Download Useful Case Law
The following published court decisions are exceedingly useful for consumers facing a debt collection lawsuit in California.
There are many thousands of debt collection cases every year in California (and I have represented consumers in hundreds of them) but very few such cases result in published court decisions, and it is not an exaggeration to say that in all of California case law, the following two decisions are, bar none, the most important cases to know when defending a debt collection lawsuit.
Here is a copy of the Sierra v. Hale decision that you can download to make it that much easier for you to waive around in court. Here is a copy of CACH, LLC v. Rodgers that you can download for the same purpose.
I have to confess a certain amount of immodesty at proclaiming these the two most important cases in the law of California collection defense. After all, I was the consumer attorney who argued both cases on appeal. But, the truth is I would direct you to these two decisions regardless of whose name was attached to them. (Indeed if there is any glory in having one's name attached to the decisions, it rightfully belongs to the consumers who decided to fight these debt buyers all the way through trial and appeal.)
Anyway, the reason this helps you is that a published opinion can be pointed-to and argued about in front of the judge who is hearing YOUR case. You can tell the judge that he or she should follow the same law and guidelines that are described in the published case.
Sierra Managed Asset Plan, LLC v. Hale
The first and arguably most important decision is titled Sierra Managed Asset Plan, LLC v. Hale. In that case, a debt buyer sued a consumer concerning an alleged defaulted credit card, claiming to have acquired the account, and the rights to sue upon it. The consumer in the Sierra v. Hale case represented himself at trial, and I represented him on appeal. Unfortunately,the judge ignored the evidence code at trial (something that limited jurisdiction judges often do when a consumer is self represented) and issued a judgment against the consumer. However, the consumer knew his rights and knew that the judge had not followed the law. The consumer hired an attorney (me) and appealed the case. The court that heard the appeal agreed with the consumer and reversed the trial judge's faulty decision. Here is some of the key language from the Sierra v. Hale decision on appeal:While the trial court has broad discretion in determining whether a witness is "qualified" to testify concerning "the identity and mode of preparation" of business records, declaration and testimony at trial simply do not meet the necessary foundation. At best, all Mr. Roberts's declaration and testimony establish is that , as assignee from the creditor received records originating from Citibank concerning the account in question. this falls short of the foundation necessary for admission of business records as against a hearsay objection. Mr. Roberts's declaration and testimony are insufficient to permit any court to determine that "he sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworthiness."You can waive this case under the nose of YOUR trial judge (but please waive it around politely and respectfully, so you don't get yourself tossed in the clink), while dancing around excitedly and proclaiming that he or she should follow the decision of the appellate panel in Sierra v. Hale.