Jump to content

Am I about to be sued by Cavalry/Winn in California?


Recommended Posts

Greetings, and thank you for any help! I’ve been reading many threads on the forum about this JDB in the last few days. I know that nobody can accurately predict the future. However, I would appreciate any opinions and/or insight from anyone knowledgeable about this JDB law firm and/or California law.

Recently, I received a form letter from Winn Law Group saying that they intend to pursue litigation against me in California. The alleged debt is supposedly owned by Cavalry SPV I for an amount under $10K. 

Apparently,  it seems that this alleged debt is approximately one month short of being time-barred by the SOL. I feel that the timing of this letter is too near the SOL to be a coincidence. I haven’t replied to any communication from either Cavalry or Winn regarding this alleged debt.

I understand that this is merely a form letter and not an official court document; it’s just that the verbiage of this letter seems odd to me as it doesn’t contain an offer of settlement or request to contact the JDB like other correspondents I’ve received. The letter cites the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033(b)(2). Reading this section leads me to believe that Winn is providing notice in anticipation of filing a complaint in the very near future. I also know that JDBs like to use fear and intimidation tactics in order to get a profitable settlement.  

Has anyone else received one of these letters from Winn Law? If so, were you served shortly thereafter, or did nothing come of it?

Am I being paranoid and premature, or should I begin researching now in anticipation of litigation?  I’m currently unemployed, so I don’t have many assets, but I do have time that I can devote to defending myself. If they do file a complaint, I intend to fight all the way to trial and beyond if necessary.

Also, if they do file litigation, is the complaint required to be filed in the county where I currently reside, or can they legally file in a different county?  I lived in Southern California when I began having credit problems, but I’ve been residing in NorCal for the past few years. I’m concerned that they may attempt sewer service in order to get a default judgement.

Sorry for the length of this post.  Again, I am very grateful for any opinions and/or insight that can be provided. Thank you!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like they are preparing to sue you. Your SOL is coming up soon and it would be a FDCPA violation for them to communicate that they intend to pursue litigation against you and then not follow through [§811 (5)]. Just to be clear, they are saying they intend to pursue litigation, not they will forward your file to their legal department (or something to that effect), correct?

Start studying up, lots of good info here for CA litigation. Read this thread. Read some other CA threads, do a search for Winn Law Group, and Cavalry as well.

According to the FDCPA (§ 811) they can only sue you in 1) the judicial district in which you signed the contract being sued upon (of course they would need to be able prove that) or 2) the judicial district where you live at the commencement of the action. Most likely they will file where they think you live. Did you receive the letter at your current residence? Keep an eye on your courts docket online, both in the county where you live and elsewhere if you think they might file in a different county. You should be able to keep track of both the filing of the action & service of the summons.

Don't worry about the length of your post, more detail only helps us understand your circumstances better. Welcome to the board.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply RyanEX. 

Just to clarify, the letter I received is from the WINN LAW GROUP and they claim to be representing CALVALRY SPV I, LLC.

The letter reads:

 

“Dear Sir/Madam:

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE LITIGATION AND INCUR COURT COSTS AND LEGAL FEES

Please be advised that this law firm intends to enforce our client’s claim though applicable legal proceedings to obtain payment of the above referenced matter.

Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033(b)(2), this letter advises you that our intent is to pursue litigation against you in the Superior Court of California and that the litigation could result in a judgment against you which may include our client’s court cost and necessary disbursements, all of which you could become responsible for, as allowed under California applicable law.

THIS COMMUNICATION IS A NOTICE BY A DEBT COLLECTOR MADE PURUANT TO CALIFORNIA LAW CONCERING POTENTIAL LITIGATION…”

 

My thinking was that stating ones intention to take a certain action doesn’t necessarily create an obligation to act upon that intention. But then again, I’m not a lawyer or an expert on FDCPA. It’s interesting (and a bit concerning) that stating ones intention to sue and then not suing could be considered a violation of FDCPA.

I was really looking forward to the SOL passing and now this letter has me very concerned.

Since they sent the letter to my residence, it seems reasonable that they would file in the county were I currently reside, but I wouldn’t put anything passed them. I’ll keep an eye out on my local court docket and on the other one where I suspect they might try to file. Hopefully nothing shows up, or at least not until after the SOL passes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stating their intention doesn't obligate them, that's correct. What they can't do is use the threat of litigation when they have  no intention of  following thru >> they can't use it as a fear tactic to get a consumer to pay. The FDCPA is saying that the empty threat is an unfair practice & a consumer can turn around and sue a debt collector who uses that tactic.
 

Quote

 

§ 807.  False or misleading representations

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the first communication you have received from them?  If so I believe they are supposed to put a clause in there where you have 30 days to dispute and ask for validation.

Regardless, I  would send them a letter asking for the validation. It may buy you some time as well as send  a good message that you aren't just going to roll over on this and that they may have fight on their hands.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anon Amos said:

Is this the first communication you have received from them?  If so I believe they are supposed to put a clause in there where you have 30 days to dispute and ask for validation.

Regardless, I  would send them a letter asking for the validation. It may buy you some time as well as send  a good message that you aren't just going to roll over on this and that they may have fight on their hands.

Hello Anon Amos, thank you for the reply.

 

No, this isn't a dunning letter. 

I've been doing a lot of online searches through the court cases in my county and the good news is that my name isn’t mentioned in any of the files. The bad news is that Cavalry/Winn does have a pattern of filing multiple suits in this county. Most of the time they receive a default judgment, and they also seem to have a pattern of withdrawing their complaint a few days before trial if they’re met with resistance. 

Just to be safe, I’m going to use the time until the sol expiries to educate myself about civil procedure. 

Hopefully the letter is just a scare tactic and nothing more comes of it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply sadinca.

I’ve conducted a search by name and haven’t found any cases. So, for right now, it appears that I’m only shadow boxing. Hopefully it stays that way, if not then at least I will be that much better prepared to enter the arena.

I realized today that my originally calculated SOL seems to have been in error. I now suspect that it won’t expire until this November. Still, not too far away – but it can’t get here soon enough.

I’ve been doing some research on the SOL affirmative defense and am wondering what elements need to be proved in order for it to be successful. I’ve read over CCP 337, but I haven’t found the relevant law and/or precedence yet that shows what must be proved and by whom.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The burden of proof is on you for any affirmative defense you raise.  All you would probably have is the final canceled check or bank record. You could ask them in discovery to produce any proof of a payment beyond that point, and use your last showing of payment and their lack of response to discovery as your proof.

  • Like 1
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.