Summons - Chase Bank

[joecitizen]

Received a summons that was filed by Hunt & Henriques for my wife's Chase credit card. The summons is dated 01.03.11, yet she was served on 03.14.11.

There is a "Notice of Order to Show Cause Hearing" states the wife is to appear on 12.29.11. This confuses me, shouldn't the date be 30 days after filing? Is this a trick being used by Hunt & Henriques?

[DYLAN150]

There is a "Notice of Order to Show Cause Hearing" states the wife is to appear on 12.29.11

Thats Dec 29, 2011?

[joecitizen]

correct

[WhatMoney]

Received a summons that was filed by Hunt & Henriques for my wife's Chase credit card. The summons is dated 01.03.11, yet she was served on 03.14.11.

There is a "Notice of Order to Show Cause Hearing" states the wife is to appear on 12.29.11. This confuses me, shouldn't the date be 30 days after filing? Is this a trick being used by Hunt & Henriques?

Look up your wife's case at your local courthouse where the hearing will take place. The docket entries should show all the correct dates for actions to date.

What is the reason listed for the "Notice of order to show cause"? Sometimes the court issues these notices to the plaintiff when there is a failure to prosecute in a timely matter. When was your wife first sued? Did she ever receive a summons to appear for the lawsuit? If she ignored that, and the lawyers failed to request a default judgment after that, the court can request this hearing. If a default judgment is requested before the hearing date, that ends the need for a "show cause" hearing.

You didn't give enough information to know what is going on here. The county law clerk's office should have all the information you need.

[joecitizen]

You didn't give enough information to know what is going on here

sorry, new to this. i don't know all the information to give.

As far as we know, she has not been sued. We have been sent collection letters, but this is the first summons.

[joecitizen]

went to riverside superior court and found the following. i dont know what this all means.

Case RICxxxxxxx - CHASE BANK USA N.A. VS (Wifes Name)

Case RICxxxxxxx - Complaints/Parties

Complaint Number: 0001 — COL Complaint (Collection) of CHASE BANK USA N A
Original Filing Date: 01/03/2011
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 Plaintiff CHASE BANK USA N A HUNT & HENRIQUES, ATTORNEY AT LAW First Paper Fee Paid
2 Defendant (Wifes Name) Unrepresented Serve Required (WaitS)


Case RICxxxxxxx - Actions/Minutes

Viewed

Date

Action Text

Disposition

Image
12/29/2011 8:30 AM DEPT. 05 HEARING RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED AGAINST PLAINTIFF FOR FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CRC 3.740.
Minutes

NOTICE SENT TO HUNT & HENRIQUES, ATTORNEY AT LAW ON 1/25/11
N 02/01/2011 DECLARATION RE NON SERVICE OF SUMMONS/COMPLAINT ON (Wifes Name) FILED Not Applicable

01/03/2011 DIRECTLY ASSIGNED TO DEPARTMENT 05 FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PURPOSES (COLLECTION).
Minutes

NOTICE SENT TO HUNT & HENRIQUES, ATTORNEY AT LAW ON 1/25/11
01/03/2011 HEARING RE OSC FOR FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SET 12/29/11 AT 8:30 IN DEPT. 05.
N 01/03/2011 SUMMONS ISSUED ON COMPLAINT (COLLECTION) FILED 01/03/2011 OF CHASE BANK USA N A AND FILED. Not Applicable

N 01/03/2011 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL FILED. Not Applicable

N 01/03/2011 STATEMENT OF LOCATION/VENUE Not Applicable

01/03/2011 COMPLAINT AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED - COLLECTION Not Applicable
01/03/2011 CASE IS ASSIGNED TO DEPARTMENT 12 FOR LAW AND MOTION PURPOSES (COLLECTIONS) Not Applicable
N 01/03/2011 LIMITED CIVIL-GENERAL CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR COLLECTION OVER $10,000 AND LESS THAN $25,000 CRC 3.740 FILED. (RIVERSIDE) Not Applicable

Minutes

Receipt: xxxxxx-xxxx $395.00


Case RICxxxxxxx - Pending Hearings

Date

Action Text

Disposition

Image
12/29/2011 8:30 AM DEPT. 05 HEARING RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED AGAINST PLAINTIFF FOR FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CRC 3.740.

[WhatMoney]

sorry, new to this. i don't know all the information to give.

As far as we know, she has not been sued. We have been sent collection letters, but this is the first summons.

Well, an Order to Show Cause is never the first summons, and it is usually an order against the Plaintiff, not the Defendant. I suspect your wife was sued, and she never received the summons to appear for some reason. But again, the courthouse docket for your wife's case lists all actions to date - that is the best way to find out what actually happened. I suspect the date for the show cause is correct, btw. It's standard procedure in CA for the clerk to issue them for failure to prosecute, and the date only reflects the extent the court is backed up.

[LadyInTheRed]

The 12/29/11 date is a date by which the Plaintiff (Chase) has to file a request for default judgement if you do not respond to the summons. If you have not responded and they have not requested a default judgement, they have to appear on that date to tell the court why. The date is probably automtically set when the complaint is filed. This is how the court make sure cases don't remain open forever.

[joecitizen]

thank you for the replies...

so, i take it she still only has a 30 day window to answer the summons irregardless of the 12.29.11 date?

[LadyInTheRed]

thank you for the replies...

so, i take it she still only has a 30 day window to answer the summons irregardless of the 12.29.11 date?

Yes. You would have to petition the court for an extension if you need more time.

I found the court rule regarding the order to show cause. Its from California Rule of Court 3.740

(f) Effect of failure to obtain default judgment within required time

If proofs of service of the complaint are filed or service by publication is made and defendants do not file responsive pleadings, the plaintiff must obtain a default judgment within 360 days after the filing of the complaint. If the plaintiff has not obtained a default judgment by that time, the court must issue an order to show cause why reasonable monetary sanctions should not be imposed. The order to show cause must be vacated if the plaintiff obtains a default judgment at least 10 court days before the order to show cause hearing.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/index.cfm?title=three&linkid=rule3_740

[joecitizen]

so nothing hinky is going on here? i have seen posts where h&h have done some uncouth things.

[WhatMoney]

thank you for the replies...

so, i take it she still only has a 30 day window to answer the summons irregardless of the 12.29.11 date?

Your wife never received the summons. The lawyers filed a non-service declaration:

02/01/2011 DECLARATION RE NON SERVICE OF SUMMONS/COMPLAINT ON (Wifes Name) FILED

They also failed to make any motion for default judgment, triggering this automatic Show Cause hearing. You could file a motion to vacate the lawsuit for failure of proper service to your wife of the original complaint. It's not clear why they were unable to serve your wife within the 30 day limit, since she was sued on 01/03/11.

It will cost your wife money to file motions to dismiss. I expect the law firm will apply for the default judgment against your wife before 12/29/2011. If she was not properly served that is her main defense.

(Our posts crossed before - but it was as I expected.)

No hanky panky going on - just a lazy law firm.

What are your plans? The only way to avoid the judgment is BK, unless your wife can get the suit dismissed for improper service - in which case they can usually just sue her again.

[joecitizen]

(Our posts crossed before - but it was as I expected.)

no biggie...

No hanky panky going on - just a lazy law firm.

good, sounds like they are continuing to reinforce their reputation.

What are your plans?

we are looking into filing a bk, i am trying to figure out the means test cause we are above the median.

[LadyInTheRed]

Your wife never received the summons. The lawyers filed a non-service declaration:

02/01/2011 DECLARATION RE NON SERVICE OF SUMMONS/COMPLAINT ON (Wifes Name) FILED

They also failed to make any motion for default judgment, triggering this automatic Show Cause hearing. You could file a motion to vacate the lawsuit for failure of proper service to your wife of the original complaint. It's not clear why they were unable to serve your wife within the 30 day limit, since she was sued on 01/03/11..

The time limit to serve the summons for a collections case is 180 days. (see paragraphs (c) and (d) at the link I included in my post above.) The time limit in most cases is 60 days. The court probably automtically served the notice and the declaration re Non Service probably pointed out that this is a collections case and the 60 days does not apply.

No hanky panky going on - just a lazy law firm.

Even if they haven't missed a deadline, they sure are taking their sweet time getting the Summons served. They must have taken that popular elective course in lawschool: "Procrastination 101: Always Push that Deadline"

[WhatMoney]

The time limit to serve the summons for a collections case is 180 days. (see paragraphs (c) and (d) at the link I included in my post above.) The time limit in most cases is 60 days. The court probably automatically served the notice and the declaration re Non Service probably pointed out that this is a collections case and the 60 days does not apply.

Even if they haven't missed a deadline, they sure are taking their sweet time getting the Summons served. They must have taken that popular elective course in lawschool: "Procrastination 101: Always Push that Deadline"

That makes more sense LITR. But if no deadlines were missed, why did the court bother with the order? To keep the clerks busy I guess - CA has no problem with funding their court systems.

Actually the deadline for a summons is 180 days in Oregon, and there are certain collection law firms who hardly ever never bother with a summons after the original filing. I asked the clerk one day why they paid all this money to the court in filing fees if they never intended to prosecute - it seemed like donations to the court. She was not amused. This was from a firm that filed 500 collection cases/mo and only served and prosecuted about 10% of them.

The real answer was the law firm was using the lawsuit filing papers to pressure a settlement on the debtor to avoid a judgment, by agreeing to monthly payments. I guess it was working - or the law firm was just stupid.