they provided?...thanks for any help you can provide.
  14. Greetings all. Love this site. Midland Funding is suing me. I answered the summons on time, however I believe my ADs are weak. I filed a CMS, but they did not. I attended the CMSC, but they did not. Unfortunately, I have fumbled the Discovery portion of the suit and I need help. The trial will happen in the latter part of next month. I sent them a Demand for Inspection of Docs, which they have sent to me. I also sent them a Request for Statement of Witnesses and Evidence, which was deemed improper. I have to resend it. They have sent me documents, such as Interrogatories, Product. of Doc. and Requests for Admission documents. I am confused on how to properly answer them, the docs, since they have already sent me affidavits, CC statements, Bill of Sale, affidavit of sale and other things. Please help.
  15. Hi Everyone: I'm a little bit confuse and hope that someone can shed a little light on my situation. I received a notice from the court here in CA and its states: "Civil Trial Assignment -Short Cause - Civil Trial Assignment". This was set by plantiff. Their original filing was a "Case Management" trial. I was told that CA no longer do casemangement meet and confer. So is this an actual trial or is it to meet with the judge and set up a trial date? I originally had the impression that this was just a meeting infront of the judge to set a trial date. It's assigned on a Friday morning at 8:30 in the morning. Would someone shed some light on this for me? Thanks.
  16. Hi All, I have 33 calendar days before my Trial Plaintiff (OC) - Citibank South Dakota, N.A, Plaintiff's Attorney - The Moore Law Group Amount sued for - around $17,000 CCP 96 request served and BOP served on the Plaintiff Plaintiff responsed to CCP 96 request and BOP and supplied the CCP98 declaration in Lieu by Dorothy Ruiz. I sent them a letter by CMRR, noting that I was planning to object since they violated the statute by not providing proper witness addresses, as well as put the wrong case # on their response. They sent me an amended CCP96 response just a few days ago, with a corrected case #, but again with no addresses for each possible witness, except for the Plaintiff attorney's PO Box and instructions to contact witnesses through the Plaintiff's Counsel (this screams denial of due process by Plaintiff's Counsel). And they amended without a stipulation CCP96 (d)No additional, amended or late statement is permitted except by written stipulation or unless ordered for good cause on noticed motion. So, my guess is that I include their transgression into my MIL, right? Since I had some extra time, I filed an evidentiary objection against the declaration in lieu and have had it served on Plaintiff's Counsel. But reading all these wonderful posts here, now I am realizing that objecting a CCP98 DEC in Lieu with a MIL would be a more technically correct to do it, right? In addition to the MIL, can I refashion my evidentiary objection as the "evidentiary objection in support of the MIL" and have it re-served on the Plaintiff's counsel, or should I leave it alone? I checked the Court's local rules and found out that MIL and Trial Brief are to be submitted on the day of trial. However, there was nothing in the local rules about a deadline to serve both on the opposing Counsel. In that case, do I just have to compliy to Rule 3.1548. Pretrial Submissions? Pretrial exchange: No later than 25 days before trial, each party must serve on all other parties the following: . . . (10)Motions in limine. So, I am using HomelessInCalifornia's excellent MIL as a starting point, but am adapting it to my case since I am dealing with an OC, and not a JDB. Now, are the days before trial actually calendar days before trial? I know when filing regular motions and figuring out how to calendar them, the Court days are actually used, but not calendar days. So, for the purposes of the Trial, does the xxx days before Trial mean Court days or calendar days? If it is calendar days and my calculation of 33 days before the Trial is right, according to the Rule 3.1548. Pretrial Submissions, do I need to (a) have my MIL mailed on the opposing Counsel at least 25 days before trial or does the opposing Counsel need to received the MIL 25 days before the trial? Since I'll need to do carefully modify HomelessInCalifornia's MIL to my needs, I was wondering if I can still use the POS-30 form if I have the Plaintiff's Counsel served by Express/Overnight mail. The POS-030 mentions "first-class" mail, so I am not sure If I can still use the form. Finally, I am planning to also subpoena the Plaintiff's CC98 affiant via the Sherrif Dept, but from what I have read and understood here is that I will not get the Sherriff's declaration of non-service literally until a couple of days before trial. So, I am guessing I just get the MIL served in the Plaintiff's Counsel, but actually bring the Declaration in support of MIL to the day of trial, with the Sherrif's declaration of non-service as Exhibit "A"? Is that correct? Also, what is the deadline to get the Trial Brief served on Plaintiff's Counsel? 25 days as with the other pretrial exchange documents? Many Thanks
  17. Just got back from court. Not a bad outcome but not what I'd hoped which was of course win or dismissal. The rent a lawyer, Stuart Rine shows up and wants to put me on the stand because of my admissions (I admitted my address and that I had the card) Then he blathered on about the witness not being served. The judge said its right here, she did, better get your docs from your boss in order. Haha The judge was pretty mean, told me this wasn't a game (no idea what he meant by that). I explained that I had tried to work things out with OC, they agreed to reducing interest from 28% (they slammed me right before anti-slamming law came into effect), i made a good faith payment of $330 before new interest rate was in effect and then never heard from them again until lawsuit. He said their evidence looked fine to him and I started to freak out but took the advice of not speaking unless absolutely necessary. He asked me if I could prove what I just told him. I said I would have to pay my bank hundreds of dollars to get records of electronic payments. Then he stopped, looked through docs and said "the witness needs to be here. I will continue this and the plaintiff has to bring a witness. And a good one, not just someone who has seen the papers. The plaintiff will have a hard time doing this. He looked at rent a lawyer and told him to tell his employers that he was going to stop allowing ccp 98 and that he was aware of target vs. rocha. He said he was new at these "lowly" cases and this was the first time he'd seen someone like me use it. He told me to come back in November with a statement. Lets see if they dismiss or actually bring a credible witness. I won't start collecting bank statements - burden of proof is on them. Guess it'll be my word against theirs. I thought this would be over today but I think I still have a good chance?
  18. Hi, I've been studying the Plaintiff's (Plaintiff (Citibank) is also OC) witness' CCP98 declaration in lieu of live testimony, and am trying to go through the exercise of poking as many holes through it as possible. I am still planning on serving a subpoena on this witness, but am looking for some help in coming up with various objections to each declaration paragraph. It will help during trial I have used parts of Seadragon's defendant CCP 98 declaration, as well as bits and pieces of other declarations online. I have come up with some stuff on my own, too. I'd really appreciate if someone took a stab at my objections and told me what improvements might be needed. Thanks! Here we go: _____________________________________________________ Declaration in Lieu of Live Testimony at Trial (CCP 98 DEC) Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. ,Plaintiff Black Metallic, an individual, Defendant. I Dorothy Ruiz, am an Assistant Vice President with Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (Plaintiff.). If called upon to competently testify in this matter, I could and would competently testify as follows: 1. I am thoroughly familiar with the manner in which Plaintiff maintains the records for outstanding accounts. I have found Plaintiff's records, practices and procedures to be accurate and reliable. 1. Objection. Affiant makes statements regarding documents and events for which no evidentiary foundation has been laid that affiant in fact has personal knowledge as alleged (Evid. Code 702(a)). Hearsay (Evid.Code 1200). Lack of proper foundation. The allegations that the affiant is thoroughly familiar with the manner in which Plaintiff maintains the records for outstanding accounts, does not confer personal knowledge of the specific documents in issue. 2. Plaintiff's records are kept in the ordinary course of business by designated agents of Plaintiff who are required to accurately record any and all business transactions or events on the computer system. All such entries are made at or near the time of the transaction or event. I have personally reviewed Plaintiff's records as they relate to the Citibank Credit Card Account XXXXXXXXXXXX1234 ("Account"), opened in the name of Black Metallic (hereafter "Defendant") and make this declaration based on this review. 2. Objection. Affiant avers that she is familiar with how the records are being maintained, but does not seem to be a custodian of the records, and does not seem to have the personal knowledge of the record keeping in the regular course of business (Evid. Code 702(a)). The affiant alleges that she has personally reviewed the Defendant's account, but the Defendant objects to this because the affiant appears to have reviewed the record just for the purposes of the litigation and has no personal knowledge of how these records are being maintained during the regular course of business (Evid. Code 702(a)). 3. These computerized records are the principal records for sums and owing to Plaintiff for any and all transactions resulting from the use of a credit card account established by Plaintiff for a customer. The records reflect all debits and credits in connection with the use of the credit card account, including against whom and in favor of whom the entries are made, with the entries made in the regular course of business, with a statement of the credit card account provided to the credit account holder on a monthly basis. These monthly statements are automatically provided after the closing date on the statements 3. Objection. Affiant assumes facts not in evidence. Affiant also lacks personal knowledge to make these assertions. Defendent objects to it on grounds of Hearsay (Evidence Code 1200), lack of personal knowledge (Evidence Code 702(a)), improper authentication (Evidence code 1402). . 4. It is the normal practice and procedure of Plaintiff to require a potential customer to submit an application requesting the establishment of a credit account with Plaintiff. The application, if written, as well as copies of payments are microfilmed, imaged or maintained by the computer system as electronic media to facilitate storage of records and are maintained at least the required of time as part of the bank's normal business practice and procedure. When available, the microfilm copies are true and correct copies of the originals. 4. Objection. Affiant assumes facts not in evidence. Affiant also lacks personal knowledge to make these assertions. Defendent objects to it on grounds of Hearsay (Evidence Code 1200), lack of personal knowledge (Evidence Code 702(a)), improper authentication (Evidence code 1402). 5. By executing the credit card account application for a Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., CITI AT&T UNIVERSAL MASTERCARD credit account, or by use of the credit account, the Defendant agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in applications and account agreement. Plaintiff issued credit to Defendant Black Metallic. Attached hereto as Exhibit "1" is a copy of the signed application of the applicant. 5. Objection. The Exhibit "1" does not contain any signature of the applicant. Instead, it is a computer-generated report that may have possibly been created just for the purposes of the litigation. Affiant assumes facts not in evidence. Affiant also lacks personal knowledge to make these assertions. Defendant objects to it on grounds of Hearsay (Evidence Code 1200), lack of personal knowledge (Evidence Code 702(a)), improper authentication (Evidence code 1402). 6. Defendant ceased making the required payments on the account pursuant to the account agreement. There are no unresolved disputes on the account. Accordingly, Plaintiff accelerated the remaining balance and brought suit for the principal balance of $15,000.00 which is now due. 6. Objection. States an improper legal conclusion as to the status of defendant's loan. Affiant assumes facts not in evidence. Affiant also lacks personal knowledge to make these assertions. Defendent objects to it on grounds of Hearsay (Evidence Code 1200), lack of personal knowledge (Evidence Code 702(a)), improper authentication (Evidence code 1402). 7. True and correct copies of the statements are attached hereto and incorporated herein collectively as "Exhibit 2", including the final statement showing the principal balance due and owing $15,000.00 as of April 1st, 2010. Also, attached hereto as Exhibit "3" are copies of payments received by Plaintiff from Defendent. The account number currently ending in 1234, previously ended in 2345, 3456, 4567 7. Objection. Improper authentication (Evidence code 1402). There can only be an original and a duplicate. Copies in Exhibit "2" are inadmissible as evidence. The "check images" in Exhibit "3" are also inadmissible due to being copies. Moreover, the check images are illegible, and as such inadmissible. 8. Plaintiff requests that Exhibit "1", Exhibit "2" and Exhibit "3" be accepted in lieu of the original documents. 8. Objection. Improper authentication (Evidence code 1402). These documents are not properly authenticated, are neither the proper originals or duplicates, and, as such, the Defendant requests that they be stricken from the record and excluded as evidence. 9. Plaintiff cannot utilize small claims court due to economic impracticallity. The volume of delinquent credit account that Plaintiff pursues and the fact that judgments in small claims court require a court appearance, would require Plaintiff to hire additional personnel. 9. Objection. Requiring witnesses to appear in court is a standard due process that cannot be foregone because of the Plaintiff's economic concerns. 10. Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. and against Defendant Black Metallic. in the principal sum of $15,000.00 plus court costs. 10. Objection. Defendant requests the Court to strike the affiant's CCP 98 declaration as hearsay (Evidence Code 1200), and lack of personal knowledge (Evidence Code (702)(a)), Improper Authentication (Evidence Code 1402). Affiant assumes facts not in evidence, and Defendant requests that it be stricken from the record and excluded as evidence. 11. Pursuant to CCP Section 98, affiant is available for service of process care of <address given within 150 miles>, for 20 days immediately prior to Trial. I declare under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dorothy Ruiz Assistant Vice President.
  19. Hi Everyone, First of all, I want to once again thank EVERYONE on this forum whose knowledge and patience as been of such great help to all of us novices who are treading in unfamiliar (and sometimes a little scary) waters! I hope and pray you and yours are well! Here are my previous posts for reference: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/319804-answer-filed-received-notice-to-appear-pre-trial-conf-429-help/ http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/319510-asset-acceptancehsbc-summons-received-in-mi-next-step/ Went to court 4/29. They sent a rent-a-lawyer who had some computer-generated paperwork stating when last payment was made, amount, when account was opened, etc. Didn't look like they had provided Purchase Agreement or any HSBC docs (to him at least). In my answer I attached the DV request letter I had sent to another collector who I guess was working for them last year. Friedman sent a letter 3 weeks ago basically stating what they say I owe. Did not send any of the other paperwork I had requested in the letter from OC (agreement, statements, my signature on any purchases, Purchase Agreement from HSBC, etc.) Anyway, it's been 24 days since court and Discovery is 30 days. I have been waiting for them to send something. I have had a server contact me over a week ago, and have been waiting for them to serve me. I don't know if it is from Asset or not. I figured if I got some discovery documents from them I would file an answer requesting all the documents. Should I just go ahead before the 30 days on Wednesday and request all of it? If so, what should I request, and can one of you let me know where I can find an example touse as a guideline for MI so I do it right? Just want to do things the right way while not showing my hand. Thanks again, buddyapple
  20. I need a subpoena served in Woodland Hills. However, I have been unemployed for 4 years and live on food stamps in a room provided by my father. I am 53 years old and am one of the millions who lost it all in the Great Recession and have yet to recover. I cannot afford a process server. Is there anyone who can help out? I have a separate thread i started regarding my case called "Going to Trial in California" if you want to know more about the case.
  21. *UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE* Looks like Midland is requesting to dismiss the case! See Post #20... Ok, my trial is set for May 24, 2013 (Civil Trial Assignment). Seventeen days away. I've pretty much done things half-heartedly up til now - and now I'm a mess. Yes, my own fault in not attacking this thing head on. Today I tried to file a Graduated Sworn Denial on Account and the clerk said that "Never seen one of these before, this looks like an Answer...we can't file this" she had me confused when I left the courthouse empty handed and back home feeling downtrodden. Since I don't feel like I know enough and time is short (still working on My MIL and Trial Brief with help from ASTMedic and Aticnib's great posts) I'm beginning to wonder if it's realistically too late to win with any possibility and maybe I should bluff my way to a greatly reduced settlement. Question #12 in my Q&A below explains what I've done/sent so far. Where do I go from here? What should I do. I'm lost. Any responses or help is so greatly appreciated! (scared in Sac)... Pint
  22. Hello, I need help with my next move. Check Mate anyone? I took down the Plaintiffs Attonrneys in court, using their own sloppy work to have my Judgment Vacated! Needless to say the Attorney was not happy and the Judge was not happy. I don't think they really like to be put in the position to make such a decision. Now the complaint is reinstated and I will start from the beginning. I already had filed an answer "out of time" , with my Motion to Vacate. It was brief. The SOL should technically be expired. Account closed in 2006. But when I was dealing with this law office, I did make payments to them prior to judgment. (2008). And I think that in NJ SOL is refreshed. Although, their collection efforts had so many FDCPA violations, maybe I can use the fight that they were misleading and deceptive and the SOL should not re-age. Or maybe the payments won't effect the SOL because the complaint was filed before the payments were made? I would prefer to just settle for a small amount, but I need to stay on top of my game. Any suggestions for my next move? Proceed through discovery etc? Wait for a settlement? ( I offered a $200 settlement after I filed my Motion to Vacate. Attorney showed up in court and said she just got the letter. Asked if I still want to settle? I said "Na, I already did all the work.") Elect Arb? Thanks for all your input. I will also be starting another topic regarding the violations this firm made and asking for suggestions on my retailiation:)
  23. MY MIDLAND "START TO FINISH" STORY After struggling with this debt collection nightmare with Fred Hanna and Midland Funding for over a year it all ended today with a judgment in favor of me, the defendant! The road was long and included the dunning phase, a case filed in magistrate court (dismissed without prejudice) and then re-filed a few months later in State court. Because I was also suffering being laid off from my job, I can’t even explain the fear and stress I experienced during this whole process. But I really want to share this experience, because it has ended with a positive result – Midland abused the legal process and tried to bully money out of me without a shred of evidence, and in the end, both midland and Hanna's laughable attorneys looked like fools. DISCLAIMER: I'M NOT A LAWYER. NONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE. IT IS SIMPLY MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE COURT SYSTEM AND THE JDB PROCESS. IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY! THE DUNNING PHASE Prior to Midland filing the suit in Magistrate Court, I received a “dunning” letter from Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C., a debt collection law firm here in Georgia. The dunning letter contained such little information about this debt they were pursuing on behalf of their client, whom I’d never heard of and I seriously was scared and confused. I started researching and uncovered the treasure trove of information regarding the “dunning” process. I sent a request for validation of the debt to Hanna (within the 30 day period) and immediately checked my credit reports. I found that Midland Funding was reporting this debt to all my credit reports under the name “Midland Credit Management”. Again, shocked and confused, I sent Midland a letter Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested and asked for a validation of this debt and confirmation of Fred Hanna’s representation of them in this debt collection pursuit. I never received a response from Midland whatsoever. Fred Hanna’s office sent what they called validation of the debt, which was basically a recitation of what their first letter said, giving me no more information than before. So, from the get go, I was very suspicious and skeptical of both Fred Hanna and of Midland because I assume if one did in fact own a debt and was pursuing it, they wouldn’t be so secretive about the details of the debt. (I didn’t know at the time that the actual information junk debt buyers or debt collectors had about any debt they pursued was minimal). THE MAGISTRATE COURT CASE Approximately, one month later, Midland Funding LLC filed a “suit on account” in Magistrate Court against me in Georgia for a little over $6,000. No documents whatsoever were attached to the complaint. They titled themselves “Midland Funding LLC Assignee of Chase Bank USA NA” as the Plaintiff. At this point I was pretty ticked off because I had tried to find out more information about this “debt” I supposedly owed but got so little from Hanna and NOTHING from the actual company who was supposedly owed this debt and worse, they were reporting negatively to my credit report! My train of thought is, if some stranger knocked on your front door and claims to be collecting a debt for Joe Blow, which you may or may not have owed years ago, would you just start writing the check? I’d hope not! There’s so many fraudsters out there today so it was not unreasonable that I asked for some kind of documentation to ease any of my concerns. So, in Magistrate court I filed an answer and the process was fairly simple and relaxed. I basically said that I didn’t believe I owed this debt and this company is unknown to me and unresponsive to requests for information. It was scheduled for a “trial” about three months after it was filed. I say “trial” in quotes because it was anything but a real trial. It was basically two lawyers from Fred Hanna’s office sitting at two tables with a huge stack of files calling people up one by one to “talk”. The judge is present but pretty much only to put a signature on the settlement agreements or dismissals after the talks. By the way, these were all debt buyer cases, not original creditor cases. I watched person after person go to have their “talk”, none of which questioned the legitimacy of the debt whatsoever, That just boggled my mind and it became apparent why I never got any answers from Fred Hanna or Midland – why do the extra work when we don’t have to? After all 95% of the cases in this particular jurisdiction are default judgments. The lawyers used phrases like, “this kind of thing never goes away…”, “let’s just go ahead and take care of it now…” and make it seem like any settlement offer with the slightest discount is a huge favor to the defendant so they feel pressured to just agree. Only one person of all the defendants there had a lawyer. There was some quiet whispering between the two lawyers and I doubt any agreement actually resulted, it was probably just dismissed. When it was my turn to go up, the first thing I said was “Before I will make any agreement whatsoever, I would like to see some kind of documentation that you own this account.” That just messed this lawyer’s streak of “consent judgments” and he immediately got aggressive. He put a credit card statement in front of me and said “isn’t this your debt? Didn’t you live at this address?” I stuck to my guns, told him “So what if I did, I asked for proof, not this.” At that point, we had gotten a little loud I think, and it he flatly said, “Fine, we’ll just re-file this.” I said, “Great, and maybe then you’ll actually provide the proof I’ve been asking for this whole time.” So the judge signed off on the Dismissal without Prejudice. While walking out of the court room, the next defendant after me started raising hell with the lawyer. Apparently, I started a chain reaction. [Continues next...]