a few specific questions on Midland lawsuit

[qbert]

Hi guys, first post here, let me say thank you for being a very comprehensive resource! My husband is being sued by Midland and had a few quick questions on how to make sure we are handling it correctly.

basic facts (without being too specific, please ask if you need more specific info):

-CC debt is between $3000-$6000 and 24-36 months old. we were hoping to get through the 48-month statute of limitations but midland is taking action

-midland filed a limited civil case in our jurisdiction. My husband was served within last 30 days. Court clerk included a 'Notice of first case management conference and assignment of judge for all purposes' document which has a court date about 6 mos from now. it says counsel for each party may appear in person or by telephone, and that we need to file and serve a 'case management statement' no later than 15 days prior.

-He spoke with a bk attorney friend who admittedly has little experience with JDBs. Fortunately thanks to the info in this thread and our conversations he was able to have a somewhat decent discussion. I have done more reading here and know a bit more about the process than my husband.

-Per the attorney's advice, he sent a 'general denial' (CA form PLD-050) and filed general denial and proof of service documents with the court in a timely fashion to prevent a default judgement

-attorney said that having a witness declare on the proof of service that he did mail the documents is acceptable.

-attorney also provided a case management statement and told us to be prepared to file it 30 days before the trial date. in that form he has suggested we select 'non jury trial', and for ADR (alternative dispute resolution) we select we are willing to participate in 'mediation' and a 'settlement conference'

so thats where we are at.

questions:

- upon review of the general denial form PLD-050, it states:

"You MAY use this form for a general denial if:

1. the complaint is not verfied; or

2. The complaint is verified and the case is a limited civil case (the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less, BUT NOT if the complaint involves a claim for more than $1,000 that hs been assigned to a third party debt collector for collection"

did we use the wrong form? Midland is claiming they own the debt and do not call themselves a third-party. i also have no idea what 'verified' vs. 'non-verified' means in the above context

-at what point do we request DV? weve received some new documents today that appear to be nothing at all filed with the court, but look like they are intended to be scary legal-looking docs. these include:

-'plaintiff's demands for production of documents to defendant'

-'plaintiff's requests for admission to defendant'

-'plaintiff's special interrogatories to defendant'

-an official-looking 'proof of service' doc that doesnt appear to be filed with any court

these have a 'this is an attempt to collect a debt' disclaimer down the side. basically these are a bunch of questions where they are attempting to have us incriminate ourselves, i imagine we should remain silent

-in regard to the 'case management statement' (if it gets that far), is it not in our best interest to select that we would participate in mediation and/or settlement. I mean we are disputing the standing of the debt 100% so why would we mediate/settle?

thanks so much for your help!!!

[Beergoggles]

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/317277-how-i-beat-midland-california.html

[Public Enemy]

A DV is not worth worring about once you are being sued.

The scarry looking documents are called discovery. They send you discovery and you can send them discovery also.

There are a lot of people here that know the ins and outs of CA law so you will get lots of good information here.

It would help if you can post the questions and answers from this thread here.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/242744-qs-answer-when-posting-forum-please-read.html

[Rivertime]

You used the correct general denial. Verified simply means that the complaint was made with the declaration that says "I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct." Your lawyer friend would have known that and correctly guided you to the correct general denial form.

These people are VERY beatable, read the posts listed before. A side note, your husband is going to have to do this, when it comes to appearing in court, he is the only one who can do it unless you hire an attorney.

Regarding the Case Management Conference, that is just an informal court appearance letting the court know that the case in moving along. Meaning that discovery is moving along and that the case is not stalled.

Good luck,

rt

[jpavv]

Good thing you found this forum, because in a few months you'll be thanking everyone here how they helped you beat Midland.

[qbert]

thanks i will check out the 'how i beat midland in california' thread

[racecar]

-'plaintiff's demands for production of documents to defendant'

-'plaintiff's requests for admission to defendant'

-'plaintiff's special interrogatories to defendant'

What is the cause of action in the complaint common counts,breach of contract,money had,account stated,unjust enrichment,open account.

Your looking for something like count 1 breach of contract count 2 account stated

Your being sued no need to debt validate.

Edited October 26, 2012 by racecar

[helpme]

Midland is beatable...I've beaten them.

Read this thread it might help you get a better understanding and some of the research has been done for you....

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/301811-going-court-california-superior-court.html

The good thing...is everyone on this site will not let you down...

helpme....

[qbert]

" You will need to answer these or they will be deemed admited"

do you mean allowed to be admitted as evidence at trial, or that the default conclusion is we 'admit' the allegations by ignoring them?

[nobk4me]

Who is the OC? If they use Delaware law (Chase, BofA, and others) or Virginia law (Cap One), the SOL in these states is 3 years.

California recognizes this, I think the case is Resurgent v. Chambers.

[Recovering Attorney]

I would amend your answer pronto. A general denial answer is never, ever good. The key with JDBZ lawsuits is to say " The plaintiff lacks legal standingto bring and maintain this action. " That means they have to prove the chain of title. Another good defense to put in is " as we are informed and believe, the matter is subject to an arbitration clause wherein either party can elect non-judocoal arbitraiton of the other's claim." This will help if youlater want to kick this out of court.

There are other defenses, too. You an find some here.

I would take their discovery and turn it around n them. You want to see everythining they have, including an application, cardholder agreemeent, statements and chain of title.

As far as the N?A goes, do not object. Simply DENY.

[qbert]

Who is the OC? If they use Delaware law (Chase, BofA, and others) or Virginia law (Cap One), the SOL in these states is 3 years.

California recognizes this, I think the case is Resurgent v. Chambers.

chase

[qbert]

I would amend your answer pronto. A general denial answer is never, ever good.

any other opinions on this? seems to conflict with what others have said

[ASTMedic]

any other opinions on this? seems to conflict with what others have said

General denial worked great for me.

As for the RFA, RFPOD and the other things they sent you those are discovery. They don't get submitted to the court but are on pleading paper. You send those with a POS and keep the originals for your file. That is what they sent you. You need to work on answers for those. Did you read the "How I beat Midland" thread? I can post copies of the RFPOD and FRA if needed. I would bet you got most of the same stuff I did.

Edited October 29, 2012 by ASTMedic

[helpme]

if you've noticed here, you're not the first one to Answer a Complaint.

You will also notice that CALAWYER has never been WRONG in which form one should fill out. If you are still unsure then read all the threads who have been sued by the same JDB you're being sued and read the advice of what was given to them, like Astmedic and myself who both won against Midland..

I read somewhere and pls forgvie me as I don't have it at the moment but when a complaint is in the form of common counts cause of action the 'General Denial' is sufficient and when the complaint WAS NOT verified by the other side which CALAWYER states most of the time the complaint is not verified.

As one of your Affirmative Defenses would be for example "No Prior Dealings with Plainitff'

However, the decision is up to you with what form to use and what affimative defenses you want to put.

We are not lawyers but just ones who've already been through the ordeal and won. If I seem to be hard I'm not trying to be....but why re-invent the wheel or make yourself more Confused when you don't need to be...everyone is here to help you not hurt you LOSE but in the END it's ALL UP TO YOU TO DECIDE...

regards...

[ASTMedic]

I think the general denial is sufficient with out affirmative defenses (don't quote me on that though). I'd say state something about a lack of standing to sue and that defendant reserves the right to add to or amend the defenses at a later time. I don't have access to my response righ now or I'd put them to reference. I kept it simple so as to keep Midland from being able to push them back on me at a later date.

[nobk4me]

Here's the Calif. case using Delaware SOL:

RESURGENCE FINANCIAL LLC v. CHAMBERS, No.

[qbert]

 I can post copies of the RFPOD and FRA if needed. I would bet you got most of the same stuff I did.

 

this would be super helpful, thanks. I'm in the process of preparing responses