Seadragon

* good reasons to add affirmative defenses and denials with a declaration in answer

Recommended Posts

Case Number: 11K17326 Hearing Date: June 06, 2012 Dept: 77

EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL LLC V. SANTILLANA, ESTELA

P’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. CCP 438 © (1) (A).

The Complaint states a claim against D, and D has failed to state facts sufficient to state any defense to the complaint.

No opposition to this motion was filed.

Judgment may be entered as follows:

Principal: $11,625.11

Atty fees: $350.00

Costs: $479.50

Interest: 0

Total Judgment: $ 12,454.61

P to give notice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Number: 11K17764 Hearing Date: June 06, 2012 Dept: 77

PERSOLVE LLC V. GONZALEZ, MARTHA

P’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. CCP 438 © (1) (A).

The Complaint states a claim against D, and D has failed to state facts sufficient to state any defense to the complaint.

No opposition to this motion was filed.

Judgment may be entered as follows:

Principal: $2674.32

Atty fees: $ 668.58

Costs: $315.00

Interest: 0

Total Judgment: $ 3,657.90

P to give notice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Number: 11K18918 Hearing Date: June 06, 2012 Dept: 77

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) N A V. HERNANDEZ, ESTHER

P’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. CCP 438 © (1) (A).

The Complaint states a claim against D, and D has failed to state facts sufficient to state any defense to the complaint.

No opposition to this motion was filed.

Judgment may be entered as follows:

Principal: $7824.69

Atty fees: $ 0

Costs: $324.00

Interest: 0

Total Judgment: $ 8148.69

P to give notice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Number: 11K18963 Hearing Date: June 06, 2012 Dept: 77

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC V. PEREZ, ROSENDO

P’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. CCP 438 © (1) (A).

The Complaint states a claim against D, and D has failed to state facts sufficient to state any defense to the complaint.

No opposition to this motion was filed.

Judgment may be entered as follows:

Principal: $4323.92

Atty fees: $ 0

Costs: $369.00

Interest: 0

Total Judgment: $ 4692.92

P to give notice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Number: 11K19172 Hearing Date: June 06, 2012 Dept: 77

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) N AN V. MUNOZ, ADRIANO

P’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. CCP 438 © (1) (A).

The Complaint states a claim against D, and D has failed to state facts sufficient to state any defense to the complaint.

No opposition to this motion was filed.

Judgment may be entered as follows:

Principal: $1,228.70

Atty fees: $ 0

Costs: $324.00

Interest: 0

Total Judgment: $ 1,552.70

P to give notice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Number: 11K19226 Hearing Date: June 06, 2012 Dept: 77

DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK V. GRIJALVA, MARLENE

P’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. CCP 438 © (1) (A).

The Complaint states a claim against D, and D has failed to state facts sufficient to state any defense to the complaint.

No opposition to this motion was filed.

Judgment may be entered as follows:

Principal: $4,714.08

Atty fees: $ 0

Costs: $324.00

Interest: 0

Total Judgment: $ 5,038.08

P to give notice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Number: 12K01607 Hearing Date: June 06, 2012 Dept: 77

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOC. LLC. V. GONZALEZ, VERONICA

P’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. CCP 438 © (1) (A).

The Complaint states a claim against D, and D has failed to state facts sufficient to state any defense to the complaint.

No opposition to this motion was filed.

Judgment may be entered as follows:

Principal: $2739.13

Atty fees: $ 0

Costs: $324.00

Interest: 0

Total Judgment: $ 3063.13

P to give notice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Number: 12K02066 Hearing Date: June 06, 2012 Dept: 77

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC V. CORDOVA, ANA G.

P’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. CCP 438 © (1) (A).

The Complaint states a claim against D, and D has failed to state facts sufficient to state any defense to the complaint.

No opposition to this motion was filed.

Judgment may be entered as follows:

Principal: $15,062.83

Atty fees: 0

Costs: $514.00

Interest: 0

Total Judgment: $ 15,531.83

P to give notice

I think this is a radical shift in court processing of collections cases. the attorneys all filed judgment on the pleadings this is a new shift that could only come because of lawyers seminars are now teaching this to CA's

The issue of standing would be one way to orally argue at the hearings opposing judgment on the pleadings.

This is disturbing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are those not defaults. I see where they all say the Defendant did not file opposition or are you saying the Defendant answered, then the Plaintiff wanted it judged on the pleadings, that was granted and then the Defendant put up no fight as to what the pleadings allegedly showed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are those not defaults. I see where they all say the Defendant did not file opposition or are you saying the Defendant answered, then the Plaintiff wanted it judged on the pleadings, that was granted and then the Defendant put up no fight as to what the pleadings allegedly showed?

What really makes me worried is that maybe these people went to legal aid and because they may have language barriers may not have recieved or understood the motion enough to oppose.

I mean literally it looks like they are targeting hispanics with the JOTP. JDB complaints are highly demurreable how the H E double hockey sticks can they get judgment on the pleadings without even getting discovery started.

Stanley Mosk courthouse dept 77 Judge Jan G. Levine is the judge for that Dept.

If defendants don't oppose the motion I guess the courts hands are tied to the ruling for the motion. It is sad that CA's have to use the trickery of defendants to win.

Elections are on tuesday so make sure you vote for good judicial officers and actively campaign against bad ones to your friends, family, and colleagues.

Edited by Seadragon
adding stuff
Link to post
Share on other sites
What really makes me worried is that maybe these people went to legal aid and because they may have language barriers may not have recieved or understood the motion enough to oppose.

I mean literally it looks like they are targeting hispanics with the JOTP. JDB complaints are highly demurreable how the H E double hockey sticks can they get judgment on the pleadings without even getting discovery started.

I noticed the names and wondered the same thing, Seadragon.

So depressing and profoundly sad...! Geezus--I hate this industry so much!!!

:evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something is not right here. Even a general denial places all of the material allegations of the complaint at issue.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is a lot like a demurrer. You don't go past the pleadings themselves (like you do in a summary judgment motion). My guess is that there was something wrong with these answers--they did not deny the allegations, or they admitted the material allegations somehow. It would be interesting to get a copy of the motion itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been meaning to post this question, and this seems like a good thread for it. Once you've stated Affirmative Defenses, how are they most effectively used in a case? Can proving an Affirmative Defense be a basis for a Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Summary Judgment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been meaning to post this question, and this seems like a good thread for it. Once you've stated Affirmative Defenses, how are they most effectively used in a case? Can proving an Affirmative Defense be a basis for a Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Summary Judgment?

Most often they are used at trial. However, a party can bring a motion for summary judgemnt in California based upon an affirmative defense if it disposes of an entire cause of action. An example would be the statute of limitations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What really makes me worried is that maybe these people went to legal aid and because they may have language barriers may not have recieved or understood the motion enough to oppose.

I mean literally it looks like they are targeting hispanics with the JOTP. JDB complaints are highly demurreable how the H E double hockey sticks can they get judgment on the pleadings without even getting discovery started.

Stanley Mosk courthouse dept 77 Judge Jan G. Levine is the judge for that Dept.

If defendants don't oppose the motion I guess the courts hands are tied to the ruling for the motion. It is sad that CA's have to use the trickery of defendants to win.

Elections are on tuesday so make sure you vote for good judicial officers and actively campaign against bad ones to your friends, family, and colleagues.

Seadragon,

I read someplace this was enacted in California in 2009 but hasn't be used much for some reason.

Found a partial template outlining a reply/defense:

Sample Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Defendant

This also seems to be popular in Ohio.

HP

Link to post
Share on other sites

What really makes me worried is that maybe these people went to legal aid and because they may have language barriers may not have recieved or understood the motion enough to oppose.

No Opposition, as Coltfan said = YOU LOSE. I don't buy the "No speaky English" excuse, either. They all speak enough English to come here, get a bunch of credit cards, run up a pile of debt, and not pay. All of a sudden they get sued and they don't understand anything? Uh uh, sorry, that one won't fly. Hire an interpreter. I guess they missed this too:

California Courts - Centro de ayuda en línea

And before anybody decides to call me a bigot, my spouse ain't exactly from around here. I know what they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What really makes me worried is that maybe these people went to legal aid and because they may have language barriers may not have recieved or understood the motion enough to oppose.

No Opposition, as Coltfan said = YOU LOSE. I don't buy the "No speaky English" excuse, either. They all speak enough English to come here, get a bunch of credit cards, run up a pile of debt, and not pay. All of a sudden they get sued and they don't understand anything? Uh uh, sorry, that one won't fly. Hire an interpreter. I guess they missed this too:

California Courts - Centro de ayuda en línea

And before anybody decides to call me a bigot, my spouse ain't exactly from around here. I know what they do.

And maybe their answers were of the type Me account, but amount wrong. I am just saying that there could be a rotten thing and because of common names it might not be that persons account.

True about they applications do come in spanish, But was the complaint in spanish, was the answer, I seems fishy to me.

Funny how telemundo has 50,000 abagados commercials for auto accident/work place accident but not one single one for consumer protection. Just saying. And I was wondering if it was technically legal to garnish wages of people not authorized to work in america.

The main point is someone dropped the football badly OR the court cleared the calendar.

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