Jump to content

Target v. Rocha comes to Southern California


Recommended Posts

A new case was published today by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in Southern California.  It follows Target Bank v. Rocha and reverses a trial court judge who thought Target v. Rocha was wrong.

 

Here is a link:  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/JAD14-11.PDF

 

I will post the official citation when we get it.

 

Kudos to Ian Chowdhury, a NACA member in Southern California for doing such a good job.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Calawyer/Sir:

 

Is that considered an 2nd/ separated case law?

 

Could I also add/attach it to my "Objection(s) to Plaintiff's Declaration in Lieu of Testimony besides Target v. Rocha case law ?

 

My case is coming up in November and I am counting the days for CCP96 and get ready for a lots of paperworks....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case is being published which means it will be citeable. I would cite both cases as this tells the judge that if they do not want to follow Target v. Rocha, they can expect to have their decision overturned on appeal. That may be enough to make a judge who disagrees with Target v. Rocha actually follow it because they will realize it is the law of California.

 

That said, the residents of California should now be care that the banks and debt collection business does not try an end run around these decisions thought legislative means. Even good laws can be overturned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there isn't an official citation yet (unless I missed it?) what is the proper way to cite it in a trial brief/objection/etc?

I have it cited in my trial brief Table of Authorities as such:

Target National Bank v. Lucy I. Rocha,

County of Santa Clara Appellate Division case # 1-12-AP-001359

(May 16, 2013) ____ Cal. App. 4th Supp ____.

and same it the body of the brief: Target National Bank v. Lucy I. Rocha (May 16, 2013) ____ Cal. App. 4th Supp ____.

(in both, "Target National Bank v. Lucy I. Rocha" is italicized)

I'm assuming also since there isn't an official citation yet that I should attach the result itself (as linked in the OP) it to the trial brief(?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Target has an official cite: Target v. Rocha (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1.

Thanks much - just triple and quadruple checking.

I also went to the LexisNexis site and retrieved the document (printed using their format with the LexisNexis header and everything); is that document in that format acceptable for use as an attached Exhibit, or is there a more preferred format when presenting it to or at court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to attach Target because it has an official cite.You should probably attach Rogers because it does not. Rodgers gets a ___ Cal. App. 4h Supp. ___ cite until it has been published.

Because the CACH v. Rodgers case was June 10, 2013, is this how it gets cited?

CACH, LLC v. Rodgers, (June 10, 2013), ____ Cal. App. 4th Supp ____ (pub. Pending)

(edited to add:)

Found this https://www.courtlistener.com/calctapp/eWSZ/cach-v-rodgers/ - which lists it as CACH v. Rodgers, JAD14-11 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) so I'm thinking it's not the 2013 date, but the August 5, 2014 date of the appeals court filing (as stated at the top of the decision "Filed 8/5/14 Certified for publication 8/26/14 (order attached)")

Also, I couldn't find the "volume" to use for this cite; is that something coded in "JAD14-11"?

(edited again, think I got it sorted out)

Best I can tell, per http://www.sdap.org/downloads/Style-Manual.pdf on page 20, it should (currently) be cited like this:

CACH, LLC v. Rodgers, (June 10, 2013), ____ Cal. App. 4th Supp ____ (pub. Pending)

And then, in my case, attached as an Exhibit to the Trial Brief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You don't need to attach Target because it has an official cite.You should probably attach Rogers because it does not. Rodgers gets a ___ Cal. App. 4h Supp. ___ cite until it has been published.

 

15 days before trial, I am trying to put my Objection to CCP 98 together, what are the underlined blank spaces for in referencing CACH v. Rodgers? Do I leave them blank & underlined or am I suppose to put numbers in those spaces? Thanks.

Link to comment
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.

 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.