Recommended Posts

Ok, I talked with the process server.

 

Apparently he knows all about Maria Marin and H&H. He said she's never there and never has been. She lives in Virginia.

 

Also to get the Subpoena form you have to first go to the court, they'll stamp all over it and then you can fill it out. I went to the clerk and she said they don't accept any filled out forms, you have to get a blank one. It cannot be any court, you have to go to the one in which your trial will be held to get the Subpoena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most clerks will sign and seal a subpoena that is already filled out.  However, the statute does say that "The clerk, or a judge, shall issue a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum signed and sealed but otherwise in blank to a party
requesting it, who shall fill it in before service.  CCP 1985 c.  So just bring a blank one to the court and fill it out afterwards and send to the process server.

 

Make sure the process server understands that, even if Maria Marin is not present, and they know this from previous attempts, they must still try three times for you and give you a declaration of non-service.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H&H sent me a witness and evidence list. A CCP 98 was included, 24 days after they received the CCP 96. All of the witnesses including Maria Marin are located in San Diego. Except for myself.

They also included a statement for each month, and said more evidence that is unavailable at this time will be provided at trial... that really bothered me.

I want to have my objections and trial brief finished by next week. That's what I'm working on right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H&H sent me a witness and evidence list. A CCP 98 was included, 24 days after they received the CCP 96. All of the witnesses including Maria Marin are located in San Diego. Except for myself.

 

How many witnesses?   Are they all allegedly located in San Diego?  And do they all work for the JDB?  I'd be willing to bet there's a good chance that it's the same list they sent me.  You should read over the entries in my thread in regard to this.  Is the CCP 98 the same one you originally received from Maria Marin?

They also included a statement for each month, and said more evidence that is unavailable at this time will be provided at trial... that really bothered me.

 

In regard to "evidence" to be admitted later, you should again look at my thread (same spot as the witness list entry).  Evidence not disclosed in response to the CCP 96 Request is not allowed at Trial.  Check it out.  I suspect this is part of their MO, perhaps to scare people into settling before Trial.

 

I want to have my objections and trial brief finished by next week. That's what I'm working on right now.

 

Very good.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@h8spleadingpaper thank you. I'll look over your thread again when I get home, it's hard to navigate this site on my phone.

There's 6 people including me. The other 5 are located in San Diego, La Jolla Village Dr.

The CCP 98 is slightly longer with a more in depth page on Maria Marin's job. All the evidence they have included is the same with the addition of more monthly statements.

I was looking over your redacted objections and trial brief. Our cause of actions are exactly the same I think. So I can use a lot of that. I noticed you found a discrepancy in the dates regarding date of purchase and such. I don't think that applies to me. When I get home I'll quote myself for my past post on my redacted documents from the CCP 98, if you guys have any input for my trial brief and objections please feel free to chime in. As you know, this is a stressful time. I appreciate all the help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 Evidence not disclosed in response to the CCP 96 Request is not allowed at Trial.  Check it out.  I suspect this is part of their MO, perhaps to scare people into settling before Trial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^^^^^ Make sure you mention this in your trial brief. They cannot reserve the right to introduce new evidence at trial. That is a violation of your due process rights.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man. I just today downloaded and objection or perhaps a M&C letter addressing thus type of ccp96 from somewhere. But its at work. Remind me and I'll post it minday if you still need it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's 6 people including me. The other 5 are located in San Diego, La Jolla Village Dr.

 

Mention  Object to this as well. They are supposed to give you the name and address of the witness they INTEND to call per CCP 96, not a pool of people from which they may call one. There's no way they intend to bring all 5.  This violates due process as well. You don't know which one to prepare for, and you can't be expected to, nor do you have time to prepare for all 5.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^ Make sure you mention this in your trial brief. They cannot reserve the right to introduce new evidence at trial. That is a violation of your due process rights.

I can also give you a redacted copy of the letter that calawyer and I put together and which I sent to the Plaintiff before filing my Trial Brief and Objections (again, there is mention of this in my thread).  To my mind, it lets them know ahead of time that you know your rights and won't be an easy mark.  It is also something you can show the Court to demonstrate that the opposition tried to violate those rights and that you made them aware that any new evidence would not be accepted at Trial.

 

The more similarities I hear about between what they sent you and what I received, the more I think H&H is using the "form letter" approach and may not be putting the individualized work into things that you may think.  If so, this may be good for you.  Of course, you still need to be vigilant and put everything into it that you possibly can.  Arm for bear.  If a mouse comes out of the woods, so much the better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey again, John.  So unfortunately, the pages I was referring to were part of my original thread, which I had deleted (but so wish I hadn't).  I did try to resurrect as much of it as I could for posterity, but had to enter the exported posts as .pdf files.  They can be found here:

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/326374-portfolio-recovery-hunt-henriques-old/?p=1327446

 

I'm attaching the .pdfs that I think you will need to read from it here, so you don't waste time looking through them all.  Start with the one labelled "Page 20."  Start reading about halfway down that post (there is a timestamp on it for June 29, 2015).  I think you will see that it is pretty much exactly the same situation you are facing regarding evidence not yet disclosed and (5) "witnesses" from San Diego.

 

Let me know if you have any questions.

 

Portfolio Recovery _ Hunt & Henriques - Page 20 - Is There a Lawyer in the House - Credit InfoCenter Forums20.pdf

 

Portfolio Recovery _ Hunt & Henriques - Page 21 - Is There a Lawyer in the House - Credit InfoCenter Forums21.pdf

 

Portfolio Recovery _ Hunt & Henriques - Page 22 - Is There a Lawyer in the House - Credit InfoCenter Forums22.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sadinca   Unfortunately I'm pretty useless at this stage of the game...I do have a M & C but it's regarding the lack of a full response to my discovery.  I'll look around at other threads tho.

 

@John4600   Wishing the best outcome for you!!   We're all on the same team..Good Luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a letter and comments that calawyer had written for another poster.....I just copied it and filed it but I don't know the original thread...it applies to your  5 witnesses per CCP 96.....

 

CCP 96 requires Plaintiff to list 1) the names and addresses of 2) the witnesses it intends to call at trial.  Plaintiff has done neither.  Instead it has listed the names of 5 witnesses it may call at trial.  Nor has it provided addresses.  Instead it has given the address of plaintiff's counsel.

 

Plaintiff's failure to identify the witnesses it intends to call at trial (or provide true addresses), has hampered Defendant's ability to prepare for trial.  Please take notice that Defendant intends to object if Plaintiff attempts to call any of these witnesses at trial.

 

calawyer comments:

If it gets that far (I think they may be bluffing and don't really have any of these witnesses), they will tell the Judge it is so difficult to know who will be available to testify 30 days out from trial.  Tough.  This is a professional litigant who files tons of cases in this Court.  It files against unrepresented individuals who are nonetheless required to follow the rules.  It should not get a "pass" because it finds the rules inconvenient.  If it has a problem with the law, it should employ its extensive lobbying powers to have the legislature change the law.  It should not be permitted to rewrite the law itself as it sees fit.

 

And you have been prejudiced.  These "legal specialists" are simply paid testifiers.  Trial testimony may be found to impeach them.  But you can't search for the testimony of 5 possible witnesses.  That is why the legislature requires plaintiff to identify the witness it intends to call at trial.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anon Amos @h8spleadingpaper I like what I'm reading. If I could get them to dismiss before trial that would be amazing!

 

@RubyTuesday Thank you for finding that! And @sadinca thanks for bringing in rubytuesday!

 

So let's make this clear about how this is going to work:

 

-I send a M&C letter to plaintiff about them violating due process.

 

-I file a trial brief and objections with the court, and include the M&C letter in the trial brief. 

 

-Send copies of court stamped trial brief and objections to plaintiff

 

please correct me if this is not the process. Also, when I get the declaration of non service from the process server what do I do with it? Just hold on to it, file with court, send to plaintiff?

 

I'll hopefully answer my own questions as I read further, if not thanks for the info guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The objections and trial brief do not have to be stamped by the court, they can just be sent to plaintiff's lawyer.

 

The declaration from the process server can be included as an attachment to your objection to their ccp 98 declaration in lieu of testimony, IF, you get it in time. If you don't get the declaration of diligence from the process server in time, then you just mention what happened in your objection, and you bring the process server's declaration with you to trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The objections and trial brief do not have to be stamped by the court, they can just be sent to plaintiff's lawyer.

 

The declaration from the process server can be included as an attachment to your objection to their ccp 98 declaration in lieu of testimony, IF, you get it in time. If you don't get the declaration of diligence from the process server in time, then you just mention what happened in your objection, and you bring the process server's declaration with you to trial.

 

Understood!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted these not too long ago, for convenience here they are again. If anyone has input for my objections please let me know. Thank in advance.

affidavit of sale of accounts by original creditor.pdf

affidavit_of_claim_and_certification_of_amount_due.pdf

bill of sale and assignment of assets.pdf

ccp98.pdf

certificate of conformity.pdf

verification.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted these not too long ago, for convenience here they are again. If anyone has input for my objections please let me know. Thank in advance.

 

For the first two: Affidavits are inadmissible at trial. CA Evidence Code 1200, Elkins v Superior Court.

 

For the Bill of sale: IRELEVANT (doesn't show defendant or alleged account), FOUNDATION, Doesn't meet the subcategories of CA Evidence Code 1271.

 

CCP 98 (I believe you have this one and there are plenty of examples here)

 

The last 2 are IRELEVEANT (citing laws other than CA), are not admissible as business records as they do not meet the subcategories of CA Evidence Code 1271, and are inadmissible as HEARSAY under CA Evidence Code 1200, Elkins v Superior Court

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the first two: Affidavits are inadmissible at trial. CA Evidence Code 1200, Elkins v Superior Court.

 

For the Bill of sale: IRELEVANT (doesn't show defendant or alleged account), FOUNDATION, Doesn't meet the subcategories of CA Evidence Code 1271.

 

CCP 98 (I believe you have this one and there are plenty of examples here)

 

The last 2 are IRELEVEANT (citing laws other than CA), are not admissible as business records as they do not meet the subcategories of CA Evidence Code 1271, and are inadmissible as HEARSAY under CA Evidence Code 1200, Elkins v Superior Court

 

Yes thank you! And the CCP 98 we just discussed, quoted below so we can have this all in one post. Cheers,

 

 

 

 

CCP 96 requires Plaintiff to list 1) the names and addresses of 2) the witnesses it intends to call at trial.  Plaintiff has done neither.  Instead it has listed the names of 5 witnesses it may call at trial.  Nor has it provided addresses.  Instead it has given the address of plaintiff's counsel.

 

Plaintiff's failure to identify the witnesses it intends to call at trial (or provide true addresses), has hampered Defendant's ability to prepare for trial.  Please take notice that Defendant intends to object if Plaintiff attempts to call any of these witnesses at trial.

 

calawyer comments:

If it gets that far (I think they may be bluffing and don't really have any of these witnesses), they will tell the Judge it is so difficult to know who will be available to testify 30 days out from trial.  Tough.  This is a professional litigant who files tons of cases in this Court.  It files against unrepresented individuals who are nonetheless required to follow the rules.  It should not get a "pass" because it finds the rules inconvenient.  If it has a problem with the law, it should employ its extensive lobbying powers to have the legislature change the law.  It should not be permitted to rewrite the law itself as it sees fit.

 

And you have been prejudiced.  These "legal specialists" are simply paid testifiers.  Trial testimony may be found to impeach them.  But you can't search for the testimony of 5 possible witnesses.  That is why the legislature requires plaintiff to identify the witness it intends to call at trial.

 

 

Mention  Object to this as well. They are supposed to give you the name and address of the witness they INTEND to call per CCP 96, not a pool of people from which they may call one. There's no way they intend to bring all 5.  This violates due process as well. You don't know which one to prepare for, and you can't be expected to, nor do you have time to prepare for all 5.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also this letter to plaintiff

 

This is a great letter to send.  You are putting plaintiff on notice that its response does not comply with the Code.  If plaintiff attempts to serve a "corrected" statement, you can point out that the code does not permit it to do so without an order of the Court (CCP 96 d).  If plaintiff does not attempt to correct it, you can say that you pointed out the deficiencies and plaintiff did nothing.

  • Like 3

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.