GOING TO TRIAL IN CALIFORNIA

[HomelessInCalifornia 307]

whats wrong I cannot paste caselaw anymore the editor won't let me.

I pasted earlier np.  See if you can flag an admin.

[calawyer 1,848]

I don't think the case adds anything.  It concerns appellate jurisdiction over limited civil cases.  Rocha is the case you want to cite.

[HomelessInCalifornia 307]

@calawyer has developed an "Objection to Declaration of ___________ in Lieu of Live Testimony" as an alternate strategy to the MIL re 98.

 

I have cleaned up the format a bit, put it on pleading paper, and put it in "fill-in-the-blank" format for those who might wish an example.

 

At the bottom of page 2 of the pleading are two (2) CHOICES (one of one paragraph in length and the other 2 paragraphs long), depending upon whether or not the declarant provided an address where they could be served. Make and use the appropriate choice and delete the other if using this as any kind of template.

 

REVISED 3:20 P.M. 06/03/14 (discovered a spot on page 2 where there should be a blank):

 

OBJECTION TO DECLARATION IN LIEU OF TESTIMONY.doc

[HiRoy 13]

Thank you! Do I add the objection along with the few pieces of alleged evidence they sent to this or do I have to do a separate objection?

[HomelessInCalifornia 307]

Thank you! Do I add the objection along with the few pieces of alleged evidence they sent to this or do I have to do a separate objection?

You serve a subpoena to appear at the trial on the person who signed the Declaration in Lieu of Testimony.  Your process server makes at least two (2) attempts at the address that person has given in their declaration for them to be served.  You do this as early as possible during the 20 day period prior to trial. That declarant is not likely to be at the California address given. your process server will complete a Statement of Non-Service or a Proof of SErvice and you will ask them to note on that document that the declarant was NOT physically present.  You will attach that proof of service to the Objection as an exhibit and file it with the court and serve it on the plaintiff at the same time as you file and serve the Trial Brief and Defendant's Declaration in Support of Trial Brief (about 5 days prior to trial). You will list ALL objections and flaws to the evidence and allegations IN YOUR TRIAL BRIEF.

[Themis 20]

@calawyer has developed an "Objection to Declaration of ___________ in Lieu of Live Testimony" as an alternate strategy to the MIL re 98.

 

I have cleaned up the format a bit, put it on pleading paper, and put it in "fill-in-the-blank" format for those who might wish an example.

 

At the bottom of page 2 of the pleading are two (2) CHOICES (one of one paragraph in length and the other 2 paragraphs long), depending upon whether or not the declarant provided an address where they could be served. Make and use the appropriate choice and delete the other if using this as any kind of template.

 

REVISED 3:20 P.M. 06/03/14 (discovered a spot on page 2 where there should be a blank):

 

OBJECTION TO DECLARATION IN LIEU OF TESTIMONY.doc

 

 

That's similar to what I did last year.  I served an Objection to the Declaration in Lieu of Testimony, but it was before the Target case, so I attached CACH, LLC v. Jones as Exhibit "A."

 

It's always good to have several options

[HomelessInCalifornia 307]

That's similar to what I did last year.  I served an Objection to the Declaration in Lieu of Testimony, but it was before the Target case, so I attached CACH, LLC v. Jones as Exhibit "A."

 

It's always good to have several options

Do you have a cite reference and/or a link to the CACH v. Jones case.  I don't think I have that, and I would like to include it.

[Seadragon 840]

I love the tactical shift with this. Kinda like Schwarzkopf' "hook".

[string 242]

Do you have a cite reference and/or a link to the CACH v. Jones case.  I don't think I have that, and I would like to include it.

 

here it is:

 

cach-v-jones11april2012.pdf

[HomelessInCalifornia 307]

here it is:

 

cach-v-jones11april2012.pdf

Thanks!

[Themis 20]

here it is:

 

cach-v-jones11april2012.pdf

 

 

That's the one!  Thanks

[joseywales 27]

Is your double jeopardy case against Mandarich/CACH over Homeless?  Did you get any FDCPA/Reosenthal money?

 

I won back in Aug 2013 and they just sent me a letter asking for payment on the same account I won…same as you.

 

JW

[HiRoy 13]

Do you guys recommend me attaching the cach-v-jones11april2012.pdf as well? If so, do I have to mention it in the "Objection?"

[Themis 20]

Do you guys recommend me attaching the cach-v-jones11april2012.pdf as well? If so, do I have to mention it in the "Objection?"

 

 

I would say anything that you attach needs to be mentioned in the Objection.  But whether you decide to use it or not is up to you.

[HomelessInCalifornia 307]

Do you guys recommend me attaching the cach-v-jones11april2012.pdf as well? If so, do I have to mention it in the "Objection?"

Not necessary. If you wish to add it as an Exhibit to the Objection then you must reference it in the objection.

[HomelessInCalifornia 307]

I suppose this is as good a time as any to announce this.  Been quiet as I've been in process with it, and I actually have a life to handle outside of here.

 

I have obtained counsel, working on contingency, through referral from here.  He comes highly recommended from the best source for California litigation on the site, so I feel quite comfortable.

 

We are suing CACH and Mandarich Law Group for Rosenthal violations in attempting to collect on a debt already judged not owing. 

 

We will be serving opposition shortly.

 

We are looking to move forward as a class action suit. Obviously, that would be open to individuals who have won judgment against CACH as represented by Mandarich Law Group but who have received collection notice or calls since winning judgment in favor of defense at trial or after the case was dismissed with prejudice.

[HiRoy 13]

Does anybody have an example of a Motion to Preclude Admission of Evidence and Witnesses for failure to comply with CCP 96 -- a motion to preclude admission based on the plaintiff's failure to send me a Statement of Witness and Evidence in response to your Request for Statement of Witnesses and Evidence (CCP 96).

 

I sent a request for a CCP 96 via CMRR. I got the card back on the 21. They received the request on the 19. Today is the 20th day.

[HomelessInCalifornia 307]

Does anybody have an example of a Motion to Preclude Admission of Evidence and Witnesses for failure to comply with CCP 96 -- a motion to preclude admission based on the plaintiff's failure to send me a Statement of Witness and Evidence in response to your Request for Statement of Witnesses and Evidence (CCP 96).

 

I sent a request for a CCP 96 via CMRR. I got the card back on the 21. They received the request on the 19. Today is the 20th day.

Post this in your main thread -- your PUBLIC thread (not just the private ones you have) -- so that the general membership can see it. 

 

You are likely to get more responses that way. 

 

Also ... their response is due 20 days after you served them ... BUT you must add 5 days to that if you served them by mail.

 

I calculate their response must be postmarked by June 11.  They are not overdue yet.

[chinaonnitrous1 1]

Just got done reading your thread. 

Congrats. I wish I could be as diligent as you. I'm just now taking the first step to respond to a complaint from Kenosian. Pulling my head out of the sand sure is scary.

 

Post this in your main thread -- your PUBLIC thread (not just the private ones you have) -- so that the general membership can see it. 

 

You are likely to get more responses that way. 

 

Also ... their response is due 20 days after you served them ... BUT you must add 5 days to that if you served them by mail.

 

I calculate their response must be postmarked by June 11.  They are not overdue yet.

[HomelessInCalifornia 307]

Just got done reading your thread. 

Congrats. I wish I could be as diligent as you. I'm just now taking the first step to respond to a complaint from Kenosian. Pulling my head out of the sand sure is scary.

You can do it. Many of us here have been through it. Stick to it, do the work, ask questions, and you can do it too.

[sunshinerey 4]

Dose anyone know the p.__ to insert (CCP 1989; Target Nat. Bank v. Rocha (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, p. __.) <-- here  into the doc template that calawyer created. Or where I can find it.  Finding lots of information on the subject but just not this specific question.  Pretty Please and Thank You

[Seadragon 840]

Target National Bank v. Rocha, 216 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2013)

available here:

http://lexisnexis.com/clients/CAcourts/

you can read and quote the parts by highlighting then click copy with cite

[xavi72 21]

A party who is an individual is someone like you (as opposed to a corporation).  A corporation, on the other hand, must testify through employees whose names and addresses you will not know unless they tell you.

 

New case just out today.  It is going to rock your world: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/JAD13-03.PDF

 

 

Does any one have an active link or a reference to that new case pointed out by Calawyer?

[HomelessInCalifornia 307]

Does any one have an active link or a reference to that new case pointed out by Calawyer?

 

Last I heard it is CACH, LLC v. Rodgers, (August 5, 2014), ____ Cal. App. 4th Supp. ____ (Pub. Pending)(Certified for publication 8/26/14).

 

CACH v ROGERS APPEAL.pdf

[HomelessInCalifornia 307]

California Evidence Code 1119 governs confidentiality for the purposes of mediation (as in a settlement conference):

1119.  Except as otherwise provided in this chapter:   (a) No evidence of anything said or any admission made for thepurpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or amediation consultation is admissible or subject to discovery, anddisclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in anyarbitration, administrative adjudication, civil action, or othernoncriminal proceeding in which, pursuant to law, testimony can becompelled to be given.   ( No writing, as defined in Section 250, that is prepared forthe purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or amediation consultation, is admissible or subject to discovery, anddisclosure of the writing shall not be compelled, in any arbitration,administrative adjudication, civil action, or other noncriminalproceeding in which, pursuant to law, testimony can be compelled tobe given.   (c) All communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions byand between participants in the course of a mediation or a mediationconsultation shall remain confidential.