What do I do next Hunt &Henriques sent me this....

[Wantawin2012]

Hi Need some HELP!

Court Date Mid April 2012

Ok, so since I sent the Bill of particulars I recieved 2 packages from H&H.

1. An incomplete stack of statements not from a zero balance ( 2 weeks ago)

2.A package from a lady with an address in Virginia and says Hunt & Henriques can folow up for her Received today).

At the top is says

"DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF IN LIEU OF PERSONAL TESTIMONY AT TRIAL (CCP 98)

At the back of the package there is a document that says:

ORDER THAT COPIES BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF ORIGINALS

1. Plaintiff requests that Exhibit A be acepted in lieu of original account agreement

2. Plaintiff requests that Exhibit B be accepted in lieu of original account statements.

How do I stop those requests and not let the judge approve it? What do I have to file at the court? And how do I make that lady show up in court???

Please help

)))

Share

[Wantawin2012]

Ps Santa Clara county Ca courthouse

[rikkivs]

To make her show up in court, you do a Notice to Appear with her specific name on it, this is via CCP 1987, please review it. In order to figure out what they have on you, do a CCP 96 demand, this REQUIRES them to show you everything they have before trial, please review it. In order to get the ball rolling on a complete BoP you need to do a motion to compel further BoP. In order to justify the motion, you'll need to call them and send them at least 1 meet and confer letter telling them that the BoP is incomplete etc. This shows the judge that you're making a good faith effort to amicably resolve the situation rather than playing the adversary. Lasty reconcile their payment history with your past bank records, if you have physical copies of if they are in an online archive on your bank website. Good luck!

[1stStep]

Subpoena the affiant to appear- they should have given an address 150 miles or less from the court where this person can be served. If they can't be served at the address, it will be noted and you can have their declaration precluded.

[rikkivs]

A subpoena will be more expensive than a Notice to Appear and both essentially force the party to show up. Here is a link from NACA attorney Paul E. Smith.

'Bank of America / Harris & Zide's $21k+ Lawsuit Dismissed At Trial

After showing up for trial at Santa Clara County Court in San Jose with no witnesses and failing to get a continuance, Bank of America's lawsuit against my client seeking in excess of $21k on an alleged credit card debt was dismissed. Bank of America (represented by Flint Zide from their debt collection law firm Harris & ZFair Debt Collection - California Lawyeride) had served a CCP 98 Declaration in Lieu of Live Testimony. My firm in response served Notice to Appear at Trial for the declarant, meaning the declaration and documents would not be admitted unless that witness appeared at trial for cross-examination.

Harris & Zide sought a continuance based on "inability to get a Bank of America witness to appear at trial" and, after hearing argument from both sides, the judge rejected the request for a continuance, resulting in a dismissal of the case.'

[calawyer]

A subpoena will be more expensive than a Notice to Appear and both essentially force the party to show up. Here is a link from NACA attorney Paul E. Smith.

'Bank of America / Harris & Zide's $21k+ Lawsuit Dismissed At Trial

After showing up for trial at Santa Clara County Court in San Jose with no witnesses and failing to get a continuance, Bank of America's lawsuit against my client seeking in excess of $21k on an alleged credit card debt was dismissed. Bank of America (represented by Flint Zide from their debt collection law firm Harris & ZFair Debt Collection - California Lawyeride) had served a CCP 98 Declaration in Lieu of Live Testimony. My firm in response served Notice to Appear at Trial for the declarant, meaning the declaration and documents would not be admitted unless that witness appeared at trial for cross-examination.

Harris & Zide sought a continuance based on "inability to get a Bank of America witness to appear at trial" and, after hearing argument from both sides, the judge rejected the request for a continuance, resulting in a dismissal of the case.'

Because Bank of America is the OC and a notice to appear may well have been appropriate under CCP 1987 (. But if the CCP 98 affidavit is from the OC, you will need to attempt to serve a subpoena.

[rikkivs]

But if the CCP 98 affidavit is from the OC, you will need to attempt to serve a subpoena. -calawyer

So what is the difference between a subpoena and a Notice to Appear then?

[calawyer]

So what is the difference between a subpoena and a Notice to Appear then?

Subpoena to non-party. Notice to appear to party that meets the definition in 1987 (.

[Seadragon]

So what is the difference between a subpoena and a Notice to Appear then?

This issue came up in my trial.

The plaintiff started to play the title game with the witness. The notice to appear is for a managing agent, corporate officer, ie someone in charge.

the ccp 1985 subpoena is for everyone else.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/subp002.pdf

[skippy1960]

Subpoena to non-party. Notice to appear to party that meets the definition in 1987 (.

I generally wouldn't question Calawyer's direction, but in my case we used CCP 1987( to force the Declerant to attend trial and be cross examined.

Below is how the CCP 1987 was written-

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1987(, Defendant <your name> hereby requests that <Name of Person making decleration>, identified and designated by Plaintiff <enter name> as its agent in this matter, attend and appear at the trial in this matter commencing on <date and tme> in the Superior Court of California, <enter county>, located at <enter address of court>.

This person showed and was cross examined on the stand, so I am not sure the subpoena is required. The plaintiffs attorney was similar to H&H, debt collection attorney group.

[calawyer]

I generally wouldn't question Calawyer's direction, but in my case we used CCP 1987( to force the Declerant to attend trial and be cross examined.

Below is how the CCP 1987 was written-

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1987(, Defendant <your name> hereby requests that <Name of Person making decleration>, identified and designated by Plaintiff <enter name> as its agent in this matter, attend and appear at the trial in this matter commencing on <date and tme> in the Superior Court of California, <enter county>, located at <enter address of court>.

This person showed and was cross examined on the stand, so I am not sure the subpoena is required. The plaintiffs attorney was similar to H&H, debt collection attorney group.

It is just like anything else. If the responding party doesn't object, the Judge won't normally make the objection for them. You might have had a sleepy lawyer (many JDBs fit this definition). Or, your declarant might actually have been an "officer, director, or managing agent" of the plaintiff-- making a notice to appear appropriate. But if the declarant is a third party (i.e. an employee of the OC and you are sued by a JDB) then a subpoena is required and the Judge will so hold if there is an objection.

[skippy1960]

It is just like anything else. If the responding party doesn't object, the Judge won't normally make the objection for them. You might have had a sleepy lawyer (many JDBs fit this definition). Or, your declarant might actually have been an "officer, director, or managing agent" of the plaintiff-- making a notice to appear appropriate. But if the declarant is a third party (i.e. an employee of the OC and you are sued by a JDB) then a subpoena is required and the Judge will so hold if there is an objection.

I guess where I was heading was that generally, a decleration states "I am the litigation spiecalist and I serve as the Custodian of Records for Big Bank/OC".

Some kind of titles as such, so they admit in their declearation that they are the agent representing the OC/Big Banks interest. Then 1987 will work, correct?

Then good news for the poster is that H&H is not a big buyer of debt and generally is only a Collection Attorney capacity. So depending on how the decleration is worded they still might be able to use 1987(....

Safest bet appears to subpeona....

[calawyer]

I guess where I was heading was that generally, a decleration states "I am the litigation spiecalist and I serve as the Custodian of Records for Big Bank/OC".

Some kind of titles as such, so they admit in their declearation that they are the agent representing the OC/Big Banks interest. Then 1987 will work, correct?

.

Only if you are being sued by the OC. If you are being sued by a JDB, the spe******t is not employed in any capacity by a party.

[skippy1960]

I went back and checked the poster is being sued by Cap One, represented by H&H so in this circumstance 1987( will work, should the poster choose to use it.

Package from a lady in Virginia and H&H, for me is clue that Cap One is the likely plaintiff, but I wanted to be sure so I checked earlier posts....

[1stStep]

I noticed that the OP made 3 different threads for the same question...kind confusing.

But in this case, the OP could use the 1987( notice to appear - my bet is that the declarant will not be able to appear...if that happens, then the OP should move to have the declaration precluded.

[VLDCA]

Hi Need some HELP!

Court Date Mid April 2012

Ok, so since I sent the Bill of particulars I recieved 2 packages from H&H.

1. An incomplete stack of statements not from a zero balance ( 2 weeks ago)

2.A package from a lady with an address in Virginia and says Hunt & Henriques can folow up for her Received today).

At the top is says

"DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF IN LIEU OF PERSONAL TESTIMONY AT TRIAL (CCP 98)

At the back of the package there is a document that says:

ORDER THAT COPIES BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF ORIGINALS

1. Plaintiff requests that Exhibit A be acepted in lieu of original account agreement

2. Plaintiff requests that Exhibit B be accepted in lieu of original account statements.

How do I stop those requests and not let the judge approve it? What do I have to file at the court? And how do I make that lady show up in court???

Please help

)))

Share

I just won against Hunt & Henriques at trial w/ their witness there. First you need to subpoena the witness (CA form SUBP-001), I am assuming Meryl Dreano (piece of work) in VA. This is their top gun witness & she flies all over & testifies that she knows first hand about everyones business. You need to have her subpoenaed. PERIOD. Mail a copy to them when she doesn't respond to it & you probably won't be going to trial.

These copies they're trying to get in instead of the originals is a positive for you. Turn it into one. They're all hearsay & can't authenticate themselves w/out a person to testify & you be able to cross examine them. They're amitting they don't have the originals. They will say you have them & you will say Prove it! They sent the same thing to me & I got the statements & agreement thrown out at trial.

VeeVinhnee vs American Express re computerized generated CC statements. OBJECTION your honor, No one to testify to the fact they are not original copies & they should not be allowed into evidence.

If they do bring a witness, cross examine them & prove they don't know anything.

If you need any help I will certainly help w/ what ever I can that helped me win my cases.

I learned so much on these forums & these guys here are the best!!!

You came to the perfect site.

[rikkivs]

Congratulations! And to be sure, their witness came all the way from Virginia? So you subpoened her in Virginia then?

[VLDCA]

Congratulations! And to be sure, their witness came all the way from Virginia? So you subpoened her in Virginia then?

OMGosh you're so sweet! Thank You!

So I subpoenaed the VA witness at the California address she gave, she wasn't there. So the day of trial she didn't show up & the attorney noticed that I had signed my own subpoena order, & apparently I wasn't suppose to. (I had no idea) the judge then said it was an improper subpoena & since I wanted the witness to be there to be cross examined, he asked the attorney if he could get her here or someone who has the same title as her & he said yes, so the trial was cont. for a month later. I seriously thought at that point they would dismiss. Not my luck! lol They ended up getting another witness, who is from CA & she knew nothing at all. She did not work for the OC (neither does the other affiant) so it was easy. The only thing that was hard was when I was direct examined. I hated that part. My trial lastest 1.5 hrs. Crazy huh?

So if I can do it... I srsly believe ANYONE can go to trial & win. I could have filed a bunch of paperwork to get things thrown out before trial, typed up a trial brief etc. BUT since I HATE paperwork & love to talk....lol I figured I would just go to trial, so that's what I did.

[tigger]

OMGosh you're so sweet! Thank You!

So I subpoenaed the VA witness at the California address she gave, she wasn't there. So the day of trial she didn't show up & the attorney noticed that I had signed my own subpoena order, & apparently I wasn't suppose to. (I had no idea) the judge then said it was an improper subpoena & since I wanted the witness to be there to be cross examined, he asked the attorney if he could get her here or someone who has the same title as her & he said yes, so the trial was cont. for a month later. I seriously thought at that point they would dismiss. Not my luck! lol They ended up getting another witness, who is from CA & she knew nothing at all. She did not work for the OC (neither does the other affiant) so it was easy. The only thing that was hard was when I was direct examined. I hated that part. My trial lastest 1.5 hrs. Crazy huh?

So if I can do it... I srsly believe ANYONE can go to trial & win. I could have filed a bunch of paperwork to get things thrown out before trial, typed up a trial brief etc. BUT since I HATE paperwork & love to talk....lol I figured I would just go to trial, so that's what I did.

...and thanks to VLDCA's efforts (hey you tigger waves from socal)...been trying to pm you...

...thanks to VLDCA's efforts in her case, we got our case against H&H dismissed the morning of trial. We still don't know why. But we suspect they saw on the court case file (as the clerks had entered it) that we'd filed a subpoena. We'd also filed a document stating that the witness was not at the address they swore (under penalty of perjury) they would be available at, prior to trial (per their ccp 98). LIARS!

Seriously doubt they wanted to be showed up at trial by a pro-se (as VLDCA did at her trial)..., making them look foolish, and showing all their lies to court.

Every single case that was supposed to be heard that morning against our jdb was dismissed, either the weekend prior to trial--or the morning of (per their rent-a-lawyer).

Do as calawyer says, file the subpoena. We did, and we weren't sorry.

Edited March 30, 2012 by tigger

[Wantawin2012]

Hi

I am filling out my supeana for. I put the address she provides to be reached at H&H not the Virginia address right?

I need help on page 2.

What is the wording for the exact forms needed?

continued on attachment 2

Also what is the good cause?

continued on attachment 3:

the documents are material to this case because.....

continued on attachment 4:

that's where I sign

Thanks!

[Wantawin2012]

So I had a friend serve the subpeana. The law offices of H&H are not all that amazing, sort of low budget. She said the girls were friendly enough. I served it 20 days exactly before the court date.

In the SUPB002 I requested all originals statements, original card agreement, and for her to apprear (the declrerent from Capital One). She resides in VA but said I could send all documentation to H&H

What else can they send me now?

Thanks for all the help

[1stStep]

Have you sent them the CCP 96 form yet...send it and lock them in...anything else not on that form can be thrown out.

[Wantawin2012]

Do you have the link to this form?

Edited April 4, 2012 by Wantawin2012

[Wantawin2012]

Tomorrow will be 19 days before the trial, is that too late for the CCP 96?

I read on another post it needs to be 45 days prior.

I sent a SUBP-02 today 20 days before the trial, their witness is Wandi ChXXXXXXXlian in VA

[Wantawin2012]

TO: ,

attorney for :

You are requested to serve on the undersigned, within 20 days, a statement of: the names and addresses of witnesses (OTHER THAN A PARTY WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL) you intend to call at trial; a description of physical evidence you intend to offer; and a description and copies of documentary evidence you intend to offer or, if the documents are not available to you, a description of them. Witnesses and evidence that will be used only for impeachment need not be included. YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO CALL ANY WITNESS, OR INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE, NOT INCLUDED IN THE STATEMENT SERVED IN RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.

(b)The request shall be served no more than 45 days or less than 30 days prior to the date first set for trial, unless otherwise ordered.

©A statement responding to the request shall be served within 20 days from the service of the request.

(d)No additional, amended or late statement is permitted except by written stipulation or unless ordered for good cause on noticed motion.

(e)No request or statement served under this section shall be filed, unless otherwise ordered.

(f)The clerk shall furnish forms for requests under this rule.

(g)The time for performing acts required under this section shall be computed as provided by law, including Section 1013.