My question involves collection proceedings in the State of: California
I am helping a relative with their collections case. The trial was held a few days ago and we were given a continuance. The plaintiffs (a collections agency and not the original creditor noted in the lawsuit) attempted to use a Declaration in Lieu of Personal Testimony from their custodian of records. We objected to the Declaration and provided the court with a Declaration of Due Diligence from a process server that an attempt was made to subpoena the custodian of records. The subpoena attempt was made only once so the plaintiff’s lawyer convinced the judge not to accept the Declaration of Due Diligence. The judge continued the case for hearing approximately 30 days later due to a language barrier. He also said that he was going to order the plaintiff’s custodian of records to appear at this next trial.
When reading the case summary, this is what shows:
07/##/2015 DECLARATION IN LIEU OF PERSONAL TESTIMONY PURSUANT TO CCP 98 FILED.
07/##/2015 CAUSE CALLED AT ##:## #M, IN DEPT. ### , HON. ##### JUDGE PRESIDING FOR COURT TRIAL. MATTER CONTINUED FOR COURT TRIAL TO 08/##/15 AT ##:## #M, IN DEPT. ### .
07/##/2015 CASE FILE RETURNED TO CIVIL DEPARTMENT FROM COURTROOM.
07/##/2015 CASE FILE FORWARDED TO ### PREP ROOM RE: 07/##/15 CAL
Does this mean the the plaintiff’s lawyer filed the Declaration in Lieu of Personal Testimony after the judge ordered the case to continue?
Do we have to mail the custodian of records a Notice to Appear?
Do we have to file a motion in limine against the CCP 98?
Our ultimate goal is to have the case dismissed before the next trial. What can we do next?

