jcstar

Being Sued by White & Whitley Group, LLC a Citicorp Credit Alleged Dept

Recommended Posts

Hello I'm new  ::BigBaby:: to this wonderful place!

 

Here are the facts on this case.

1 Residing in California

2 Lawsuit filed by 

Kenneth J. Miele, Esq. SNB 165730

Law Office of Kenosian & Miele, LLP

Los Angeles, California 90069

 

Plaintiff White & Whitely Group, LLC, A  Limited Liability Company. 

 

So Far I have responded to the case of alleged dept-thanks to great information on this very forum.

 

Last I have sent a BOP & sent the follow up request same day (today) receiving following from Plaintiff:

 

SUBP-025 - Notice to consumer or employee 

 

SUBp-020 - Request for Admission

 

Plaintiff Request for Production of Documents

 

Copies of a few citicorp statements

 

I need help with the following. I would like to know how I can 1) quash the subpoena 2) or best way to respond to this last actions by Plaintiff.

Here are the links for copies of the documents:

 

http://www.developvfl.com/doc1.pdf

 

http://www.developvfl.com/doc2.pdf

 

 

Your help is greatly appreciated  :please:

 

jc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new to this form and I believe my post was too broad, and therefore no response. I'm learning as I go, with the terms as well as how to better search the forum.

 

I'll brake this down- Can anyone please review my response to request for admissions (RFA), which I will follow from guidance of this post:
http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/315201-response-to-plaintiffs-1st-set-of-request-for-admissions/

 

Besides the RFA,'s there is a Request for admission of "Genuineness of Documents" in form DISC-020.

 

1. Admit to the genuineness (COPIES OF STATEMENTS payment due date 08-08-10) of the documents attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2, monthly billing statements for CITIBANK, NA / CITI CARDS with the Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX.
a. Denied. Defendant has no way of knowing whether the documents attached as EXHIBIT 2 are “genuine”.

 

2. Admit to the genuineness (COPIES OF STATEMENTS payment due date 09-08-10) of the documents attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2, monthly billing statements for CITIBANK, NA / CITI CARDS with the Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX.

a. Denied. Defendant has no way of knowing whether the documents attached as EXHIBIT 2 are “genuine”.

 

1. Admit that you applied for a credit card from CITIBANK, NA now bearing account number ######

a. OBJECTION. Lacks foundation. Plaintiff has provided no admissible evidence that defendant “applied” for a credit card from stated creditor bearing the stated account number.

 

2. Admit that you received a credit card from CITIBANK, NA now bearing account number #####

a. Responding Party lacks sufficient information and belief in order to admit or deny this request and on that basis denies same.

 

3. Admit that you made payments on CITIBANK, NA credit card now bearing account number #### within the last four years. 

a. DENIED. On the grounds that after reasonable inquiry the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to accurately respond to this request. Plaintiff's complaint is utterly devoid of any factual information regarding the alleged debt and any agreement giving rise to the alleged debt. For that reason, defendant has asked plaintiff to respond to a BOP setting forth the contract referred to in the complaint, all charges that were allegedly made pursuant to that contract, and all credits that were made to the account. Without such information, defendant is unable even to identify the debt alleged in the complaint, much less provide the information requested in this request for admissions. Defendant reserves the right to supplement answer to this request for admissions after plaintiff complies with its obligations under the Code. Based upon the foregoing, Defendant responds as follows: DENIED.

 

4. Admit that you became delinquent in the payments due on the CITIBANK, NA credit card now bearing account number #####

Same as #3

5. Admit that you left a balance due and owing on CITIBANK, NA credit card now bearing account number #######

Same as #3

 

6. Admit you received statements regarding the CITIBANK, NA credit card now account number #######

***I'M NOT SURE HOW TO ANSWER THIS ONE***

 

7. Admit that the balance due and owed by you on the CITIBANK, NA credit card now bearing account number number ##### as of August 11, 2010 was $######

a. Denied

 

8. Admit that at all relevant times, Plaintiff has had and now has all rights, title, interest and sole ownership to CITIBANK, NA credit card now bearing account number. 

a. Responding Party lacks sufficient information and belief in order to admit or deny this request and on that basis denies same.

 

thank you in advance,

jc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall if you can change the title of your post but usually if you put your state in the title you will get a better response from people in your state.

 

 

There are some real smart members here with knowledge of CA procedures.

 

Check out posts by calawyer, HotWheels96, Anon Amos and ASTMedic.

 

ASTMedic had a thread called, How I beat Midland in California that could be helpful as your plaintiff sounds like a Junk Debt Buyer same as Midland.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall if you can change the title of your post but usually if you put your state in the title you will get a better response from people in your state.

 

 

There are some real smart members here with knowledge of CA procedures.

 

Check out posts by calawyer, HotWheels96, Anon Amos and ASTMedic.

 

ASTMedic had a thread called, How I beat Midland in California that could be helpful as your plaintiff sounds like a Junk Debt Buyer same as Midland.

 

Thank you, that is a great thread!

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/317277-how-i-beat-midland-in-california/

 

No there is no way to edit the title, and I did try to edit before because I knew my title was not very good.

In any case if anyone can help me on #6 for admissions. 

I'm having problem with this one because they did provide a copy of statements on their attachment for proof of Genuineness of Documents. 

 

help is appreciated and again thank you for pointing out the threads. 

 

jc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6. Admit you received statements regarding the CITIBANK, NA credit card now account number #######

***I'M NOT SURE HOW TO ANSWER THIS ONE***

 

 

You would not have received statements regarding any new account #, so you can't admit to it. I would think the response would be DENY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new to this form and I believe my post was too broad, and therefore no response. I'm learning as I go, with the terms as well as how to better search the forum.

 

I'll brake this down- Can anyone please review my response to request for admissions (RFA), which I will follow from guidance of this post:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/315201-response-to-plaintiffs-1st-set-of-request-for-admissions/

 

Besides the RFA,'s there is a Request for admission of "Genuineness of Documents" in form DISC-020.

 

1. Admit to the genuineness (COPIES OF STATEMENTS payment due date 08-08-10) of the documents attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2, monthly billing statements for CITIBANK, NA / CITI CARDS with the Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX.

a. Denied. Defendant has no way of knowing whether the documents attached as EXHIBIT 2 are “genuine”.  

I would just leave it at denied, because you do have a way knowing they are not genuine; by learning the rules of evidence and authentication

 

2. Admit to the genuineness (COPIES OF STATEMENTS payment due date 09-08-10) of the documents attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2, monthly billing statements for CITIBANK, NA / CITI CARDS with the Account Number XXXXXXXXXXXX.

a. Denied. Defendant has no way of knowing whether the documents attached as EXHIBIT 2 are “genuine”.

 

1. Admit that you applied for a credit card from CITIBANK, NA now bearing account number ######

a. OBJECTION. Lacks foundation. Plaintiff has provided no admissible evidence that defendant “applied” for a credit card from stated creditor bearing the stated account number.

That's not going to work. You are being asked to admit or deny, so you don't need proof to do that.

2. Admit that you received a credit card from CITIBANK, NA now bearing account number #####

a. Responding Party lacks sufficient information and belief in order to admit or deny this request and on that basis denies same.

 

3. Admit that you made payments on CITIBANK, NA credit card now bearing account number #### within the last four years. 

a. DENIED. On the grounds that after reasonable inquiry the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to accurately respond to this request. Plaintiff's complaint is utterly devoid of any factual information regarding the alleged debt and any agreement giving rise to the alleged debt. For that reason, defendant has asked plaintiff to respond to a BOP setting forth the contract referred to in the complaint, all charges that were allegedly made pursuant to that contract, and all credits that were made to the account. Without such information, defendant is unable even to identify the debt alleged in the complaint, much less provide the information requested in this request for admissions. Defendant reserves the right to supplement answer to this request for admissions after plaintiff complies with its obligations under the Code. Based upon the foregoing, Defendant responds as follows: DENIED.

 

4. Admit that you became delinquent in the payments due on the CITIBANK, NA credit card now bearing account number #####

Same as #3

5. Admit that you left a balance due and owing on CITIBANK, NA credit card now bearing account number #######

Same as #3

 

6. Admit you received statements regarding the CITIBANK, NA credit card now account number #######

***I'M NOT SURE HOW TO ANSWER THIS ONE***

 

7. Admit that the balance due and owed by you on the CITIBANK, NA credit card now bearing account number number ##### as of August 11, 2010 was $######

a. Denied

That's a trick question. You are only denying the amount was correct, but by doing that you admit that there is  a balance due and owed by you.

 

Defendant denies owing this amount or any other amount due on the alleged account and has denied all allegations of plaintiff's complaint. 

 

8. Admit that at all relevant times, Plaintiff has had and now has all rights, title, interest and sole ownership to CITIBANK, NA credit card now bearing account number. 

a. Responding Party lacks sufficient information and belief in order to admit or deny this request and on that basis denies same.

 

thank you in advance,

jc

 

On your earlier question regarding the SUBP-025 you would need to file a motion to quash all or parts of the request (I believe it's under CCP 1987)

 

Your links to the RFP request from them is not working.  A general rule of thumb Is to produce nothing as "after a diligent search of defendant's record has produced nothing and if the document truly exist it would be equally available to plaintiff". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To anyone that may be interested. My name is Ehud Gersten, and I'm a consumer lawyer based in San Diego, CA. One focus of my firm is suing debt collectors. If you have been sued by a debt collector, like Midland Funding or Cach LLC, I may be able to help you. I have won at trial against Midland, and just settled a case with Cach with my clients being very happy with their results. 


 


You can see my website here www.gerstenlaw.com and you can also call 619-600-0098 to talk to me and see if I am able to help you. My email is egersten@gerstenlaw.com


I represent people that are being sued by a debt collector that is attempting to collect on an alleged credit card debt. 


 


Since I'm only licensed as an attorney in California, I only represent people in California. If you are from out of state, I cannot advise you.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To anyone that may be interested. My name is Ehud Gersten, and I'm a consumer lawyer based in San Diego, CA. One focus of my firm is suing debt collectors. If you have been sued by a debt collector, like Midland Funding or Cach LLC, I may be able to help you. I have won at trial against Midland, and just settled a case with Cach with my clients being very happy with their results. 

 

You can see my website here www.gerstenlaw.com and you can also call 619-600-0098 to talk to me and see if I am able to help you. My email is egersten@gerstenlaw.com

I represent people that are being sued by a debt collector that is attempting to collect on an alleged credit card debt. 

 

Since I'm only licensed as an attorney in California, I only represent people in California. If you are from out of state, I cannot advise you.

 

 

While we appreciate having those of the legal profession on the board to contribute their experience, please be aware that we have a fairly strict policy against solicitation for services without prior approval from the board owner.  This rule is spelled out in the "Please read before posting section."  If you want to have permission please send a PM to "Admin" for review and if approved we will add you to our list of approved solicitors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@egersten

 

Most of our CA posters win their cases, but we have had a few recent losses in San Diego, so hopefully you can work something out with the owner here. There was another member here looking for a lawyer in San Diego as well.

 We are not too big on settling however and have seen many people get burned after paying, although there are situations were it is a good option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would not have received statements regarding any new account #, so you can't admit to it. I would think the response would be DENY.

Thank you @Anon Amos

Sorry about that, the links are back up for anyone with a little available time to review.

 

On the thread you pointed out to me I see a great link to respond to the subpoena, and truth is we have nothing they are asking for, so will answer it.

 

It's crazy the firm suing is Law Office of Kenosian & Miele, LLP, Kenneth J. Miele, Esq. SBN 165730, 8581 Santa Monica Boulevard, No. 17 Los Angeles, CA 90069. putting full info for someone who is in similar situation-and a bit of google search love. 

 

It really is for not that much money $2402 and the alleged original dept, if it ever existed, was even half of that, but the point to fight it-is the principle of all this, Citibank, was bailed out billions of dollars by the american people for greed, yet what happens when american citizen falls on hard time at some point in life or experiences bad health for a period, like here, but it's just crazy how things work and how some use laws. I mean how can anyone sue someone that they have never even seen their face, or knows next to nothing about their life's, in any case enough of that, as I'm sure there are hundreds of better comments here about this subject. 

 

The response to admissions and the points made are greatly appreciated and will follow advice on this thread as well as others-and will do my best on this long run!

 

SD lawyer, thanks all the best.

 

jc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.