Jump to content

Does sending a CCP98 relieve the requirement to respond to CCP96


Recommended Posts

Hello everybody,

I was just thinking, does the plaintiff serving a CCP98 relieve them of the requirement to send a CCP96 response? Sending the CCP98 means they are including all the documents they intend to use at trial as well as listing the "witness".

And, assuming the defendant fails to object to the CCP98 and not subpoena the witness, it would mean the plaintiff has in essence notified the defendant [the court] of all the information requested in the CCP96. Could they then claim serving the CCP98 was response enough?

**Worry not, I understand the importance of objecting to the declaration and the power of subpoenaing the witness.**

Still, I cannot think of a time in my personal experiences or hearing from others where the plaintiff sent the 98 and not the required responses after being served the 96.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everybody,

Sending the CCP98 means they are including all the documents they intend to use at trial as well as listing the "witness".

 

The CCP98 is a declaration in lieu of live testimony however, so they are trying to keep the witness they are listing from having to appear at trial.

Nothing (other than lack of objection) should relieve them of their obligation to respond to the ccp 96, and they should be precluded from introducing any evidence (or witness) not listed in that response.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, that's what I was thinking. Thank you for the response.

I'm very surprised to find that they are still utilizing Mr. G r ! m as a declarant after that case where he was personally sued (in addition to others) for illegal collection practices. That case was a more than a year ago so maybe they forgot about it. We will be subpoenaing him regardless.

Does past history of robo-signing affect the credibility of a witness in the event he actually appears I wonder? Our luck, the judge won't care.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CCP 96 is a very powerful statute available to us in California and a Defendant should use it to the fullest extent allowed by law.  Not only is the plaintiff required to list everything they intend to use, bring, call at trial, there is also a time line they must adhere to. 

 

I don’t know if you followed my threads when I was in the thick of it, but I was able to get a dismissal WITH prejudice because plaintiff was two days late in responding to my CCP 96 demand.  I had to fight for it, but it was eventually dismissed with prejudice.

 

Good luck,

 

rt   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does past history of robo-signing affect the credibility of a witness in the event he actually appears I wonder?

 

***** It sure does. Especially if you knew how many they signed. You could call them as a witness and ask how long does it take to examine the records of a debtor to obtain personal knowledge that the amount is correct, the records are true, made during the time of the event and kept in the regular course of business, etc.? And then how many did you sign on that day / month?****

 

 

Our luck, the judge won't care.

 

***Then I would see how the Justices of the appellate court feel about it. If it were mine however; it would first be a jury who decides the credibility of the witness.*** 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.