xmasbaby420

CCP98 no address provided

Recommended Posts

Hi @credit2011!

 

My 1st trial (the one where i received the dismissal) is/was set for tomorrow morning so I called the clerk today and finally got through after trying multiple times.  She mentioned that although it shows that the trial is off calendar online, it is, in fact, still scheduled for tomorrow morning since JDB's request for dismissal was rejected.  She said what most likely will happen is that JDB will send an appearance attorney to dismiss the case.  So I told her I'd be there tomorrow morning as well so I can confirm for myself.

 

And since I do have another trial set for Wednesday in my 2nd case, I'm preparing for both trials tonight...just in case. Hopefully, all goes well tomorrow and they just dismiss my 1st case without any problems.  I'll keep you updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us know how it goes.  Remember about the continuance in case they ask for one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to court this morning.  Their rent-a-lawyer showed up and asked for dismissal w/o prejudice, so my 1st case has officially been dismissed.  Thought they might try something sneaky but it was pretty straightforward.  Since I was the 2nd to last case called, there was a lot of waiting but I didn't mind at all because it gave me a chance to observe other proceedings.  Just so happy that $8k case is over for now.

 

Now I just have 1 more trial tomorrow morning.  I really thought they'd dismiss this one as well for the simple fact that they didn't comply with ccp98 in their declaration. Not sure what they're planning to do with this less than $2k case.  I mean this case was pretty much identical to my 1st case, except for the OC, amount owed (considerably less than 1st case), and the fact that their oc affidavit did comply with ccp2015.5.  Those were the only differences.  But the mere fact that they did not provide ANY address where their ccp98 declarant could be served, even after my m&c letter, should've made them dismiss this one too!  Hopefully the judge agrees with me tomorrow and i get this case dismissed as well. And I will be asking for dismissal w/ prejudice per ccp581(e) if it goes to trial.

 

Thank you everyone for the support and encouragement. Now back to prepping!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice going.

 

Can't imagine what their strategy is here.  I guess they could show up with a witness.  And, if memory serves, they did list the CCP 98 declarant as a witness at trial.  So I guess you should prepare for cross-examination on the assignment and also the lack of personal knowledge of the creation, maintenance, and reliability of the documents in question. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice going.

 

Can't imagine what their strategy is here.  I guess they could show up with a witness.  And, if memory serves, they did list the CCP 98 declarant as a witness at trial.  So I guess you should prepare for cross-examination on the assignment and also the lack of personal knowledge of the creation, maintenance, and reliability of the documents in question. 

 

Thanks calawyer. I was thinking the same thing... that they might just send a witness.  But for a case that's worth less than 2k? They couldn't even send one for 8k.  I'll have to prepare for anything i guess since I can't figure out what their strategy might be.

 

And is it of any importance that although they did list their ccp98 delcarant on their witness list, they did specifically say that she would be "testifying via written declaration"?  I'm thinking this is probably a non-issue but thought I'd ask, just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And is it of any importance that although they did list their ccp98 delcarant on their witness list, they did specifically say that she would be "testifying via written declaration"?  I'm thinking this is probably a non-issue but thought I'd ask, just in case.

 

 

Actually, I think that is a pretty good argument.  I would object if they try to call the witness live.  CCP 96 says you can't call witnesses other than those listed.  They say that they intended only to use the declaration.  But the declaration did not comply with CCP98.  Plaintiff is a professional litigant.  It should be held to at least he same standard of competence as any other party in this Court.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@calawyer wow... thanks for that great tip!  so glad to know that i could object to a live witness, in case that happens. 

 

just wondering though... they didn't comply w/ ccp98 by not providing an address for service.  The point in getting an address is to subpoena her to show up at trial.  So if she willingly shows up on her own, then wouldn't that make my objection invalid, since the end game was to get her to trial anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if they didn't list her as a witness to call. It is called a surprise at trial. They have to list her as someone they intend to call. Good luck this am. Oh and if the judge allows her to testify anyway, you have an appeal able case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@calawyer wow... thanks for that great tip!  so glad to know that i could object to a live witness, in case that happens. 

 

just wondering though... they didn't comply w/ ccp98 by not providing an address for service.  The point in getting an address is to subpoena her to show up at trial.  So if she willingly shows up on her own, then wouldn't that make my objection invalid, since the end game was to get her to trial anyway?

 

 

I am sure that plaintiff would make that argument.  But I think it is wrong.  Plaintiff said it was going to use a declaration not a live witness.  But its declaration was defective.  You were never given notice that a live witness would be called.

 

Probably a moot point anyway since, as you say, it is unlikely that they will bring a witness for a case this size.

 

If some rent-a-lawyer shows up and dismisses, you should thank the Court but point out that plaintiff filed this case.  You followed all the rules.  You took the day off work (true?), put on your Sunday best and came prepared for trial.  Ask the Court to dismiss with prejudice since plaintiff is not prepared to proceed.

 

It is worth a shot.

 

Good luck.  I know you will do well.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2nd case was dismissed too!!!

 

Before the judge came in, I saw PRA's rent-a-lawyer from yesterday try and settle with another girl who was also there for trial.  After that, when she didn't try and settle w/ me, I had an idea that she might dismiss.  Then she started chatting with another rent-a-lawyer about my case and how she was going to dismiss since PRA didn't provide an address in their ccp98 declaration.  So that's when I knew for sure and that I could relax instead of stressing about trial. Apparently, someone at PRA really messed up because she said there were a stack of these ccp98 declarations (with no address) that were sent out.  So make sure you go through all the documents these JDB's send very carefully.

 

So anyway, the judge comes in and I finally get called up.  Rent -a-lawyer asks for dismissal w/o prejudice. I then ask the court for a dismissal w/ prejudice as I followed all rules and came prepared for trial. (per calawyer's tips)  I also mentioned ccp581.5 re consumer debt and how the court has discretion to dismiss w/ prejudice.  The judge could NOT find this ccp section in his book.  He even asked his clerk to look and she couldn't find it either.  I did have a printout from the internet of ccp581.5 and showed it to him but because he couldn't find the section in his book, he dismissed w/o prejudice. He was already in a bad mood today because of the prior hearings he had, so he seemed irritated at the fact that i found this ccp581.5 online.  He said i should've gone to the law library and actually looked at the book.  whatever dude.... just dismiss my case, is what i wanted to say.  But I just said thank you and left w/ a dismissal w/o prejudice.

 

Is ccp581.5 current?  Maybe it was an old code from years prior?  I have no idea but I did find it on this forum and online so I thought it was valid but homeboy couldn't find it in his book. I did fuss about it a little but when i saw him getting irritated, I thought forget it, said I'm sorry and that dismissal w/o prejudice was fine.

 

At least it's all over for me for now.  Thank you everyone for all the encouragement, support and help with my cases.  I appreciate you all so much!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CONGRATULATION ON YOUR TWO BACK TO BACK TRIUMPHS!!!!

 

 

Is ccp581.5 current?  Maybe it was an old code from years prior?  I have no idea but I did find it on this forum and online so I thought it was valid but homeboy couldn't find it in his book. I did fuss about it a little but when i saw him getting irritated, I thought forget it, said I'm sorry and that dismissal w/o prejudice was fine.

 

as far as I can tell it is current.  it is on the legalinfo.ca.gov

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=577-582.5

 

581.5.  In a case involving consumer debt, as defined in Section
1788.2 of the Civil Code, and as regulated under Title 1.6C.5
(commencing with Section 1788.50) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the
Civil Code, if the defendant debtor appears for trial on the
scheduled trial date, and the plaintiff debt buyer either fails to
appear or is not prepared to proceed to trial, and the court does not
find a good cause for continuance, the court may, in its discretion,
dismiss the action with or without prejudice. Notwithstanding any
other law, in this instance, the court may award the defendant debtor'
s costs of preparing for trial, including, but not limited to, lost
wages and transportation expenses.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job. Congratulations.

 

Thank you @Anon Amos.  Couldn't have done it w/o your help and advice.  Thank you so so much!

 

Cool, credits to you- Calawyer and Anon Amos who pulled this all through as well as others-

 

@credit2011 A lot of credit goes to you too my friend! Thank you for your tips and support....it really meant a lot!!!

 

CONGRATULATION ON YOUR TWO BACK TO BACK TRIUMPHS!!!!

 

 

 

as far as I can tell it is current.  it is on the legalinfo.ca.gov

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=577-582.5

 

581.5.  In a case involving consumer debt, as defined in Section

1788.2 of the Civil Code, and as regulated under Title 1.6C.5

(commencing with Section 1788.50) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the

Civil Code, if the defendant debtor appears for trial on the

scheduled trial date, and the plaintiff debt buyer either fails to

appear or is not prepared to proceed to trial, and the court does not

find a good cause for continuance, the court may, in its discretion,

dismiss the action with or without prejudice. Notwithstanding any

other law, in this instance, the court may award the defendant debtor'

s costs of preparing for trial, including, but not limited to, lost

wages and transportation expenses.

 

 

@sadinca Thanks! I was so stressed about having 2 trials in a row but thank goodness both were dismissed w/o having to actually try the case.  Being there for 2 days, I didn't see even 1 trial go forward.  Some settled right before trial, and in a couple of cases, the defendant didn't show up, so they entered the ccp98 declaration and jdb won judgment.  All they're looking for is an easy judgment.  If defendant puts up a fight and does everything timely and by the rules, these jdb's back down.

 

I'm so confused as to why the judge wasn't able to find ccp581.5 in his ccp book.  After he couldn't find it, he had his clerk look for it and she couldn't find it either.  They found ccp 581 and all its subsections but couldn't find 581.5 specifically at all.  I showed him exactly what you wrote above (without the website info) but because he couldn't find it himself in the book, he didn't believe me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so confused as to why the judge wasn't able to find ccp581.5 in his ccp book.  After he couldn't find it, he had his clerk look for it and she couldn't find it either.  They found ccp 581 and all its subsections but couldn't find 581.5 specifically at all.  I showed him exactly what you wrote above (without the website info) but because he couldn't find it himself in the book, he didn't believe me.

 

Yeah, seems odd. I believe 581.5 was added to the code on the 1st of last year, as a part of the new CA consumer protection laws. I would think a judge would have an updated book. It's not a big deal to not get the dismissal with prejudice, IMO - though it would have been nice to put a little salt on the JDB's wounds. I doubt they try to come after you again, having learned that you are a fighter. Any JDB that might pick up this debt in the future would only have a rougher time with you, due to the added link to the chain of title.

 

What is still relevant about 581.5 is that you can claim the costs of lost wages and transportation expenses on your MC-010. Maybe you'll get 'em. If successful with that, and depending on how you feel about it, you can always leverage your costs to get the JDB to agree to bury this debt (not come after you again & never to sell it to anyone else).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RyanEX i agree its not that big of a deal getting it dismissed w/o prejudice, but like you said i did kinda want to stick it to them for making me go through all this stress.  And i really hope you're right and they don't come after me again, but if they do, at least i'll know what to do thanks to you and all the other helpful members on this site!  I wish i had a current ccp book though so i could check for sure if that section 581.5 is in there.  It'd be good to confirm for other members and future reference.

 

Thanks for the tip on costs.  I did have a fee waiver so my only costs were mainly copying, mailing and gas, which I'm not sure are recoverable.  In any event, it's just not worth the trouble of having to deal with the court and jdb any further.  I'm just very happy w/ the fact that everything got dismissed. ::punk::

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.