gradys

Sued by Cavalry SPV I, LLC in California

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Let's look at this from a different angle - you took money from someone and now feel abused that they want it back? 

Or this angle - yours was a worthless post.

If you've got nothing to contribute, move along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gradys said:

The defendant (a lady) lost because of the CCP 98 declaration.  It made me nervous because it seems that the judge wanted defendants to show the burden of proof.  I felt so sorry for the lady, she had a good argument about the bill of sale and account statements but she didn't object at the right time.  The declaration in lieu did her in. 

Why did she lose?

Did she not issue a subpoena to the witness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Why did she lose?

Did she not issue a subpoena to the witness?

Correct. She told me she study up for the case for about a year.  I directed her to this website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gradys said:

Correct. She told me she study up for the case for about a year.  I directed her to this website.

What do you mean by "correct"?   Did she send a subpoena? 

If so, did she comply with the rules and did the witness show up?

We just need you to explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BV80 said:

What do you mean by "correct"?   Did she send a subpoena? 

If so, did she comply with the rules and did the witness show up?

We just need you to explain.

Sorry, for being unclear.    
I meant to say: "Correct, she didn't subpoena the witness."    No witness showed up because of the CCP 98 declaration.  She followed all of the rules and had great arguments.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gradys said:

Sorry, for being unclear.    
I meant to say: "Correct, she didn't subpoena the witness."    No witness showed up because of the CCP 98 declaration.  She followed all of the rules and had great arguments.   

Hmm, that was a mistake. Big mistake, actually. If she didn't subpoena the CCP 98 declarant, there was no reason for the judge not to allow it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gradys said:

Sorry, for being unclear.    
I meant to say: "Correct, she didn't subpoena the witness."    No witness showed up because of the CCP 98 declaration.  She followed all of the rules and had great arguments.   

Ok, thank you for the explanation.  :)

Well, CCP 98 points out that a witness must be available for service with 150 miles of the court.  It only stands to reason that as @RyanEXhas pointed out, the lady should have issued a subpoena.  

The rule would not have the 150 mile requirement if a subpoena was not necessary.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BV80 said:

Ok, thank you for the explanation.  :)

Well, CCP 98 points out that a witness must be available for service with 150 miles of the court.  It only stands to reason that as @RyanEXhas pointed out, the lady should have issued a subpoena.  

The rule would not have the 150 mile requirement if a subpoena was not necessary.

Very true. The only way for her to have gotten the CCP 98 tossed out would have been to attempt service on the declarant, who would have very, very likely not been available for service,  disqualifying the Declaration. That's probably the most important step in the playbook for CA defendants.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I settled my case with Cavalry.
It's funny how hindsight is 20/20.   I sent out the CCP 96 request 3 days early (mistake on my part).  That and signing the Joint Trial readiness report did me in. 
Here's what happened.  I arrived at court and I thought I would be greeted by the rent-a-lawyer that was always there.  Nope, there were the REAL attorneys, I looked up their pictures from the law firm website ~that was them.  The owner of the firm and the lawyer I've dealt with the whole time.   They brought 2 witnesses.  I don't know if they were "props".  

So, first comes offers.  We got up to 3 offers and then I said the judge is going to have to rule on this one.  
Everything was dependant on my MIL to remove witness and affidavit.  They countered with their Opposition.  They won out because I sign the exhibit and witness list (requirement of the Joint trial readiness report).  I would have had a case if I didn't sign the JTRC/witness/exhibit reports.

After the judge defeated my MIL we went out in the hall again and another deal was offered.  $100 a month until $19k is paid off.  It really could have went better.  But at least it's a settlement not a judgement.  I'll never know if the witnesses were just fakes or props.  Mistakes were made on both sides, but the 2 professionally train attorneys won out over a untrained pro per defendant.  Also, I forced them to foot the bill for 4 people to fly in and face me. 
1. Heather Wilcox ~Arizona
2. Brian Billings ~ Boise, Idaho
3. The owner of Quall Cardot   ~ Fresno
4. Attorney of Quall Cardot ~ Fresno

The judge complemented me on how I fought the case, scratch that I mean "we fought the case".   I didn't get railroaded and I didn't roll over on them.
I could have never got as far as I've got without the help of @RyanEX, @sadinca, @couwrias, and last but not least @calawyer.

I'm feeling numb right now...I still think JDBs are scum. 

Thank you for all your help, without this forum I would have been lost.

Note: If your debt amount is high they may send in witnesses.  They offered me $2k to settle after I turned in my Trial Brief (maybe I should have taken it).
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@gradys

In my opinion, you did well!   All that matters is that you did your best and are satisfied with the settlement.  :twothumbsup:

1 hour ago, gradys said:

  I arrived at court and I thought I would be greeted by the rent-a-lawyer that was always there.  Nope, there were the REAL attorneys,

I don't know what you mean by "real attorneys", but I think the "rent-a-lawyer" was a real attorney.   I'm not an attorney or an expert, but considering the amount for which you were being sued, they may have decided to bring in the "big guns".  

I think you did a great job defending yourself, and you should be proud.  Now, put this behind you and enjoy the holidays!  :)

On a side note, now that you have some experience with a debt collection lawsuit, I hope that you'll continue to visit this site and offer information to future CA posters. 

  • 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.