bluelife

Next Steps After Response from BOP CACH LLC

Recommended Posts

I saw another post similar to this but I could not find an answer as the topic never was updated with results. 

 

So yesterday i receive a call from a gal working at the law group, she verified some information (ie, my name and address) then proceeded to ask if i would like to settle this matter out of court.

 

I mentioned that i sent an answer to summons and also a demand for BOP last week that i was waiting for a response in writing before i would proceed any further, after putting me on hold for 3-4 minutes to "check on the papers" she returned and quickly got off the phone and left with, give us a call back if you change your mind."

 

I received a letter today from Mandari$H LAw GRoup reading:

 

 

 

11/30/2012

RE:C@CH LLC VS BLUELIFE

 

I am writing in response to your demand for a Bill of Particulars. Your request is inapplicable to the causes of action pled in the subject complaint because Plaintiff is not pursuing items of an account and is instead seeking a final sum owed as stated on the monthly bill you received. (Distefano V. Hall (1963) 218 Cal. App 2d 657,677.) As a result, please beadvised that we will not provide a response.

 Should you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact our office.

Sincerely, 

 

 

This is what my Summon I received, looks like :
=====================================================
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES-LIMITED JURISDICTION
CASE NO: XXXXXXXX
COMPLAINT FOR:
1. BREACH OF CONTRACT
2. COMMON COUNTS

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1. xxxxx
2. xxxxx
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract)
1. xxxxx
2. xxxxx
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(Account Stated)
1. xxxxx
2. xxxxx
=======================================================

 

SO THIS IS MY QUESTION, WHERE DO I GO FROM HERE?

 

i found this on another topic, is the letter quoted below the right letter to send? (a second demand for BOP?)

 

Do I send another demand for BOP TOGETHER OR SEPARATE with REquest for Docs, as mentioned in this topic..?

(http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/311930-another-cach-lawsuit-in-ca-need-a-lot-of-help/page-2?hl=distefano#entry1151485)

 

 

 

Dear___

Thank you for your letter dated ___ regarding the Bill of Particulars served in this matter. In that letter, you refuse to respond to Defendant’s Bill of Particulars claiming that a Bill of Particulars is not required for plaintiff’s claims of account stated. You ignore, however, the fact that plaintiff's complaint contains a cause of action for breach of contract.

You may wish to review the case of Distefano v. Hall. While Distefano does suggest that a Bill of Particulars may not be required for an account stated claim, the Court reached the opposite conclusion with respect to breach of contract: “Section 454 has received a fairly broad interpretation and has been construed to cover almost any kind of contract action for a money claim made up of more than one item.” 218 Cal. App. 2d 677.

I cannot understand why plaintiff would object to providing the most basic discovery that will be necessary to prove its claims. In any event, your erroneous objection to the Bill has already caused plaintiff’s response to be tardy. As the Distefano court noted, “The penalty for failure to furnish a bill of particulars, when one has been demanded, is that no evidence will be allowed in support of the cause of action pleaded.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That letter looks good to me, it's not another BOP but a "meet and confer letter", you have to send one before you can file a motion to compel further BOP. I would add "defendant requests a proper response to the BOP within 10 days or a motion to compel further BOP will be filed with the court" or something to that effect, and be sure to follow up on it. They don't like to answer because their case is usually weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were my case I would keep the BOP separate of any discovery (request for production, etc).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send the meet and confer - give them 5 days to reply. Then hit them with a motion to compel/preclude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send the meet and confer - give them 5 days to reply. Then hit them with a motion to compel/preclude.

 

Send the meet and confer letter above, does this need to be sent with proof of service or just send a copy to the law group?

 

When is the proper time, and way to handle Discovery, request for production, or is it something that may not be needed if i send the meet and confer and then motion to compel/preclude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send the meet and confer letter above, does this need to be sent with proof of service or just send a copy to the law group?

 

When is the proper time, and way to handle Discovery, request for production, or is it something that may not be needed if i send the meet and confer and then motion to compel/preclude.

 

The BOP stage is to get the other side to provide itemized statements only not the actual contact or signed application. Though many of us have stated so in our BOP request, it doesn't fly should you desire to motion to compel BOP. So you should wait to see how they respond to your meet & confer. If they decide to drop the breach of contract and not account stated then you should begin discovery and ask for ALL itemized statements beginning with zero bal to the date of alleged default. All documents signifying Assignment from OC to JDB and Credit Card Application or Contract with your signature, with full disclosures as defined by the Truth in Lending Act.

 

Hope this helps...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BOP stage is to get the other side to provide itemized statements only not the actual contact or signed application. Though many of us have stated so in our BOP request, it doesn't fly should you desire to motion to compel BOP. So you should wait to see how they respond to your meet & confer. If they decide to drop the breach of contract and not account stated then you should begin discovery and ask for ALL itemized statements beginning with zero bal to the date of alleged default. All documents signifying Assignment from OC to JDB and Credit Card Application or Contract with your signature, with full disclosures as defined by the Truth in Lending Act.

 

Hope this helps...

 

Thank you for all your help!

 

I will be sending the meet and confer letter out today via CMRRR, what is the timeframe that i should be aware of before preparing or expecting the next step (5 days like 1st step + 5 days for mailing, or upon receiving receipt of CMRRR?)

 

Ok, i will wait to see how they respond to the meet and confer, with options being....

 

A. They drop the breach of contract, keeping acct stated charge - I proceed to begin discovery asking for all itemized statements beginning with zero balance to alleged default with all docs included orginial application/contract and signature.

 

B. They do not reply or, they still refuse to provide any adequate response to my original bop - I proceed to motion to compel/preclude?

 

Just want to make sure I know what to expect, thank you for all your help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - they will either drop the Breach of Contract and the other common counts - leaving just the account stated, or they will stonewall you and force you to file a motion to compel/preclude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you already sent your meet and confer letter, but for others who may be reading; I saw a post on here by one of the lawyers and she said that a meet and confer letter is not needed with a BOP, only discovery. So, my post about sending the meet and confer letter is not 100% correct, but if you are not short on time and you want to send one it may not matter. When I sent my letter to them they did respond to the BOP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you already sent your meet and confer letter, but for others who may be reading; I saw a post on here by one of the lawyers and she said that a meet and confer letter is not needed with a BOP, only discovery. So, my post about sending the meet and confer letter is not 100% correct, but if you are not short on time and you want to send one it may not matter. When I sent my letter to them they did respond to the BOP.

 

 

Calawyer stated it wasn't necessary but only as a courtesy. You want to send a mee&confer to get in the good graces of the Court especially when it comes to BOP (since some Judges don't see this as the read discovery phase). You want to show the judge you are trying to work it out without the intervention of the Courts and if JDB is not willing to work with you that the Final resolution is to ask the Courts for relief. In my case, JDB outright stated in their response to our m&c letter that they were not going to give anything in response to our BOP. So we motioned, it was GRANTED, they still defied the Court Order and any evidence (statements) has now been precluded as per the ORDER by the Judge.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calawyer stated it wasn't necessary but only as a courtesy. You want to send a mee&confer to get in the good graces of the Court especially when it comes to BOP (since some Judges don't see this as the read discovery phase). You want to show the judge you are trying to work it out without the intervention of the Courts and if JDB is not willing to work with you that the Final resolution is to ask the Courts for relief. In my case, JDB outright stated in their response to our m&c letter that they were not going to give anything in response to our BOP. So we motioned, it was GRANTED, they still defied the Court Order and any evidence (statements) has now been precluded as per the ORDER by the Judge.

That's true. I sent a meet & confer for everything. Congratulations on wining your motion to compel. If you got a court order to preclude you should have it made now, They are going to have to dismiss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the help, i sent the meet and confer letter, which was something along the lines of the quote below.

 

 

Thank you for your letter dated ___ regarding the Bill of Particulars served in this matter. In that letter, you refuse to respond to Defendant’s Bill of Particulars claiming that a Bill of Particulars is not required for plaintiff’s claims of account stated. You ignore, however, the fact that plaintiff's complaint contains a cause of action for breach of contract.

You may wish to review the case of Distefano v. Hall. While Distefano does suggest that a Bill of Particulars may not be required for an account stated claim, the Court reached the opposite conclusion with respect to breach of contract: “Section 454 has received a fairly broad interpretation and has been construed to cover almost any kind of contract action for a money claim made up of more than one item.” 218 Cal. App. 2d 677.

I cannot understand why plaintiff would object to providing the most basic discovery that will be necessary to prove its claims. In any event, your erroneous objection to the Bill has already caused plaintiff’s response to be tardy. As the Distefano court noted, “The penalty for failure to furnish a bill of particulars, when one has been demanded, is that no evidence will be allowed in support of the cause of action pleaded.”

 

 

I am now waiting for their response. I will probably hear from them next week. 

 

What is the best use of my time in the meanwhile?

 

prepare motions? are there any good examples similar to mine?

 

ill be doing some more research/reading this weekend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the help, i sent the meet and confer letter, which was something along the lines of the quote below.

 

 

 

 

I am now waiting for their response. I will probably hear from them next week. 

 

What is the best use of my time in the meanwhile?

 

prepare motions? are there any good examples similar to mine?

 

ill be doing some more research/reading this weekend

 

I would study the rules of evidence, especially hearsay and business records exception to it, as well as local court rules and civil code of procedures. prepare to strike garbage reproduced credit card statements, and prepare for a ccp 98 declaration in lieu of live testimony. Also in case you haven't yet you can google: CA jury instructions account stated (and then the same thing for breach of contract); this will tell you all the elements they have to prove & provide you with some good case law as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the California Jury Instruction for Breach of Contract:

Breach of Contract—Introduction

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/it] and [name of defendant]
entered into a contract for [insert brief summary of alleged contract].
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] breached this
contract by [briefly state the alleged breach].
[Name of plaintiff] also claims that [name of defendant]’s breach of
this contract caused harm to [name of plaintiff] for which [name of
defendant] should pay. Here's a caselaw to use:
Plaintiff must prove that Defendant cause Plaintiff's damages
[uS Energy, Inc. v. State of California (2005) 129 CA4th 887, 891]

[Name of defendant] denies [insert denial of any of the above claims].
[Name of defendant] also claims [insert affırmative defense].


This instruction is designed to introduce the jury to the issues involved in the
case. It should be read before the instructions on the substantive law.

Sources and Authority
• The Supreme Court has observed that “[c]ontract and tort are different
branches of law. Contract law exists to enforce legally binding
agreements between parties; tort law is designed to vindicate social
policy.” (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia, Ltd. (1994) 7
Cal.4th 503, 514 [28 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 869 P.2d 454].)
• “The differences between contract and tort give rise to distinctions in
assessing damages and in evaluating underlying motives for particular

courses of conduct. Contract damages seek to approximate the agreedupon
performance . . . and are generally limited to those within the
contemplation of the parties when the contract was entered into or at least
reasonably foreseeable by them at that time; consequential damages
beyond the expectations of the parties are not recoverable.” (Applied
Equipment Corp., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 515, internal citations omitted.)
• Certain defenses are decided as questions of law, not as questions of fact.
These defenses include frustration of purpose, impossibility, and
impracticability. (Oosten v. Hay Haulers Dairy Employees and Helpers
Union (1955) 45 Cal.2d 784, 788 [291 P.2d 17]; Mitchell v. Ceazan Tires,
Ltd. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 45, 48 [153 P.2d 53];
Glen Falls Indemnity Co. v. Perscallo (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 799, 802 [216 P.2d
567].)
• “Defendant contends that frustration is a question of fact resolved in its
favor by the trial court. The excuse of frustration, however, like that of
impossibility, is a conclusion of law drawn by the court from the facts of
a given case . . . .” (Mitchell, supra, 25 Cal.2d at p. 48, italics added.)
• Estoppel is a “nonjury fact question to be determined by the trial court in
accordance with applicable law.” (DRG/Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Chopstix
Dim Sum Cafe and Takeout III, Ltd. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 54, 61 [35
Cal.Rptr.2d 515].)

Attacking or Defending Existence of Contract—Absence of Essential Element,
13.03–13.17
Secondary Sources
1 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts, §§ 847–867
13 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 140, Contracts, § 140.50
(Matthew Bender)
5 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 50, Contracts, § 50.10 et seq.

 

Hope this helps....
(Matthew Bender)
1 Matthew Bender Practice Guide: California Contract Litigation, Ch. 13,

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would now file a motion to preclude the giving of evidence. You have met an conferred now preclude them from giving evidence. The account stated does not prevent the giving evidence the breach of contract makes the account stated come along for the ride.

 

File a Motion to preclude and be done with them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would now file a motion to preclude the giving of evidence. You have met an conferred now preclude them from giving evidence. The account stated does not prevent the giving evidence the breach of contract makes the account stated come along for the ride.

 

File a Motion to preclude and be done with them.

 

Thank you for this, Must I wait 5 days after receiving receipt of my meet and confer letter to send a motion to preclude?

 

Also, i see on your links you have this....

 

What does a motion to preclude the giving of evidence look like?

 

When doing a search I see lots of different kinds: motion to compel/preclude/limine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Account Stated with case law....

 

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)

 

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on googlebuzzShare on facebook_like

373. Common Count: Account Stated

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] owes [him/ her/it] money on an account stated. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

1. That [name of defendant] owed [name of plaintiff] money from previous financial transactions;

2. That [name of plaintiff] and [name of defendant], by words or conduct, agreed that the amount stated in the account was the correct amount owed to [name of plaintiff];

3. That [name of defendant], by words or conduct, promised to pay the stated amount to [name of plaintiff];

4. That [name of defendant] has not paid [name of plaintiff] [any/all] of the amount owed under this account; and

5. The amount of money [name of defendant] owes [name of plaintiff].

Sources and Authority

"The essential elements of an account stated are: (1) previous transactions between the parties establishing the relationship of debtor and creditor; (2) an agreement between the parties, express or implied, on the amount due from the debtor to the creditor; (3) a promise by the debtor, express or implied, to pay the amount due." (Zinn v. Fred R. Bright Co. (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 597, 600 [76 Cal.Rptr. 663], internal citations omitted.)

"The agreement of the parties necessary to establish an account stated need not be express and frequently is implied from the circumstances. In the usual situation, it comes about by the creditor rendering a statement of the account to the debtor. If the debtor fails to object to the statement within a reasonable time, the law implies his agreement that the account is correct as rendered." (Zinn, supra, 271 Cal.App.2d at p. 600, internal citations omitted.)

"An account stated is an agreement, based on the prior transactions between the parties, that the items of the account are true and that the balance struck is due and owing from one party to another. When the account is assented to, ' "it becomes a new contract. An action on it is ot founded upon the original items, but upon the balance agreed to by the parties. . . ." Inquiry may not be had into those matters at all. It is upon the new contract by and under which the parties have adjusted their differences and reached an agreement.' " (Gleason v. Klamer (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 782, 786-787 [163 Cal.Rptr. 483], internal citations omitted.)

"To be an account stated, 'it must appear that at the time of the statement an indebtedness from one party to the other existed, that a balance was then struck and agreed to be the correct sum owing from the debtor to the creditor, and that the debtor expressly or impliedly promised to pay to the creditor the amount thus determined to be owing.' The agreement necessary to establish an account stated need not be express and is frequently implied from the circumstances. When a statement is rendered to a debtor and no reply is made in a reasonable time, the law implies an agreement that the account is correct as rendered. Actions on accounts stated frequently arise from a series of transactions which also constitute an open book account. However, an account stated may be found in a variety of commercial situations. The acknowledgement of a debt consisting of a single item may form the basis of a stated account. The key element in every context is agreement on the final balance due." (Maggio, Inc. v. Neal (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 745, 752-753 [241 Cal.Rptr. 883], internal citations omitted.)

"An account stated need not be submitted by the creditor to the debtor. A statement expressing the debtor's assent and acknowledging the agreed amount of the debt to the creditor equally establishes an account stated." (Truestone, Inc. v. Simi West Industrial Park II (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 715, 726 [209 Cal.Rptr. 757], internal citations omitted.)

" 'The common count is a general pleading which seeks recovery of money without specifying the nature of the claim . . . . Because of the uninformative character of the complaint, it has been held that the typical answer, a general denial, is sufficient to raise almost any kind of defense, including some which ordinarily require special pleading.' However, even where the plaintiff has pleaded in the form of a common count, the defendant must raise in the answer any new matter, that is, anything he or she relies on that is not put in issue by the plaintiff." (Title Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1992) 4 Cal.4th 715, 731 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 842 P.2d 121], internal citations and footnote omitted.)

"The account stated may be attacked only by proof of 'fraud, duress, mistake, or other grounds cognizable in equity for the avoidance of an instrument.' The defendant 'will not be heard to answer when action is brought upon the account stated that the claim or demand was unjust, or invalid.' " (Gleason, supra, 103 Cal.App.3d at p. 787, internal citations omitted.)

"An account stated need not cover all the dealings or claims between the parties. There may be a partial settlement and account stated as to some of the transactions." (Gleason, supra, 103 Cal.App.3d at p. 790, internal citation omitted.)

"In the common law action of general assumpsit, it is customary to plead an indebtedness using 'common counts.' In California, it has long been settled the allegation of claims using common counts is good against special or general demurrers. The only essential allegations of a common count are '(1) the statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment.' " (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460 [61 Cal.Rptr.2d 707], internal citations omitted.)

"A common count is not a specific cause of action, . . . rather, it is a simplified form of pleading normally used to aver the existence of various forms of monetary indebtedness, including that arising from an alleged duty to make restitution under an assumpsit theory. When a common count is used as an alternative way of seeking the same recovery demanded in a specific cause of action, and is based on the same facts, the common count is demurrable if the cause of action is demurrable." (McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 394 [20 Cal.Rptr.3d 115], internal citations omitted.)

Secondary Sources

4 Witkin, California Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, � 515

1 Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th ed. 1987) Contracts, �� 917, 918

1 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 8, Accounts Stated and Open Accounts, �� 8.10, 8.40-8.46 (Matthew Bender)

(New December 2005)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I've read that a couple times now, I still have some questions.

 

I get that I should replace the areas for [name of defendant] and [name of plaintiff] 

 

Do i need to make any adjustments, edits to the motion or can i just fill in the names and turn it in?

 

The proper procedure is to file with court with proof of service, and send copies to the law group?

 

Should i wait to hear back on the meet and confer letter or just send now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bluelife,

 

In most California Counties, before you can file a motion to preclude, you should have had a motion to compel further response to BOP. So have you done that yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a letter back from.my first bop mentioning distefano and how they would not provide a response

I sent a letter back saying that my request is valid and that if they do not respond.I will take the necessary action against them

I was told that was my meet and confer letter

And per seadragons post. I was thinking motion to preclude was next but I am not sure....

I don't think I did motion to compel further response. Unless that was the letter I sent to the law group few days ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a letter back from.my first bop mentioning distefano and how they would not provide a response

I sent a letter back saying that my request is valid and that if they do not respond.I will take the necessary action against them

I was told that was my meet and confer letter

And per seadragons post. I was thinking motion to preclude was next but I am not sure....

I don't think I did motion to compel further response. Unless that was the letter I sent to the law group few days ago

 

 

I think there was a discussion that in California you have to Motion to Compel Further Response to BOP before it can be precluded or wait and have it stricken at trial.

 

Here's a simple writeup on BOP: https://docs.google.com/open?id=1x2IS2_Nnjse_QgwIRHOujWMEg6s6-SGrLzJOgbYjdCYJN8eMohs1MnXYJHMx

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a letter back from.my first bop mentioning distefano and how they would not provide a response

I sent a letter back saying that my request is valid and that if they do not respond.I will take the necessary action against them

I was told that was my meet and confer letter

And per seadragons post. I was thinking motion to preclude was next but I am not sure....

I don't think I did motion to compel further response. Unless that was the letter I sent to the law group few days ago

Now it's time to take the necessary action against them you mentioned, so they don't view it as an empty threat. The letter you sent was the meet and confer, now you must motion the court to compel a further BOP, if they don't provide a proper response; then you can motion the court that they be precluded from entering evidence.

 

The motion to compel further response is filed with the court, it's not the letter you sent. You now need to learn about filing motions and how to draft them, read the rules. I have some case law and possibly other information on BOP if you can't find it here. Let me know and i will PM you the info.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The fact that plaintiff made a mistake as to the law in the matter of the bill of particulars of itself is no ground for relief under the circumstances here disclosed. ( Garroway v. Jennings, 189 Cal. 97, 99 [207 P. 554].) That the assignor was occupied with other affairs and so had no time to prepare the bill of particulars does not constitute an excuse for his neglect in that regard. ( Andrews v. Jacoby, 39 Cal. App. 382, 383 [178 P. 969].)” McManus v. Larson, 122 Cal. App. 716 (Cal. App. 1932)

 

Here is where they are in your case. They inaccurately cite the Distefano case in effort to stall you. That case has no merit. That being so then you will have to file the motion to preclude. Look up the distefano case here: http://lexisnexis.com/clients/CAcourts/ you can see it is not for a financial transaction and is wholly off point because it involves a mechanics lien and contract performance not on an account. The breach of contract claimed by the JDB is about an account for which the court would have to listen as more meritorious the following.

 

"While here the demand was ignored by plaintiff and there was a total failure to furnish an account or bill within the statutory time and the court would have been justified, on defendant's motion, to impose the statutory penalty, instead, defendant noticed motions for account and bill of particulars and for further account and bill receiving in return therefor a paper entitled "Bill of Particulars" constituting none of the items demanded or ordered by the court; no further bill was thereafter filed. Then finally, in accord with the procedure set up in Conner v. Hutchinson, 17 Cal. 279, 282, affirmed in McCarthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land & Water Co., 110 Cal. 687, 693 [43 P. 391], defendant moved for and obtained an order excluding the evidence. Actually, this case is similar to Banchero v. Coffis, 96 Cal.App.2d 717 [216 P.2d 151], in which a document entitled "Bill of Particulars" was so inadequate as to constitute not any kind of itemization or description of plaintiff's claim. The court said at page 721: "The situation thus presented was not the everyday case where the bill 'delivered is too general, or is defective in any particular' and where it is common practice for the judge to order a further account. The paper delivered was no bill of particulars at all, and did not pretend to be. It amounted to a total and unqualified noncompliance with the demand. In such case the extreme penalty provided by the section, of precluding the giving of evidence to prove the claim, is applicable ( Graham v. Harmon, 84 Cal. 181, 185 [23 P. 1097]; McCarthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land & Water Co., 110 Cal. 687 [43 P. 391]; Fisher v. Brotherton, 82 Cal.App. 532, 540 [255 P. 854], and McManus v. Larson, 122 Cal.App. 716 [10 P.2d 523]).” and the Court further stated “While it is true that a bill of particulars lacking in detail, ordinarily deemed defective, would not be prejudicial and would justify withholding the statutory penalty where the information demanded by defendant is actually within his knowledge or available to him ( Sadik v. Wallberg Mining Corp., 11 Cal.App.2d 379, 381 [53 P.2d 981]), there is no real showing in plaintiff's "Bill of Particulars" or declaration that the necessary records are actually in defendant's possession or that the information sought is within its knowledge or available to it.”Burton v. Santa Barbara Nat'l Bank, 247 Cal. App. 2d 427 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1966

 

So if they sent something then a Motion for further would be the way to go. when they are obviously stalling because they have nothing they trot out the distefano case because it is the only one that doesn't show the other cases here. You see the distefano case was in 1963 and the Burton case comes after at no time in the later cases about BOP did the courts cite the Distefano case. They cite that case to stall while they try to get the evidence. But you have to hold their feet to the fire.

 

I welcome everybody to read the distefano and later cases to see that the Distefano case doesn't pertain to financial transactions at all really but is about a building dispute. You see they cannot put the proper on point caselaw because it would gut them. There must be a JDB seminar that touts this case as a way to stall a pro per. It relies mostly on other states authorities even though they had 50 cases from the beginning about BOP. That is why the Distefano court remanded for a whole new trial.

 

Oh and better to motion to preclude early as a matter of timing because with this motion a MSJ would be denied.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you anon amos and seadragon, i will study motions and how to fille them.

 

Are there any good general directions/walkthrough or any good samples for my situation, any links would be greatly appreciated for study

Share this post


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