Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, sadinca said:

Sorry I haven't been around the threats as often as I should. When are the answers to their request for discovery due?

Perhaps I can help you with the answers and the meet and confer letter to bop.  

You don't have to be sorry, ha ha...you've already helped so much :)

The answers to the discovery questions have to be sent out near the end of this month in order to arrive on time.  I'm actually typing them up for submission here, and will do so ASAP.  Things have been unbelievably hectic here...not just because of this case, but also because of our A/C breaking, dealing with a norovirus outbreak, etc., etc., etc...

From what I've seen, their response to the BoP demands didn't really include any evidence beyond what was already submitted (although they did respond to both of them).  No detailed listing of charges, no original signed contract, nothing beyond a few past-due statements and interest accruals.

I've gone cross-eyed over helping my kid with math...I'll be taking a break until tomorrow morning or so.

Thanks again :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard navigating this forums with the washed up cellphone interned, but, I thought they only reply to the bop to one your cases. Did they reply to both BOP demands? 

 

The response included objections to the bop? 

And I'm guessing they only send about 3-4 statements per case?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, sadinca said:

It's hard navigating this forums with the washed up cellphone interned, but, I thought they only reply to the bop to one your cases. Did they reply to both BOP demands? 

 

The response included objections to the bop? 

And I'm guessing they only send about 3-4 statements per case?

We have now received both responses, just within the time limit.  There were no objections to either of them.

The only thing included in the responses were exactly the same things submitted with the original complaints:  2-3 statements each, totaling about 4-5 pages for each case.  There's no original signed agreement, and just one page with a few transactions (a small fraction of the total).  Besides that, it's just notice of interest charges, a couple of account summaries, and a copy of the sort of greyed-out contract you typically see attached to credit card statements (with the notice that "this is an attempt to collect a debt (etc.)" at the bottom.  There is, of course, no signature on it. 

**update:  I've completed the "meet and confer" letters using a template posted on another thread (tailored to our case).  I believe it was originally posted by CALawyer (I can message it to you, if you like).  Once the case is over, I'll post it so others can use it for reference :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

its hard for me to copy an past on the phone. I believe @Summoned&Scared received the same response to the BOP, (no objections and only a handful of statements.) hopefully she can paste the meet and confer letter her and i drafter with the help of calawyer. and her responses to the discovery.
if she doenst come around on a day or two i'll give it a shot.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2016 at 4:00 PM, sadinca said:

its hard for me to copy an past on the phone. I believe @Summoned&Scared received the same response to the BOP, (no objections and only a handful of statements.) hopefully she can paste the meet and confer letter her and i drafter with the help of calawyer. and her responses to the discovery.
if she doenst come around on a day or two i'll give it a shot.

 

I drew from the one mentioned in that thread posted by Luru27, which was (I believe) one that he/she had drafted with the help of CALawyer.  I removed the part about the objections (since there were none), tweaked some other points to make it fit, and added a sentence that I'm probably going to take out--I stated that "we would love to have this brought to a conclusion without having to tie up judicial resources."  I wanted to be able to show a judge that we are making a good-faith attempt to keep this off of their docket, but I'm worried that the sentence might give the plaintiff's lawyers a sense that we're afraid to go to trial (we're not).

Of course, the firm, direct wording in the previous paragraphs should tell them that we're not going to roll over, and we know that they're full of it.

I guess what will happen will happen ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the sake of comparing notes and for future readers: 

Dear _____________________,

I write to meet and confer in regard to Plaintiff’s deficient response to Defendant’s request for Bill of Particulars pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section §454.  Defendant contends the responses received are incomplete and further responses are required.

Plaintiff's response consist of "Exhibit A" is a redacted alleged  Bill of Sale, an alleged generic copy of terms and agreements for allegedly a Capital One card account without any account information and three (3) alleged statements from Capital One. Plaintiff has not provided an itemization for the account showing all charges and credits thereto. It has not provided the underlying contract referred to in the complaint.Not has it provided any contract of assignment of the claim at issue in this litigation. Such basic information is required to prove plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff should have such information readily at hand. If not, it is difficult to understand how plaintiff acquired a good faith basis to file the lawsuit. The alleged exhibits plaintiff has provided demonstrates nothing and would not provide plaintiff with a good faith basis to file this suit.

California Code of Civil Procedure section §454requires plaintiff to “… deliver to the adverse party, within ten days after a demand thereof in writing, a copy of the account, or be precluded from fiving evidence thereof.”  CCP §454, as defendant understands it, does not allow for supplemental responses to the Demand for Bill of Particulars.

Please provide a complete response to the Bill of Particulars within 10 days. 

If you need to speak 
with me further about the matter feel free to contact me at the phone number or  address at the top of this letter. 

I would go ahead and include the contract language if the complaint alleges that you breached a written contract.  You should know, however, that CCP 454 does not REQUIRE plaintiff to produce it to you.  It only requires plaintiff to give you a "copy of the account."  I always ask anyway because sometimes they produce

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...so we've sent out a request to meet and confer after giving an appropriate amount of time to respond to our BoP request (to which we have received nothing beyond copies of the statements that were filed with the original complaints).  The time to respond is nearly up... soshould we file a motion to compel more evidence, or a motion to exclude any further evidence?  Or could anyone explain the pros and cons of each?

A short while ago we attended a hearing, and got to see how things worked.  I was excited to hear a lot of jargon that, until a month ago or so, would've been completely alien to me.  Our judge seems firm, but fair--not favoring either side, not really giving any breaks, but still patient enough to explain certain things to the layperson defending themselves.  It was encouraging.

I've been busy hustling to get a job, while tutoring our kids and dealing with a torrent of problems...but I'll be monitoring this thread and posting the discovery questions soon.

thanks! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

California CIC members have had mixed results in regard to Bill of Particulars; some have reported their motions being granted and further evidence from plaintiff was excluded, while others have reported their motions being denied, the judge stating that the documents being sought can be obtained from discovery.

what I can say is that motions can be very involved for some of us, unsophisticated pro se,

I believe @helpme was successful in his motion.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2016 at 3:49 PM, sadinca said:

California CIC members have had mixed results in regard to Bill of Particulars; some have reported their motions being granted and further evidence from plaintiff was excluded, while others have reported their motions being denied, the judge stating that the documents being sought can be obtained from discovery.

what I can say is that motions can be very involved for some of us, unsophisticated pro se,

I believe @helpme was successful in his motion.

 

 

Thank you, I'll look into your link :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

San Bernadino is good court. Try reading some of the links in my sig for paperwork related. I have helped some people with the BoP before but got limited results on the case killing attempts. I have been helping my wife through her treatmen this year and haven't posted but am back in the game for limited help. The doctor gave us great news 2 weeks ago so my wife said back to the JDB azz woopin now that cancer has been cracked on its nasty head. 

 

Lets go for the W on this.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 25, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Seadragon said:

San Bernadino is good court. Try reading some of the links in my sig for paperwork related. I have helped some people with the BoP before but got limited results on the case killing attempts. I have been helping my wife through her treatmen this year and haven't posted but am back in the game for limited help. The doctor gave us great news 2 weeks ago so my wife said back to the JDB azz woopin now that cancer has been cracked on its nasty head. 

 

Lets go for the W on this.

Good news. Nice to have you back S.D.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 7/25/2016 at 8:30 AM, Seadragon said:

San Bernadino is good court. Try reading some of the links in my sig for paperwork related. I have helped some people with the BoP before but got limited results on the case killing attempts. I have been helping my wife through her treatmen this year and haven't posted but am back in the game for limited help. The doctor gave us great news 2 weeks ago so my wife said back to the JDB azz woopin now that cancer has been cracked on its nasty head. 

 

Lets go for the W on this.

We'll say a prayer for your wife--glad to hear that there was good news :)  I'm going to PM you with some interesting things I've found on the matter.

I'm glad to see so many heavy-hitters in this thread, because there are times that this stuff is just soul-crushing.  I really believe that they're purposely targeting us because our accounts are just below the threshold where it makes sense to hire a lawyer--if anyone out there can afford it, and it makes financial sense (see CollectionDefenseGuy's post on page 1 for advice on that), then I would highly recommend that you do that, because the amount of time it takes to get up to speed, and the constant worry gnawing at your stomach...it takes its toll, that's for sure.

Anyway, I have decided that I can no longer afford to be so vague in the interest of hiding our identity, so I will be going a little more specific on our information because I would rather the opposing side know that we are not afraid, and are being helped by professionals who have kicked their asses in the past.

So here's the latest:  we've recently been hit with a third lawsuit, on an account with a balance that is even lower than the others.  We've received answers to our requests to Meet and Confer, on the tenth day after we'd sent it out.  And they have requested that our answers to their Discovery questions arrive at their offices (?) within a week from today.  Also, we have our Case-setting Conference around the 18th of next month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here are the questions from the "Specially Prepared Interrogatories."  They are virtually identical in the two cases.  Disclaimer:  questions may have been reordered, with identifying information changed:

To Defendant Prue Rasnow:

Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC, hereby requests that defendant Prue Rasnow answer, under oath, the following First Set of Special Interrogatories, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010 et seq.

Interrogatory Number 1:         Did you ever submit a request for a credit account to UNFAMILIAR BANK?

After a reasonable inquiry and diligent search defendant has found no record of alleged request.  Furthermore, plaintiff has not provided any such evidence in response to defendant’s Bill of Particulars request.  Denied. 

Interrogatory Number 2:         Did UNFAMILIAR BANK issue a credit account number 1234567890 in your name?

 After a reasonable inquiry and diligent search defendant has found no record of alleged request.  Furthermore, plaintiff has not provided any such evidence in response to defendant’s request for a Bill of Particulars.  Denied. 

Interrogatory Number 3:         State the approximate date you opened THE CREDIT ACCOUNT (for the purpose of these interrogatories, THE CREDIT ACCOUNT shall mean credit account issued to you by UNFAMILIAR BANK account number 1234567890).

 Objection:  question presupposes affirmation of questions 1 and 2.

Interrogatory Number 4:         IDENTIFY (for the purpose of these interrogatories, IDENTIFY shall mean to state the name, address, and telephone number) each and every person other than yourself who has ever had possession of any credit card for THE CREDIT ACCOUNT.

 Objection:   defendant lacks omniscience and cannot answer.

Interrogatory Number 5:         IDENTIFY each and every person who you ever authorized to use THE CREDIT ACCOUNT.

 Objection:  question presupposes existence of said account when evidence supporting such claim has not been provided for, despite repeated requests by defendant.

Interrogatory Number 6:         Did you use THE CREDIT ACCOUNT?

 Objection:  question is vague in defining “use," and has not demonstrated standing despite repeated requests by defendant to provide a Bill of Particulars.

Interrogatory Number 7:         Is ~$1000+, the amount set forth in the complaint in this case as the sum owed as of April 20, 2016, your balance due as of that date on THE CREDIT ACCOUNT?

 Objection:  plaintiff has failed to demonstrate standing, despite repeated requests to do so.

Interrogatory Number 8:         If you do not agree that ~$1000+, the amount set forth in the complaint in this case as the sum owed, is your balance due as of April 20, 2016 on THE CREDIT ACCOUNT; state all facts upon which you base your denial that the sum of ~$1000+ is your balance due as of April 20, 2016 on THE CREDIT ACCOUNT.

 Objection:  interrogatory is compound in violation of CCP 2030.060.

Interrogatory Number 9:         Did you ever report to UNFAMILIAR BANK (for the purposes of these interrogatories, UNFAMILIAR BANK shall mean and refer to Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC, and/or its predecessor, UNFAMILIAR BANK, and/or any collection agent or agency. purporting to represent Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC or UNFAMILIAR BANK, as to this account) that the credit card for THE CREDIT ACCOUNT was lost or stolen?

 Objection:  plaintiff has provided no evidence of standing on alleged account.  Furthermore, question is compound in violation of CCP 2030.060.

Interrogatory Number 10:       Did you ever report in writing to UNFAMILIAR BANK or Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC that there was any problem with THE CREDIT ACCOUNT, which problem remains unresolved?

 After a reasonable inquiry and diligent search defendant has found no records.  Denied.

Interrogatory Number 11:       Did you receive periodic statements from UNFAMILIAR BANK regarding THE CREDIT ACCOUNT?

Objection:  plaintiff has provided two statements to an alleged account but has provided nothing more in repeated requests to render a Bill of Particulars that includes evidence of standing or an underlying contract validating the existence of said account.

Interrogatory Number 12:       State the approximate date of your last payment to UNFAMILIAR BANK on THE CREDIT ACCOUNT.

 Objection:  plaintiff has not demonstrated standing and therefore requests privileged information.

Interrogatory Number 13: Have you ever corresponded with UNFAMILIAR BANK in writing regarding THE CREDIT ACCOUNT?

 After a reasonable inquiry and diligent search defendant has no found no records.  Denied.

Interrogatory Number 14:       Have you ever corresponded with Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC in writing regarding THE CREDIT ACCOUNT?

After a reasonable inquiry and diligent search defendant has no found no records.  Denied.

Interrogatory Number 15:       State all facts upon which you base your denial of the complaint in this action.

 Objection:  Plaintiff has rendered two alleged statements on an alleged account after repeated requests for a Bill of Particulars which demonstrates plaintiff’s standing and detailed knowledge of alleged account.  Without such basic evidence, defendant cannot distinguish plaintiff from a sophisticated thief.  (I’m not really putting this in).

Interrogatory Number 16        State all facts upon which you base each affirmative defense to the complaint in this action.

Defendant has already listed her defenses in answer to the complaint. Please see answer.

Edited by Inundated
added some preliminary answers
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the request for admissions, marked for "truth of facts."  Disclaimer:  questions may have been reordered, and specifics may have been changed.

EACH OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS IS TRUE:

1. Prue Rasnow had a credit account number 1234567890.

 ***denying this--no recollection, no record, no evidence.

2. Credit account number 1234567890 was issued to Prue Rasnow by UNFAMILIAR BANK.

 ***denying this outright, it isn't true.

3. Prue Rasnow received periodic statements regarding credit account number 1234567890 issued by UNFAMILIAR BANK.

 ***denying this outright, outright lie.

4. As of on or about April 20, 2016, the balance owed by Prue Rasnow on credit account number 1234567890 was ~$1000+.

 ***denying this--no evidence provided of standing or anything.

5. Prue Rasnow has not made any payments on credit account number 1234567890 since April 20, 2016.

 ***objecting to question.

6. Prue Rasnow submitted a payment towards the outstanding debt on credit account number 1234567890 within the __ years immediately prior to April 20, 2016.

***objected to or denying this.

7. Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC was assigned account number 1234567890.

 ***denied.

8. Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC is the current owner of, including all right, title and interest in, account number 1234567890.

 ***denied.

9. Prue Rasnow received through the U.S. mail a pre-legal notification from Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC regarding credit account number 1234567890.

***denying this, too.

 

Edited by Inundated
updated some answers
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the demand for production of documents.  Disclaimer:  order of questions, as well as the questions themselves may have been modified, as well as specific information listed herein.

To Defendant Prue Rasnow:

Your answers to this demand for production of documents must be verified, dated, and signed. You may wish to use the following form at the end of your answers:

"I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing answers are true and correct."

Dated: ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­________                                Signed:  ______________

 

Plaintiff Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC demands that you produce and permit the inspection and copying, pursuant to §2031.010 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, of the following documents:

1. All correspondence, whether original or copies, sent by you to Plaintiff Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC or to UNFAMILIAR BANK and/or to any collection agent or agency purporting to act on behalf of Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC or UNFAMILIAR BANK within the past 5 years regarding any problem with your former UNFAMILIAR BANK credit account number  1234567890.

 ***we don't have this stuff

2. All correspondence, whether original or copies, sent to you by Plaintiff Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC or by UNFAMILIAR BANK and/or by any collection agent or agency purporting to act on behalf of Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC or UNFAMILIAR BANK within the past 5 years regarding any problem with your former UNFAMILIAR BANK credit account number 1234567890.

   ***we don't have this stuff

3. Copies of each canceled check, money order receipt, bank account debit and other similar evidence of payment for the last payment made by you or which was made on your behalf on your former credit account number 1234567890 with UNFAMILIAR BANK. (If you cannot find a copy of the last payment, send a copy of the last payment you are able to locate).

   ***we don't have this stuff

4. Any and all documents supporting the affirmative defenses alleged by you in this action.

 ***we didn't make any affirmative defenses in our answer.

5. Any and all documents supporting any and all of your general or specific denials of Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC's allegations in this action.  Plaintiff demands that the above-listed items be produced on August 2, 2016, at the stroke of midnight, at the law offices of Despair & Misery, located at 666 Depths of Hell Rd., Abyss, CA, 12345 for the purposes of inspection and copying. You may comply with this demand by mailing the documents to the above address prior to the date set for production.

 ***The burden is on them to prove standing?

NOTE: You are also required to serve a written response to this demand which response must be under oath and be signed by the person making them and be served on Plaintiff within 30 days after service of this demand

(dated) (signed)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, here is the response to our request to Meet and Confer, which may have been heavily edited and reordered, with case references left intact.  It is virtually identical in both cases.

PRUE RASNOW

Client: Baby Eater Recovery Services, LLC

Account Ending: XXXX

Your Meet and Confer re: Bill of Particulars

Dear PRUE RASNOW,

We have received and read your July 10, 2016, letter regarding our Bill of Particulars, which you allege is deficient. We appreciate your attention to this matter, though we disagree with your contentions.

 The object of a bill of particulars is to apprise a party of the specific demand of his adversary. Auzerais v. Naglee (1887) 74 Cal 60. The statements provided surely provide you notice of our client's claim. The statement: show's your name, address, account number and total amount due. This is certainly sufficient to apprise you of our claim. Further, there is no need for amplifying your answer to the lawsuit, as you already filed your response.

 Although CCP § 454 contains a penalty for exclusion of evidence, this penalty has not been strictly applied by the courts. See, McCarthy v Tecarte L. & W. Co. (1896) 110 Cal. 687, 692-­693, in which, the court interpreted the 10 day time frame as discretionary when bill is delivered shortly thereafter, without defendants being prejudiced. See also, Burton v Santa Barbara Nat. Bank (App. 2 Dist. 1966) 247 Cal App 2d 427, 433 [Penalty provisions of this section is not mandatory but merely names a penalty and vests power of exacting the same in sound discretion of trial judge.]

 Next, you allege that we must provide you with documents relating to the underlying contract and the contract of assignment. None of this is required. CCP § 454 sits outside of the discovery act, and your demand ONLY serves as a request for an accounting, which we provided. So any assignment documents will not be provided in response.

 Further, your allegation that the statements provided do not demonstrate a good faith basis to file suit, again we disagree. In fact the law only requires the inclusion of those two documents to file suit. See Civil Code (CC) § 1788.58.

 Plaintiff has sought recovery on several grounds including account stated in this action. No bill of particulars may be demanded in an action of an account stated. See, Distefano v. Hall (1963) 218 Cal. App. 2d 657, 677; Jones v. Wilton (1938) 10 Cal. 2d 493, 498. So, in the unlikely event that you prevail on any motion to exclude, such evidence may not be excluded on the account stated cause of action.

 Moreover, in order to prove your liability, we do not need to provide every billing statement generated on the account. Federal (15 United States Code § 1666) and state (Civil Code § 1747.02(g)) law give a debtor 60 days from the time a statement is rendered to dispute any inaccuracies. Acquiescence by failure to object to an account stated establishes a disputable presumption of assent to the account and a prima facie case for the creditor or claimant. Hemenover v. Lynip, (1930) 107 Cal. App. 356. A debtor's acquiescence in a statement of account may also be presumed from the debtor's failure to object within a reasonable time after the rendering of the account. Thus, where a bank balances a debtor's account and delivers the balance to the debtor, it is the debtor's duty to examine the account and give the bank notice of any objection within a reasonable time. If the debtor does not do so, the account becomes an account stated. 1 Cal.Jur.3d (Rev), Accounts & Accounting, § 41, pp. 599-600. Since we do not have in our records any written dispute from you, the final billing statement that was rendered to you forms the basis of your liability.

 You also allege that our Bill of Particulars is deficient in establishing ownership of the account. The uncorroborated testimony of an assignee is evidence which, by itself, is sufficient to prove the assignment. Norton v Consolidated Fisheries (1953) 120 Cal App 2d 86, 90. Thus, at trial, to demonstrate assignment, our client only needs to testify to that assignment But if you dispute assignment, do you have proof that the account has not been assigned?

 In the meantime we have requested additional documentation from our client, and should additional statements be received we will supplement our prior Bill of Particulars. Should you wish to discuss settlement of this matter, please contact me at extension 9999 at the number listed in the header. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 (signed)

 (This firm is a debt collector)
 

 

***should we send out another request to meet and confer, file a motion to compel, or file a motion to exclude evidence?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm back to work on this today--I'll be focused on the discovery questions, which are fairly ludicrous.  My wife has no idea as to the things they are asking her to attest to, and we've never received (to my memory) any sort of notification of the sort that they are claiming.  I understand that it falls on them to prove it, and that will be the focal point of my answers.

As I have mentioned many times, I've been pretty busy.  Although I am not a party to this case, I've decided that it would be in our best interest for me to get a job to provide backing, because we sure as hell are going to fight...and I want us to have enough funds in reserve that we can be comfortable with the the possibility of losing, or hiring a lawyer to stitch them up.  We have decided that we have a moral imperative to do so, because the more that people capitulate the more that they will get sued in frivolity by these bloodsuckers.

Anyway, I wanted to note that I have not posted this modified info in the hopes that someone else would do my work in filling them out, but for the sake of perusal by those who might recognize potential pitfalls or opportunities.  We are definitely not the sort of people that expect others to take our burdens--but if anyone could offer advice on how to better bear them, we appreciate it :)

**I need to update some information:  in their response to our demand for a Bill of Particulars was not exactly the same as the "evidence" they had submitted when filing the case.  In both of the original filings, the account numbers had been largely blacked-out...whereas in the BoP versions the account number had not been blacked-out.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2016 at 8:30 AM, Seadragon said:

San Bernadino is good court. Try reading some of the links in my sig for paperwork related. I have helped some people with the BoP before but got limited results on the case killing attempts. I have been helping my wife through her treatmen this year and haven't posted but am back in the game for limited help. The doctor gave us great news 2 weeks ago so my wife said back to the JDB azz woopin now that cancer has been cracked on its nasty head. 

 

Lets go for the W on this.

I don't know if it's just me, but a lot of the links that I click on in these forums led to "error, not found" pages.  I'm still digging around with the search engine :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, the responses to all of the questions are pretty much done.  I've made some significant changes after researching the past two days, and I'll update the answers in the next couple of days.  For the most part, they're composed of gems I've found from Sadinca, Seadragon, Skippy(sp?) and Anon Amos, plus I'm sure that many were inspired by CALawyer.

I guess the most puzzling part was realizing that the reason they're asking questions that we couldn't possibly answer is that they're trying to trick us into providing evidence which they don't have.  For instance, they wanted us to say that we signed an agreement with a bank that we'd never heard of--most people would just agree because they might assume that it was true...but in fact they're really trying to get you to testify that that unknown bank had ownership of the account when they really didn't.  Since it is up to the plaintiff to demonstrate how the ownership of the account has passed from one entity to the next, when you admit to their claim you've basically saved them the trouble of having to prove that the account ever came into the unknown bank's ownership by providing the contract/agreement/whatever (this is all stuff I picked up reading some explanations by CALawyer elsewhere in the forums).

Anyway, at the end of one of interrogatories there was something that mentioned that we had to serve the original and something else to someone else.  I'm going to read into it a little more to try and decipher what they said, but if I can't figure it out I'll type it here verbatim.

Job interview tomorrow, wish me luck ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Inundated said:

Anyway, at the end of interrogatories there was something that mentioned that we had to serve the original and something else to someone else.  I'm going to read into it a little more to try and decipher what they said, but if I can't figure it out I'll type it here verbatim.

Job interview tomorrow, wish me luck ;)

i cant recall what that particular interrogatory is? can you post the interrogatory? 

if there are any questions that you may have, dont hesitate to post. 

good luck on your interview.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sadinca said:

i cant recall what that particular interrogatory is? can you post the interrogatory? 

if there are any questions that you may have, dont hesitate to post. 

good luck on your interview.

 

Actually, I just misread it--long night last night for sure.  It had to do with the Demand for Production of Documents--it mentioned that all of the items needed to be delivered by a certain time, and additionally a proof of service was required as well.  I confused "items" with our response.

Interview went well, although it was only for a volunteer position.  I've been out of work for awhile after leaving the construction industry and pursuing a degree, mainly focusing on being a "house husband," tutoring our kids and getting them focused on their schooling (among other things).  It's hard breaking into a new field with little experience, but around here it's tough to get a decent job, period.

Luckily I did well enough in college that I'm getting some opportunities.  Plus, I look damned good in a collared shirt and tie ;)

Got another interview on Thursday, so we'll see.

Hope everyone is well :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2016 at 9:00 PM, sadinca said:

Sorry I haven't been around the threats as often as I should. When are the answers to their request for discovery due?

Perhaps I can help you with the answers and the meet and confer letter to bop.  

It's okay--I know you're having computer issues, and besides I've been able to draw upon a lot of the help you've given to others to formulate some solid responses.

The responses have already been sent.  I suppose we should start coming up with our own discovery questions?  Our trial-setting conference will be coming up soon, so we're at that stage.

Basically, since their response to our BoP demand basically included the same junk they sent originally (except with less things blacked-out), I objected to or denied everything, as they haven't given a shred of evidence to prove their standing.

We've already sent out our first Meet and Confer letter after that weak BoP response, and they responded with a letter similar to the one posted above.  I'm not sure if we should send a second request to Meet and Confer, file a motion to compel evidence, or file a motion to exclude evidence?

If you happen to live near San Bernardino County, maybe I could help you out if your computer is broken (or just slow).  Sometimes it's just a matter of clearing out stuff that is starting up in the background, or adding a couple of sticks of ram for like $20.  PM me if you're unfamiliar with these terms, and I can give you details on how to check them out :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the offer. actually, my laptop works fine, only that its hard working on with with a 3 y/o climbing over my shoulders, trying to help me operate it. so, i can only really spend time here while im at work.  i was having trouble following up with the threats on my phone during the time i was off work after the birth of my daughter. 

18 hours ago, Inundated said:

We've already sent out our first Meet and Confer letter after that weak BoP response, and they responded with a letter similar to the one posted above.  I'm not sure if we should send a second request to Meet and Confer, file a motion to compel evidence, or file a motion to exclude evidence?

i would send a second M&C letter, whether to file for a Motion to exclude evidence, would be a judgement call from you. CIC members have been getting mixed results from Motions to exclude evidence. some JDBs will rather avoid the work dropping the case as soon as they encounter some resistance, others will fight you tooth and nail all the way to trial even for a low amount. 

  • Like 1
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.