Response to Plaintiff's 1st set of request for admissions

[katousa]

I have managed to get a default judgment vacated that was brought against me by a JDB. I have the OSC set for next month.

I sent the JDB a request to validate the debt to which their response was very vague and they didn't provide me with the evidence and responses I requested. They call me and leave me a message every day but I'm not interested even to talking to them. Their message sounds desperate and mentions that they want to resolve the matter without litigation, saying "there are options, you know".

Today I received their 1st set of request for admissions, 1st set of special interrogatories, 1st set of requests for production of documents and things, and a general form interrogatories.

I have done some research as to how to answer the admissions. (I deny that I ever had a credit card debt with the original creditor).

Can someone let me know if my responses are proper or if I should make any changes? I will work on the answers to their interrogatories next and will seek advice for those too.

Thank you.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.210 et seq., defendant "name" (“Responding Party”) does hereby respond to the Request for Admissions, propounded by plaintiff, above-named, as follows:

Request for Admissions #1:

Admit that YOU (“YOU” and “YOUR” shall mean and refer to Defendant, "NAME", and any dependents, and/or any other person acting or purporting to act on behalf of Defendant, "NAME"), entered into an agreement for a CREDIT CARD (“CREDIT CARD” shall mean and refer to the credit card issued by XXXX XXXX in Defendant, "NAME"’ name XXXX XXXX’ account ending in xxxx) with ORIGINAL CREDITOR (“ORIGINAL CREDITOR” shall mean and refer to the original creditor, XXXX XXXX, and any dependents, and/or other person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the original creditor, XXXX XXXX.)

Response to Request for Admissions #1:

DENIED to the extent that the "agreement" referenced has not been provided for examination.

Request for Admissions #2:

Admit that you requested the credit card from original creditor.

Response to Request for Admissions #2:

OBJECTION. Lacks foundation. Plaintiff has provided no admissible evidence that defendant “requested” a credit card from stated creditor.

Request for Admissions #3:

Admit that original creditor provided you with the credit card.

Response to Request for Admissions #3:

OBJECTION. Lacks foundation. Plaintiff has provided no admissible evidence that defendant was “provided” with a credit card from stated creditor.

Request for Admissions #4:

Admit that you received the credit card from original creditor.

Response to Request for Admissions #4:

OBJECTION. Same as request #3. Request is duplicitous and designed to harass the defendant.

Request for Admissions #5:

Admit that you used the credit card.

Response to Request for Admissions #5:

OBJECTION. Lacks foundation and is presumptive, as it incorrectly assumes facts not in evidence, specifically that defendant ever “requested”, “received” and “used” a credit card “provided” by stated creditor.

Request for Admissions #6:

Admit that you have not paid the outstanding balance due on the credit card.

Response to Request for Admissions #6:

DENIED to the extent that the existence of the credit card referenced (and the referenced account connected thereto) has not been established as fact. Therefore, no such obligation on the part of the defendant exists.

OBJECTION. The information sought is assumedly already known to the plaintiff through its business records. Additionally, the request is nonsensical and self explanatory. Certainly plaintiff would not have brought suit against a defendant they thought defendant had paid the outstanding balance due. The burden of proof thereof resides with plaintiff, not defendant. Defendant denies any such allegations contained in the request.

Request for Admissions #7:

Admit that you did not dispute the balance claimed to be due and owing on the credit card prior to the inception of this action.

Response to Request for Admissions #7:

OBJECTION. Compounded, confusing, and lacks foundation. No admissible evidence has been provided which links defendant to the credit card balance referenced. Additionally vague, as the request does not specify to whom any such notification may or should have been made.

Request for Admissions #8:

Admit that through Assignment (“Assignment” shall mean and refer to Exhibit “A” attached hereto,) you are indebted to plaintiff (“plaintiff” shall mean and refer to plaintiff, XXX XXX. and any dependents, and/or any other person acting or purporting to act on behalf of plaintiff, XXX XXX.)

Response to Request of Admissions #8:

OBJECTION. Defendant does not have access to plaintiff's "business records" and has no idea what they contain. Therefore, any such validation by defendant is impossible and improper. Furthermore, above referenced Exhibit “A” shows no evidence as to the indebtedness of the defendant.

Request for Admissions #9:

Admit that you are indebted to plaintiff for the full amount claimed in plaintiff’s complaint, plus interest and the legal rate of ten (10) percent per annum.

Response to Request for Admissions #9:

See response to Request for Admissions #8. Plaintiff has not produced any Agreement sufficiently identified as being associated in any manner with the defendant, such as the defendant’s signature or identifying information, therefore defendant cannot reasonably formulate a response. Based upon the foregoing, defendant responds as follows: DENIED.

Verification

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: _____________________

____________________________

Defendant in Pro Per

[debtorshusband]

First, you might want to ask the moderator to move this to the "Is there a lawyer in the house" forum, as this topic seems to fit there better, and you'll get better responses.

Second, I'm not really qualified to give specific advise, but I'll just say that in general, you "Admit", "Deny", "Deny upon information and belief", or "Object". You don't want to get too wordy with this, except in the case of an Objection.

Finally, here's a link to another thread where I've recently posted Discovery answers generated by an attorney for my case. That OP had the same plaintiff, the same attorney, and the same Discovery questions. Your case doesn't share all those same points, but you still may find it useful. Let me just make the general caution not to use anything verbatim; to adopt anything you use to your own situation and make sure you understand what you are saying. You may want to use this only for a sample of how to format your answers. Also, note how California Discovery requests cannot be compound, and you can object to any that are.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/315095-please-review-my-rfa.html

Good luck.

DH

[katousa]

Thanks Debtorshusband!

I actually had read your thread and did use your responses and some from elbeto77 to formulate my responses. Are you saying that I still need to rework them? What are the specifics that you don't see fit? Thanks.

Also, I tried to message admin but she won't accept private messages so I have no idea how to message her.