Recommended Posts

I will apologize for my absence at another time.  But I had to post the news of this gift we received today from the California Supreme Court.

 

Cal Supremes held that a CCP section 98 declarant must be subject to actual personal service at the address given, and that the requirement is not satisfied by the defendant/defense counsel agreeing to accept service of a subpoena at that address. 

 

 

The case is Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S242799.PDF

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That means you don't have to leave it at the phony address. You weren't supposed to before, but judges gave leniency to the JDB if you didn't. Now there is a Supreme court backing for not doing that.  Good for CA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 12:15 PM, calawyer said:

Cal Supremes held that a CCP section 98 declarant must be subject to actual personal service at the address given, and that the requirement is not satisfied by the defendant/defense counsel agreeing to accept service of a subpoena at that address. 

 

 

The case is Meza v. Portfolio Recovery Associates  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S242799.PDF

** Before I say anything ... CAN SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE THIS A STICKY.  And/or add it to the "Case Law" section of the forum.  This is really important and useful case law!  Thanks, fellas! **

I finally hunkered down and actually READ the ENTIRE official ruling of the California Supreme Court on this.

So beautiful!  Perfect. Legal. Logical. Amazing.

At the end you're left going, "Well, of course! Duh!"

Thank you California Supreme Court!  Thank you Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye! Thank you Julia Meza! Thank you Raeon R. Roulston, Esq and the entire team at Consumer Law Center!  And anyone and everyone involved in this win!

If you want to see the actual oral arguments in front of the California Supreme Court, here's the link:

http://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/856?view_id=12

The Meza v. PRA case starts at 1:01.  It happens during the morning  session of the "Supreme Court Oral Argument 2019-01-08"

Great poise by Roulston in arguing in front of the California Supreme Court and answering questions from the Justices!

Great win for all of us!  Especially in California!

Thanks again, @calawyer for keeping us informed!  You rock!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@calawyer Does this also work for Original Creditors declaration of how records are kept etc. and the exhibit A of cardmember agreement and exhibit B of all credit card statements?

Plaintiff's declaration was from a "litigation support coordinator for Discover Products Inc., successor by merger to DB Seervicing Corporation, the servicing affiliate of Discover Bank."

I am in california and this was "excecuted in New Albany, Ohio. If called as a witness, I could cmpentenetly testify to the matter stated herein. 

NO ADDRESS or SERVICE ADDRESS was included in the declaration. 

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.