ASTMedic

Summons from Midland Funding, where to start.

Recommended Posts

They always have the option of not using them at trial - especially if they can't get them authenticated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could they replace it with a different BOS to try and shore up their case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might look a little shady when I pull out the first one they sent me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a little update on my quest.

Sent a meet and confer stating that midland's responses to my request for a BOS were crap. So as to their style they responded on the VERY LAST DAY (shocker). However the responses are word for word the same. It looks to be an exact copy of the first responses just with out the attached exhibits. The best part is that they responded to all the initial requests and not just the one that I listed in the meet and confer.

So another meet and confer will be off tomorrow. I have a feeling that this will be a back and forth game that just ends with me xdeadhorsex asking for docs.

Any ideas what to add or how to adjust my approach? Should I just wait and hit them with the CCP 96 when it's time? How is this going to look to the court if they just keep responding with the same answers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you could let them hang themselves. while they are waiting to see if they can dig up more prepare for the stuff you are going to drop on them. they are playing the game(are they teaching this in law school? How do these attorneys learn this stuff)

work towards exclusion of the evidence they have. and keep your head up. also at trial object to everything and have a record of it. Just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how I'm betting this is going to go.

They keep giving me crap until I send the CCP 96 before trial. Then they throw other docs in to try and beef up their case at that point hoping I can't prep in time. Can I get this crap evidence thrown out before trial??

I'm starting to get pissed with the game at this point. Why does the court allow this crap? They need to s*** or get off the pot!!!!! I called their bluff and they need to just take their licks and GTFO. "Don't go away mad, just go away"

Edited by ASTMedic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

My case is exactly like ASTMedic. This forum has been helped me a lot. I sent them POD last week. Without response to my POD, they sent me the POD, ROA, Special Interrogatories. All three docs exactly like your, can you please help me answer them?

As I read through this post. Should I response to POD with "Requests 1-9. Defendant has no such documents in his / her possession at this time. Defendant reserves the right to amend his / her responses per the rules of civil procedure if such documents become available." Is that all?

Thank you

Edited by tugang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

My case is exactly like ASTMedic. This forum has been helped me a lot. I sent them POD last week. Without response to my POD, they sent me the POD, ROA, Special Interrogatories. All three docs exactly like your, can you please help me answer them?

As I read through this post. Should I response to POD with "Requests 1-9. Defendant has no such documents in his / her possession at this time. Defendant reserves the right to amend his / her responses per the rules of civil procedure if such documents become available." Is that all?

Thank you

If the requests that they sent are the same then you can respond the same as the one that are listed here that people gave me. Have you started your own thread? You should do that then you will be able to get more specific answers that fit your case. Don't think I'm trying to brush you off cus I'm not. I just want you to get the right answers.

They will most likely respond to the POD. You will get a bill of sale (total crap), a sheet with your acct info, some statements and the terms of the card. None of this stuff proves that they own the account (if you do your job right).

Edited by ASTMedic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll still alive and kicking!!!!!

Court is coming up on Oct 17. They've sent me nothing new so I'm just getting my ducks ready for war. Any tips or thoughts from the pros???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you prepped your CCP96?

Sorry didn't see you had posted.

CCP 96 went out and response came back. Got the CCP 98 (signed in St Cloud Min) with most of what I got in my discovery attached. Only thing they added was an afadivt from some chase rep in NY from April I think. Nothing about penalty of perjury in CA stated so I think that's junk if I remember right. The CCP 98 has 5 addresses in CA listed so I'll be sending a subpeona by deputy soon to one of the addresses.

Trial brief is done and motion in limine is drafted pending what happens with the service of the "witness". Both are due 5 days before court.

Any other ideas?

Edited by ASTMedic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry didn't see you had posted.

CCP 96 went out and response came back. Got the CCP 98 (signed in St Cloud Min) with most of what I got in my discovery attached. Only thing they added was an afadivt from some chase rep in NY from April I think. Nothing about penalty of perjury in CA stated so I think that's junk if I remember right. The CCP 98 has 5 addresses in CA listed so I'll be sending a subpeona by deputy soon to one of the addresses.

Trial brief is done and motion in limine is drafted pending what happens with the service of the "witness". Both are due 5 days before court.

Any other ideas?

I assume the affidavit from New York does not comply with CCP 98. If I am correct, you should prepare a motion in limine to preclude its use at trial. Affidavits are hearsay and are not permitted at trial absent some statutory exception (like CCP 98). Plus, this one does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 and should be rejected.

Cite the Elkins case (and see my discussion of it) from this thread: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/309495-being-sued-midland-funding-questions-regarding-discovery-7.html#post1141851

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume the affidavit from New York does not comply with CCP 98. If I am correct, you should prepare a motion in limine to preclude its use at trial. Affidavits are hearsay and are not permitted at trial absent some statutory exception (like CCP 98). Plus, this one does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 and should be rejected.

Cite the Elkins case (and see my discussion of it) from this thread: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/309495-being-sued-midland-funding-questions-regarding-discovery-7.html#post1141851

Yep. It's just a blanket afadivt from some random CHASE employee trying to beef up the transfer of accts from CHASE to Midland. They attached it to the CCP 98. Would a MIL for the CCP 98 cover all attached docs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. It's just a blanket afadivt from some random CHASE employee trying to beef up the transfer of accts from CHASE to Midland. They attached it to the CCP 98. Would a MIL for the CCP 98 cover all attached docs?

Yes. But make sure you are clear that you are moving to exclude another affidavit that was attached to the CCP 98. Gets a bit confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. But make sure you are clear that you are moving to exclude another affidavit that was attached to the CCP 98. Gets a bit confusing.

So 2 MIL or single out the second afadivt in the MIL for the CCP 98? I'll have to attack the second afadivt in my brief too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can do one MIL. It will be the MIL to preclude the declaration of _____ .

Your arguments will be that plaintiff did not comply with CCP 98. It did not give you an address where the witness could be served. Instead, it gave you the lawyer’s address. Nice try. A subpoena must be served personally.

Even if it were introduced into evidence, the affidavit is full of hearsay statements and statements that are not made upon personal knowledge.

Finally, the declaration attaches another affidavit of ______. That affidavit does not attempt to comply with CCP 98 and there is no other exception that plaintiff offers in support of its admission. It is therefore hearsay and should not be admitted. Moreover, the witness failed to sign the affidavit under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California. It therefore fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 and should be rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I have covered in the MIL I wrote thus far. All but the second attached afadivt part. I'll add that to the MIL and my brief.

Heading to the county where the closest address listed in the CCP 98 is to have the Sherrif deputies serve the "witness" on Friday.

Question, do I need to attach a check for the CCP 98 witness with my subpeona? I saw something about need to cover their travel costs. Is that right?

Edited by ASTMedic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a neat little bit of info surfaced today while I was dropping off the subpoena. When the guy behind the counter looked at the address he says "this business is closed". Huh???? You know this place? He said the name of the business and that they moved in March. I explained what the situation is and he said the server would most likely try to serve the new address but I asked him not to. So he added a note for the server to only serve that person at the address listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So a neat little bit of info surfaced today while I was dropping off the subpoena. When the guy behind the counter looked at the address he says "this business is closed". Huh???? You know this place? He said the name of the business and that they moved in March. I explained what the situation is and he said the server would most likely try to serve the new address but I asked him not to. So he added a note for the server to only serve that person at the address listed.

Interesting. Guess they didn't update the form declaration yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. Guess they didn't update the form declaration yet.

Any reason I have to attempt service at the other location? Next closest is San Jose and its 10 miles out of the 150 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any reason I have to attempt service at the other location? Next closest is San Jose and its 10 miles out of the 150 miles.

If you chose the closest address, I think that is sufficient. In my opinion, it is improper to give more than one address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you chose the closest address, I think that is sufficient. In my opinion, it is improper to give more than one address.

Thought so. That was the only address that met the statute by being in 150 miles of the court. Not like she'll be there anyway. If it came down to it I could argue the distance violation in court.

Process servers have to serve it in person right? No substitution service for a subpeona?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.