Having trouble understanding a court response to a request to set aside a settlement.

[cgray77a]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

We arrived at a settlement with a debt collection company as a part of a lawsuit. For a vareity of reasons they are now attempting to set that aside, asking for an oreder to "set aside notice of conditional settlement and dismissal pursuant to CCP 664.6; proposed order"

We received notification of this in the mail. (there was no process server).

Upon checking the court records for the case, I found the following response:

"THE COURT IS UNABLE TO PROCESS THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENT(S) FOR THE REASON(S) INDICATED BELOW:
DENIED. 1.) PLAINTIFF NEEDS TO PROCEED VIA NOTICED MOTION
ABSENT PRIOR CONSENT TO WAIVE NOTICE BY DEFENDANT.2.) PLAINTIFF CANNOT PROCEED WITH
DEFAULT JUDGMENT A GENERAL DENIAL HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN FILED.
REJECT NOTICE PRINTED"

I'm hoping someone can tell me if I'm right on the following.

1. Means hat they did not properly serve us, which I'm assuming means that they were supposed to use a process server or other official method of service.
2. Because we issued a general denial, the court will not simply award a default in this case, so they have to reopen the case.

Is this true, and what should our response be at this point, if any?

Thank you,

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

We arrived at a settlement with a debt collection company as a part of a lawsuit. For a vareity of reasons they are now attempting to set that aside, asking for an oreder to "set aside notice of conditional settlement and dismissal pursuant to CCP 664.6; proposed order"

We received notification of this in the mail. (there was no process server).

Upon checking the court records for the case, I found the following response:

"THE COURT IS UNABLE TO PROCESS THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENT(S) FOR THE REASON(S) INDICATED BELOW:
DENIED. 1.) PLAINTIFF NEEDS TO PROCEED VIA NOTICED MOTION
ABSENT PRIOR CONSENT TO WAIVE NOTICE BY DEFENDANT.2.) PLAINTIFF CANNOT PROCEED WITH
DEFAULT JUDGMENT A GENERAL DENIAL HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN FILED.
REJECT NOTICE PRINTED"

I'm hoping someone can tell me if I'm right on the following.

1. Means hat they did not properly serve us, which I'm assuming means that they were supposed to use a process server or other official method of service.
2. Because we issued a general denial, the court will not simply award a default in this case, so they have to reopen the case.

Is this true, and what should our response be at this point, if any?

Thank you,

It is not a question of improper service at all.

What appears to have happened is that the plaintiff debt collector filed a motion (together with a proposed order) to withdraw its prior consent to the entry of the 664.6 stipulated judgment. Which the court rejected and returned for failure to notice the motion for hearing. Thus, the notation in the court file, "plaintiff needs to proceed via noticed motion".

Also it seems that the plaintiff filed a motion and form of order for the entry of the defendant's default and default judgment seemingly unconscious of the fact that the defendant's written response to the complaint (general denial) is on file with the court.
__________________________________

You ask how should you respond?

My suggestion would be to verify that you have complied with Rule 664.6 and that the court (pursuant to your own motion) has entered a judgment in conformity to the stipulation. Other than that it seems that the ball is still in the plaintiff's (excuse the pun) "court".

My other suggestion is that you seek the advice of your attorney. Just because the rules allow laypeople to represent themselves in court doesn't mean its a good idea. Mr. A. Lincoln thought it was a lousy idea!

 

[cgray77a]

Thank you!

Sadly, in this case we do have fools for our own clients, mainly because we have no money to obtain a lawyer. The debtor in this case is slowly gathering enough money to get a Bk attorney (lot's 'o medical bills), but if this goes to garnishment then we might have to do that ourselves, as we can't survive losing the wages. We'll check with the court as you suggested and continue on our way.

Again, thank you!