Animal Injury, Dog Bite Representing myself: should I request Dismissal or reply with the Answer form?

[California Denizen]

Jurisdiction

California

I live in San Francisco, and the case is being handled entirely in that county. I am being sued for more than $25,000 for a personal injury claim. I must be my own attorney because, even though I clearly qualify for free legal assistance, the services that provide that either don't deal with personal injury cases, and the only one I've found that does, referred me to an expensive lawyer (even though they know my income level), and they refuse to correct that error. So I'm stuck with representing myself. Since I am on Social Security with no other income, I realize I can request Dismissal. However, Plaintiff's allegations are false and so extreme as to put me in jeopardy of eviction and even arrest, if I don't submit an Answer to deny these allegations, in lieu of a Dismissal. The reason I believe I'm in jeopardy is because there is another defendant, the landlord. My question is: if I go the dismissal route, won't Plaintiff's Attorney direct these false allegations to the landlord (because responsible for actions of any tenant which were committed on their property), anyway…or, if I request to be dismissed, will these false allegations go away, and the case will be dropped entirely, including against the landlord and other Plaintiffs, Does 1-50?

Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any sort, of a dog bite by one of my two, small doggies with weak, tiny jaws. He also claimed he had to get a rabies shot even though my pups are up to date with their vaccination, and I can prove it with the dog tags and papers. And the building manager also has copies of this proof that I texted pictures of, to his phone.

Deadline to submit my reply to the complaint is April 26th.

 

[Zigner]

The fact that you are on Social Security does NOT mean that you're automatically eligible for a dismissal. What it does mean is that, in general, none of your money is eligible for attachment/levy, etc. That is what "judgment proof" means.

Do you have renter's insurance? If you do, then you should submit this claim to that insurance.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Having Social Security as your only income is not a basis for which to seek dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. If you try that, your motion will be denied, probably rather promptly. In order to get a dismissal, you have to state a legal reason why the complaint is so defective that the plaintiff cannot proceed. For example, if the claim was filed after the statute of limitation has passed, that is a basis for dismissal. If you could get your motion granted, it will only affect you. Your landlord will need to file his/her own motions to resolve the complaint against him/her. Filing the lawsuit is not the time for submission of evidence. You'll get to see the evidence the plaintiff has during discovery (if you do the discovery correctly) and of course the plaintiff needs to show the judge or jury the evidence to support his/her claims.

ETA: the relevance of your Social Security is simply that should the plaintiff win, he/she cannot levy/garnish your Social Security to collect the judgment. The plaintiff would have to find other assets/income that you have that are not exempt from attachment.

 

[army judge]

My question is: if I go the dismissal route, won't Plaintiff's Attorney direct these false allegations to the landlord (because responsible for actions of any tenant which were committed on their property), anyway…or, if I request to be dismissed, will these false allegations go away, and the case will be dropped entirely, including against the landlord and other Plaintiffs, Does 1-50?

You are presuming, perhaps assuming FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Allow me to tender to you some food for further thought, deliberation, and/or consideration.

If you are financially distressed, there'd be no logical or legal way for the plaintiff to collect a dollar, should the plaintiff prevail.

How is that, you're pondering?

First of all, you could file a personal bankruptcy, should you not prevail in the lawsuit under discussion.

In the state of California, you can choose one of two options for holding various categories of assets eligible for protection. Both options cover the dwelling in which you reside, your pension or retirement benefits, insurance benefits, personal property, and equipment relating to your occupation, although the dollar limits differ in some cases.

Option One makes provisions to include business property and wages paid within 90 days of filing, while Option Two includes alimony and child support among the assets eligible for exemption. Both options cover public benefits, the types of which differ from option to option.

To maximize your protection, you will need to determine which option best matches your own assets before moving forward. Asset protection is a complex undertaking, one that requires extensive background knowledge and a comprehensive understanding of asset protection laws. For that reason, an experienced legal advisor or attorney who understands California law can be a great resource as you consider ways to protect your legacy.

Asset Protection Laws in California | JMV Law
...

What Assets Can Be Seized by a Judgment Creditor in California???

It can sometimes happen that a creditor wins a judgment against a debtor in court. But then the debtor claims he or she does not have the means (usually cash) to satisfy the debt outright. In this case, a creditor has the option of attaching a claim on the debtor's assets. This is one of the first steps in their effort to collect on the debt. The creditor may win a judgement. But a court-ordered judgment does not automatically turn over the debtor's assets. The creditor must take action to satisfy or discharge the debt. That is why it is important for you to know what assets can be seized by a judgment creditor. You should inform yourself about asset protection strategies that you can use to make asset forfeiture very unlikely.

Judgment in hand, a creditor has a number of options that they can pursue. First they need to discover exactly what assets can be seized in a lawsuit. So, further steps are taken. One of the most commonly explored avenues of asset or property discovery is the judgment debtor's examination. In this proceeding, the onus of unearthing assets or properties that can be seized falls on the creditor.

It is important for a debtor to understand that assets or properties can mean more than physical property (such as a house or a vehicle). Neither are they limited to that which the debtor currently owns or controls. It can indeed refer to future properties or assets, expected but as yet non-existent. Despite the far-reaching (almost all-encompassing) definition of property in this case, each state offers a debtor certain exemptions. These fall within certain value limits. If these assets are all that remain in the debtor's possession the exemptions can render the judgment virtually hollow. In addition to certain state-sanctioned assets that are exempt from judgments, there are legal ways to protect one's assets. This is especially comforting to know when the judgment (hard-won though it may be) arises from a frivolous lawsuit or a predatory claim.

https://assetprotectionplanners.com/strategies/assets-seized-judgment-creditor/
...

Asset Seizure is Creditor's Responsibility
It is up to the creditor – not the court – to collect on a judgment that he or she received. The creditor must first find out what assets a debtor has that he or she can use to satisfy the obligation (assuming the debtor pleads to lack of funds). To do this, a creditor must request a Motion for Examination of Judgment Debtor. This is important because a judge signing it and a creditor serving it obliges a debtor. They must appear at the examination or risk being held for contempt by the court.

At the judgment debtor examination, the debtor will be placed under oath. This means he or she must answer the creditor's questions truthfully or risk perjuring themselves. Perjury can carry a heavy fine or even jail time. However, a debtor is not under a legal obligation to volunteer any information about his or her assets. A creditor must ask the right questions. After the procedure, the creditor must file another motion in court. Only then will they be able to attach a claim to the debtor's assets or properties that are not exempted by the state.

Debtor's Property That Can Be Seized
When mentioning 'property,' most people (perhaps including you) think only of real estate. They may consider such as the house where they live, or things they own, such as a car or a boat, or cold cash. But property, especially in court cases, can also mean a person's salary. It includes deposit accounts, stocks and bonds, IRA accounts and other similar types of assets. Don't think that just because you don't own the house where you live, or have no car, or any such type of tangible asset, or have a ton of money in the bank, that a creditor has nothing 'to take' from you. A cunning and determined creditor can attach a claim to just about anything you own. This includes properties that you would not have even thought were vulnerable to seizure in a judgement.

There are exemptions, of course, and these vary greatly from state to state. For instance, most jurisdictions will allow a creditor to attach your primary dwelling to a court judgement. But even in this matter, there are legal nuances that can mitigate each case; meaning it's possible to lose your house to a creditor in most states.

Educate Yourself
Once you learn you have a lawsuit filed against you, it's important to educate yourself about the laws in your state regarding your rights as a debtor. Understand what a creditor may be entitled to should he or she win the case against you in court. You'll likely realize you stand to lose more than you first thought. That is, you actually have assets that can be attached to a judgement. Perhaps then, if you have not done so, you will take action on protecting your assets.

The time to try to convince a plaintiff to be considerate of your situation is before a trial, not after. This is especially when he or she wins a judgment against you. So by putting your assets in the proper legal tools, such as an international LLC and/or offshore asset protection trust, you put yourself in a position of strength. When negotiating a settlement you will have the power. On the other hand, you may decide to hunker down in the asset protection bomb shelter. You may just decide to set up bulletproof legal tools and not let them get anything at all.

https://assetprotectionplanners.com/strategies/assets-seized-judgment-creditor/
...

 

[zddoodah]

Please turn off the bold and italics.

Since I am on Social Security with no other income, I realize I can request Dismissal.

I'm confused about your use of the word "since" in this sentence. You can, of course, request dismissal, but you being "on Social Security with no other income" has nothing to do with that ability. On what basis do you believe you might be entitled to dismissal?

there is another defendant, the landlord.

Whose landlord? Yours? The plaintiff's?

My question is: if I go the dismissal route, won't Plaintiff's Attorney direct these false allegations to the landlord (because responsible for actions of any tenant which were committed on their property)

I'm not sure what you mean by "go the dismissal route," but (1) we have no way of knowing what the plaintiff's attorney might do in response, and (2) a landlord is NOT automatically "responsible for actions of [a] tenant which were committed on [the landlord's] property."

Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any sort

Sounds like the case is at the pleadings stage. The time for providing evidence comes later.

Deadline to submit my reply to the complaint is April 26th.

Then make sure you don't miss that deadline.

 

[California Denizen]

Army Judge:

Thank you for such an informative reply. I have no income except Social Security, and no assets (not even a car). I have already been assured by my eviction attorney that I am immune to being sued, because of that. But since this second case is civil, she can't help me with it, I have to find another attorney, which is impossible, so I have to represent myself. At least, I think I do...because it's not just a matter of being sued...I'm afraid that the other defendant, the landlord of my building, will be answerable to the charges against me, due to his legal responsibility for safe habitation for all tenants. So if I just go for a dismissal, I wonder if the grievances against me (such as allowing two small dogs to run free in my building, which is absolutely not true) will still stand and passed on to my landlord.

 

[cbg]

There must be many law schools in the San Francisco area, and many law schools offer "clinics" where third-year law students, under the guidance of their professors, provide free or low cost consultations. You might want to check that option out.

 

[California Denizen]

The fact that you are on Social Security does NOT mean that you're automatically eligible for a dismissal. What it does mean is that, in general, none of your money is eligible for attachment/levy, etc. That is what "judgment proof" means.

Do you have renter's insurance? If you do, then you should submit this claim to that insurance.

Thank you for your reply. I have no renter's insurance, I have no income other than Social Security, and I have no assets, not even a vehicle. If Motion to Dismiss does not include allowing my financial/no assets status to relieve me from all charges, then isn't there some other process to do just that? I've been researching online law sites for many days now, including local law libraries to figure out the right way to handle this, but have yet to find out how.

 

[California Denizen]

Having Social Security as your only income is not a basis for which to seek dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. If you try that, your motion will be denied, probably rather promptly.If you try that, your motion will be denied, probably rather promptly.

Thank you for a speedy reply. I get what you're saying, so I'm wondering if I need to inform Plaintiff's Attorney now, that I am immune to being sued. I don't know how to go about that, since the many legal resources I've found so far don't cover that, including the local law library, as well as online sources.

If you could get your motion granted, it will only affect you. Your landlord will need to file his/her own motions to resolve the complaint against him/her.

Since my landlord (the other defendant) would not be interested in being sued, assuming I am dropped from the case 'cause I cannot be sued, is his attorney likely to subpoena me to testify against the Plaintiff's allegations, which are egregiously false? I would be glad to do that. My concern is if I am not called in to testify, the claims against will stand, and my landlord will most likely try to evict me.

ETA: the relevance of your Social Security is simply that should the plaintiff win, he/she cannot levy/garnish your Social Security to collect the judgment. The plaintiff would have to find other assets/income that you have that are not exempt from attachment.

But if my landlord should lose and get sued, then I am at great risk of being evicted, because, even though the allegations are totally false, I had no chance to deny them, if I am dropped from the case because I can't be garnished. This present lawsuit is strictly about trying to sue me. So I presume my landlord will start a new case to get me evicted, based on horrifically wrongful accusations.

Maybe I should contact my landlord's attorney and offer to testify, so that they are unlikely to be sued as a result of my denials?

 

[Zigner]

Army Judge:

Thank you for such an informative reply. I have no income except Social Security, and no assets (not even a car). I have already been assured by my eviction attorney that I am immune to being sued, because of that. But since this second case is civil, she can't help me with it, I have to find another attorney, which is impossible, so I have to represent myself. At least, I think I do...because it's not just a matter of being sued...I'm afraid that the other defendant, the landlord of my building, will be answerable to the charges against me, due to his legal responsibility for safe habitation for all tenants. So if I just go for a dismissal, I wonder if the grievances against me (such as allowing two small dogs to run free in my building, which is absolutely not true) will still stand and passed on to my landlord.

Thank you for your reply. I have no renter's insurance, I have no income other than Social Security, and I have no assets, not even a vehicle. If Motion to Dismiss does not include allowing my financial/no assets status to relieve me from all charges, then isn't there some other process to do just that? I've been researching online law sites for many days now, including local law libraries to figure out the right way to handle this, but have yet to find out how.

To address your earlier post, I can (virtually) guarantee you that you misunderstood what your attorney was saying. There is nothing about one's income level or source of income that will prevent them from being sued and losing. You may, however, be uncollectible due to the source of your funds. That is what is meant by "judgment proof", which may be the phrase your attorney used. "Judgment proof" is a bit misleading, as it makes it sound like nobody can get a judgment against you, and that is simply not true. What the phrase actually means is that, even with a judgment, people can't collect what they are owed.

 

[Zigner]

I would also like to point out that your cavalier attitude about your dog's ability to cause injury is concerning. Please do a better job at controlling your dog, or find a new home for it.

 

[California Denizen]

Please turn off the bold and italics.

Arrgh, sorry. I copy/pasted my OP from another website, not noticing they were formatted in bold italics. Won't happen again!

I'm confused about your use of the word "since" in this sentence. You can, of course, request dismissal, but you being "on Social Security with no other income" has nothing to do with that ability. On what basis do you believe you might be entitled to dismissal?

I see now, I used the wrong term. I know the Plaintiff can't collect any money from me, due to my low income status where my only income is Social Security, and I have absolutely NO assets, not even a vehicle. So, is there a way to get them to drop me from the case, by informing Plaintiff's Attorney of my poor financial status? I know I'll have to provide proof for this, which I can easily and gladly do. But I just don't know how to go about, if there's even a proper form to fill out for this.

Whose landlord? Yours? The plaintiff's?

Mine.

I'm not sure what you mean by "go the dismissal route," but (1) we have no way of knowing what the plaintiff's attorney might do in response, and (2) a landlord is NOT automatically "responsible for actions of [a] tenant which were committed on [the landlord's] property."

If I don't get the chance to deny the allegations, then they'll still stand and be directed at my landlord for not assuming responsibility for safe harbor of all residents. Seeing as he can't himself deny the allegations, since he neither owns the dogs nor lives in my building whereby he might possibly be a witness as to the basic harmlessness of these little dogs. Nor does he know me at all, since he's absentee and owns tons of properties. At least, this is what I presume to be the current situation. I'm probably thinking wrong on this, due to my lack of legal expertise, but I've been doing tons of research in an attempt to drill down to the answers I need, but not much luck so far.

I'm thinking maybe I should contact my landlord's attorney and offer to testify, to prevent them from being sued? Or would I have my chance to deny the allegations with explicit details, in a suit the landlord himself may bring up in an eviction case against me?

Sounds like the case is at the pleadings stage. The time for providing evidence comes later.

My point is he never showed me any proof of injury, just claim the incident occurred, than added a whole list of grievances against me around that, which are not the least bit true. I suspect he is being coached by the building manager, who's been hostile to me for years, and is feeding the Plaintiff with misinformation of a hostile nature to set me up for eviction/

Then make sure you don't miss that deadline.

I don't intend to, I just don't know how to go about with a proper reply. Thanks for your input.

 

[Zigner]

There is no good reason to dismiss you from the case just because you don't have money. Maybe you'll win the lottery next year...

 

[adjusterjack]

I've been researching online law sites for many days now, including local law libraries to figure out the right way to handle this, but have yet to find out how.

Really? Didn't it ever occur to you to run a search for "How to answer a personal injury lawsuit in CA"?

Check it out:

california answer to personal injury complaint at DuckDuckGo

 

[California Denizen]

I would also like to point out that your cavalier attitude about your dog's ability to cause injury is concerning. Please do a better job at controlling your dog, or find a new home for it.

I don't see WHERE you get the idea that my attitude is "cavalier," and I never declared the dog's have ANY ability to cause injury. The accusation of a dog bite is FALSE, as are a list of other grievances. The Plaintiff never approached me that day he claims the attack occurred, to show me this alleged wound. Nor has he EVER bothered to show me any day after that. He doesn't talk to me, we don't know each other, but two days after the alleged incident I saw him enter my building as I exited. He was wearing shorts and slide sandals, so I could clearly see his bare calves, ankles and feet, and saw NO harm inflicted in those areas. He claims he was bitten twice, once on the ankle and once on the heel.

The worst the dogs ever do is stand around and bark at someone, now and then. They never attack, their half-dachshund mix has given them dachshund jaws that are small and weak...they can't even handle hard biscuits. Thus, seeing as no evidence of injury was provided by the Plaintiff, I must deny the main allegation.

Thank you for your input, though, as I'm sure such an accusation will be hurled at me, and this is good practice for making a proper denial.

 

[California Denizen]

Really? Didn't it ever occur to you to run a search for "How to answer a personal injury lawsuit in CA"?

Thank you, but I've already done that days ago, thoroughly pored over the entire contents. And I now know how to do that, but since I have to represent myself, new questions have popped up, which I'm finding difficult to discover the answers.

 

[California Denizen]

There is no good reason to dismiss you from the case just because you don't have money. Maybe you'll win the lottery next year...

I would certainly prefer to have a chance to present my denials, since the lawsuit is clearly frivolous...just a hateful person looking to grab a hunk of money. However, wouldn't they drop me from the case once they know I can't be sued, due to my poor financial/no assets status? This is a lawsuit that ONLY is about suing, and not anything else. And I'm wondering how I go about the correct way to let the Plaintiff's Attorney know my finances can't be garnished. What kind of form do I use? I haven't been able to find that out, yet. Thanks for your reply..

 

[army judge]

Army Judge:

Thank you for such an informative reply. I have no income except Social Security, and no assets (not even a car). I have already been assured by my eviction attorney that I am immune to being sued, because of that. But since this second case is civil, she can't help me with it, I have to find another attorney, which is impossible, so I have to represent myself. At least, I think I do...because it's not just a matter of being sued...I'm afraid that the other defendant, the landlord of my building, will be answerable to the charges against me, due to his legal responsibility for safe habitation for all tenants. So if I just go for a dismissal, I wonder if the grievances against me (such as allowing two small dogs to run free in my building, which is absolutely not true) will still stand and passed on to my landlord.

You're welcome, mate.

Here's another approach.

You're what some call "judgment proof".
I make that assessment solely upon your recitations/revelations.

As @cbg suggested, get thee to one of the many law schools in the SFO area.

Here are a few of those law schools:

Golden Gate University School of Law
San Francisco Law School
Stanford Law School
University of California Hastings College of the Law

Hopefully you can get an appointment at one or more of the law school clinics and begin rectification of your present predicament.

 

[Zigner]

However, wouldn't they drop me from the case once they know I can't be sued, due to my poor financial/no assets status?

You CAN BE (and HAVE BEEN) sued!

And I'm wondering how I go about the correct way to let the Plaintiff's Attorney know my finances can't be garnished. What kind of form do I use?

Not everything that happens in the legal arena has a form available. Sometimes you just have to put pen to paper. There is no guarantee (nor is it particularly likely) that they will drop the suit against you, as pointed out previously.

 

[California Denizen]

There must be many law schools in the San Francisco area, and many law schools offer "clinics" where third-year law students, under the guidance of their professors, provide free or low cost consultations. You might want to check that option out.

I wish that were so, but I've already looked into all the options available, with no luck. While I'm certainly eligible for a pro bono attorney via the SF Bar, they wound up screwing me over. I first applied for a lawyer via their online form which asked for my monthly income. Then a few days later they referred me to an attorney, who I presumed would be pro bono. But when I spoke with him, he said he doesn't handle low income clients and his fee goes into the thousands! So I called SF Bar the next day, telling them they made an error by referring me to the wrong attorney, and could they rectify that by getting me a pro bono one, seeing as SF Bar advertises free legal services for the low income and vulnerable, and I certainly qualify (well, they accepted me, and referred me, didn't they...even when they knew my low income status?). She just said, "Sorry, we don't do pro bono, and we never know how much the attorney we refer someone to, will actually charge"...and hung up. Even my eviction attorney (who is excellent in her field) was surprised at the outcome, who referred me to SF Bar in the first place! And all other local legal services advertise SF Bar as doing pro bono work for the poor, and the SF Bar does so in their own advertisements!

So I looked for another legal service that WOULD take my case for free, but they all claim they don't handle personal injury cases. And the ONLY place that offers free legal counsel, LARC, only provides a workshop for that on the third Friday of each month. So I have to wait all the way till next Friday (between 4 and 6 pm) to see them, and their counseling is just 20 minutes. And I'm not even sure if they help with personal injury lawsuits, either. That Friday is the 21st, and I only have till the 26th to deliver my reply to the Plaintiff's Attorney. The bare minimum I need is legal guidance on which forms to use, and how to fill them out properly...though I really need a lawyer!

There's also the ABA which has an online forum where you can ask up to five questions per year. You first register, then post your query in 500 words or less. However, there is a drop-down list for selecting the topic of your post, but all the options were COVID related, such as: "Wildfire or COVID-19: Family Law" and "Wildfire or COVID-19: Worker's Comp." The option I picked was: "Wildfire or COVID-19: Personal Injury." Assuming this is an error in their drop-down list (that all choices are limited to wildfire or COVID), I then went ahead and posted my query. On that posting page there was a box you need to tick on IF your question was COVID related. Mine was not, so I left it alone. This was five hours ago, and I'm still waiting on any replies.

Thank you for your comment, but what SF law schools (and other legal outlets that claim to be for "the people") offer for the poor and vulnerable is shamefully negligent.