teamwfo

Has CACH v. Rodgers Helped Anyone In California yet?

Recommended Posts

Heading to court later this year against Unifund in Northern California where Judges seem to be very lenient on the hearsay/business records exemption. Was wondering if anyone has had any success with citing CACH v. Rodgers...I know it can't hurt...but most of the cases I've looked into around here the Judges seem to be snubbing their noses at Rocha. Pretty much all the JDB needs is a few statements, affi's, generic bill of sale and it's over. Any and all input welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not be reading the right threads. There's a lot of California victory here especially in the North state.

Hearsay is very much inadmissible and people were beating bottom feeders here long before Target and Rodgers came a long.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very possible about the right threads...but some cases I've looked up were from local records and also a morning spent at Court House listening to cases. Some of the threads here I've looked at make it seem like "kicking" the out of state affi's is a givin. I will continue my research. Thanks Anon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen several written opinions from Northern California (Bay Area) judges following Target and Rodgers. Seems like the obvious result even without those two cases,  but I know they have been cited several times.

 

What county are you in?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I whole heartedly agree. With the appellate court stepping in on more than one occasion you'd think it would become law of the land around here by now.

 

Live in Santa Cruz County-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both cases are from the appellate division of the superior court.  They are not binding on judges the same way as a decision from the appellate court.  But both cases make all the sense in the world and do nothing but interpret the actual words of CCP 98.  As the Supreme Court has said, declarations are hearsay and are not admissible at trial unless a statute specifically permits them.  Rodgers and Target simply say that if someone wants to avail themselves of a statutory exception to the hearsay rule, they must comply with that statute to the letter.  And giving an address where the witness can't be served, doesn't come close.

 

I don't have any experience with judges in Santa Cruz but any impartial judge who actually considers the issue, should arrive at the same conclusion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I learn something from this site (and alot from both you guys' posts specifically) just about everyday.

Thanks again for all the time you have committed to helping others help themselves!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy to help.

 

We used to win this argument even before Target and Rodgers, just by arguing the language of the statute itself and pointing out the Supreme Court's decision in Elkins.  It really should be a slam dunk now.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definetly bring Elkins v. Superior court into the mix. San Diego appellate cited them in Easy619's appeal. At this point you gotta bring every bullet, bean, and bandaid to the fight.

  • Like 1

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.