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

[Zigner]

The SF Bar provides services for indigent criminal defendants. Yours is not a criminal case.

 

[California Denizen]

You're welcome, mate. Here's another approach. You're what some call "judgment proof". I make that assessment solely upon your recitations/revelations.

That is correct.

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

Been doing that with no luck, as none of them handle personal injury cases, except possibly one, called LARC. They provide 20 minute legal counseling the third Friday of each month, and that's all she wrote. So I have to wait until the 21st to go there...and I don't really know whether or not they deal with Personal Injury lawsuits. And the deadline to reply to the summons is the 26th! I need to know the proper way to deal with my case, in light of my judgment proof status. And what forms I might need, and how to correctly fill them out. And if I should go ahead with an Answer form so I can make my denials know. Or just somehow be excused from the lawsuit due to being judgment proof.

Here are a few of those law schools:

I've already been to the SF Law Library, and they couldn't help me track down what I need to find out, and learn. The huge tomes they suggested I look over, were no help. They suggested I apply for a pro bono attorney via the SF Bar, but I told them I already did that, and they just screwed me over. See another comment I posted here that describes that situation in detail, just search for "SF Bar." They also recommended the LARC counseling, which I already know about, but have to wait another week before I can go there. They also recommended a few other free legal groups, such as "Legal Assistance for the Elderly." But I already called two days previously, to find out they don't do Personal Injury. Nor do the two others recommended by a reference librarian at the SF Law Library.

University of California Hastings College of the Law

That is where I believe LARC is located.

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

I wish, but it doesn't look like there's anything out there for my particular lawsuit. The SF Bar wasted valuable time, making me wait on them to be referred to pro bono lawyer, only to wind up being turned down.

Thanks you for your thoughtful advice, nonetheless!

 

[zddoodah]

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.

That's just plain wrong. Being poor doesn't make you immune to suit. Being poor will make it difficult or impossible for someone who sues you and wins to collect on the judgment, and that may make it so that some folks won't bother suing you. But it doesn't make you immune to 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.

The landlord has some obligations regarding safety, but the landlord is not an absolute guarantor of the safety of tenants or guests of tenants. In order to opine about the extent to which your landlord might have liability in this case, one would need to review the lawsuit and otherwise ascertain relevant facts.

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?

No.

I'm wondering if I need to inform Plaintiff's Attorney now, that I am immune to being sued.

You're free to pick up the phone and tell the plaintiff's lawyer that, while he can sue you and might win, any judgment won't be collectible for these reasons. Whether that will cause him/her to dismiss you and/or go after your landlord is impossible to predict. Also, if you are dismissed and the plaintiff goes after your landlord, it is certain that you would be required to testify. You are free to confer with the landlord's attorney in the meantime.

Also, you can get forms for responding to a lawsuit at this link, and some quality time at a law library with The Rutter Group's Civil Procedure Before Trial practice guide would be a good idea.

 

[California Denizen]

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.

I get it now, yes, that was the term my eviction attorney used. So, even though I'm judgment proof, another lawsuit could pop up, possibly eviction and even arrested and/or putting the dogs down...assuming the false allegations stand, and I haven't been allowed to declare my denials, right?

The dogs BTW are not mine, I was dog-siting them for a friend, on and off for well over a year and a half with no problems, before the Plaintiff's accusation in question occurred. This was in a pet friendly apartment building...with the tacit approval of the building manager. Months before the summons was delivered, the dogs' owner stopped having me dog sit, per my wishes, due to this crisis.

The REAL problem seems to be with the building manager who's been displaying blatant signs of senility for several years now, including one moment being friendly, and another outright hostile. I'm sure he is coaching the Plaintiff with divisive misinformation about me...IOW he's being used. Many other tenants are upset with management (for different reasons), and I have been one of the unlucky targets of the manager's maliciousness. One resident attempted to start a tenants union early last year, due to lousy management, but it never got off the ground.

The reason I now have an eviction attorney (and she's superb) as of June last year, is due to the manager's hostility towards me that culminated in a NASTY letter that he signed and posted to my door. Among other things he expressed a frighteningly biased attitude against a certain minority (for whom I am a stalwart activist)...and finally slapped an eviction notice on me sometime in May of last year. But I am still here, thanks to my attorney. The landlord failed to reply on time, and instead of dropping the case, is just sitting on it. I want to start a lawsuit against the property owner, but she advised to wait on it or, in her words: "Don't poke the bear."

Even the landlord's attorney said to MY attorney, that the manager's accusations and eviction attempt are unjust, and he wishes that the landlord would go ahead and drop the case! That's it for now, I've chewed your ear overlong, already (or should I say "your eyes?).

 

[California Denizen]

You CAN BE (and HAVE BEEN) sued!

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.

Got it. Thank you for being so direct and honest. The allegations are so outrageous, they very much make the Plaintiff look like he's just angling for a lawsuit in order to collect a pile of moolah. That is why my denials MUST be heard.

So, if I represent myself and wish my denials to go on record, I fill out and deliver Answer form PLD-PI-003, then have it delivered by another person or a professional process server after registering three copies of it with a civil court clerk. At the same time I hand the clerk the waiver for all court fees (for which I can prove eligibility right then and there with my EBT and Medi-Cal cards). I've already signed and sent back the Acknowledgment of Receipt, yesterday.

Later, I'll have to fill out and deliver the case manager statement (after registering it with two copies with the clerk) to the Plaintiff's Attorney, as well as to the other defendant, my landlord. Case management meeting is set for August 23rd. At that time, will I be able to explain the denials I've listed as just numbers, to the mediator, so the Plaintiff's Attorney will have a good idea what my denials are about?

I think, as my own attorney, I'll have to speak on the phone with the Plaintiff's Attorney, about the Case Management meeting some two or more weeks before it occurs. I'm gonna check out this websites "Forms" section now.

Thank you for being so patient with my naive questions...I'm learning as fast as I can.

 

[doucar]

Got it. Thank you for being so direct and honest. The allegations are so outrageous, they very much make the Plaintiff look like he's just angling for a lawsuit in order to collect a pile of moolah. That is why my denials MUST be heard.

So, if I represent myself and wish my denials to go on record, I fill out and deliver Answer form PLD-PI-003, then have it delivered by another person or a professional process server after registering three copies of it with a civil court clerk. At the same time I hand the clerk the waiver for all court fees (for which I can prove eligibility right then and there with my EBT and Medi-Cal cards). I've already signed and sent back the Acknowledgment of Receipt, yesterday.

Later, I'll have to fill out and deliver the case manager statement (after registering it with two copies with the clerk) to the Plaintiff's Attorney, as well as to the other defendant, my landlord. Case management meeting is set for August 23rd. At that time, will I be able to explain the denials I've listed as just numbers, to the mediator, so the Plaintiff's Attorney will have a good idea what my denials are about?

I think, as my own attorney, I'll have to speak on the phone with the Plaintiff's Attorney, about the Case Management meeting some two or more weeks before it occurs. I'm gonna check out this websites "Forms" section now.

Thank you for being so patient with my naive questions...I'm learning as fast as I can.

You do not have to serve the answer on the other side by process server. You can simply mail a copy to the plaintiff's attorney and file proof of service (mailing) with the court copies you file.

 

[cbg]

I was suggesting that the clinic might be able to help you prepare your case, not take it for free. They're students; they're not licensed to practice law yet. But if you're determined that's it's got to be all or nothing; either a lawyer taking your case pro bono or risking it all to do it yourself, there's nothing I can say that will change that.

 

[California Denizen]

That's just plain wrong. Being poor doesn't make you immune to suit. Being poor will make it difficult or impossible for someone who sues you and wins to collect on the judgment, and that may make it so that some folks won't bother suing you. But it doesn't make you immune to being sued.

Got it, thanks.

The landlord has some obligations regarding safety, but the landlord is not an absolute guarantor of the safety of tenants or guests of tenants. In order to opine about the extent to which your landlord might have liability in this case, one would need to review the lawsuit and otherwise ascertain relevant facts.

Got it, thanks again.

You're free to pick up the phone and tell the plaintiff's lawyer that, while he can sue you and might win, any judgment won't be collectible for these reasons.

Good to know, I had no idea...you just answered one of my questions that I couldn't find via legal resources, including law libraries. Plaintiff's Attorney also gave me his email, which he DOES reply to quickly, as I requested another copy of the papers, since for some strange reason they disappeared from my apartment! So I'll just inform him via email that I'm judgment proof.[/QUOTE]

Whether that will cause him/her to dismiss you and/or go after your landlord is impossible to predict.

I see. You just answered another question I had, that I couldn't find out through the many resources I've used in the past week.

Also, if you are dismissed and the plaintiff goes after your landlord, it is certain that you would be required to testify. You are free to confer with the landlord's attorney in the meantime.

I WANT to testify! I will contact the landlord's attorney this coming Monday. Thanks again, for a question I couldn't get an answer to, via legal resources. Even the reference librarians at SF Law Library didn't have a clue about the several important questions I had.

Also, you can get forms for responding to a lawsuit at this link,

Yes, I already have downloaded the required forms from the CA gov forms site. Did that two days ago.

and some quality time at a law library with The Rutter Group's Civil Procedure Before Trial practice guide would be a good idea.

Okay, then, I'll do just that. Thanks immensely for such a tremendously helpful reply.

 

[California Denizen]

You do not have to serve the answer on the other side by process server. You can simply mail a copy to the plaintiff's attorney and file proof of service (mailing) with the court copies you file.

Seriously? According to Being Sued - money_selfhelp "proof of service" involves:

"To serve the plaintiff with a copy of your response, have someone 18 or older (not you and not involved in the case), mail a copy to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is represented by a lawyer, a copy of your response gets served on the lawyer. If the plaintiff is self-represented, it gets served on the plaintiff. The person who does this for you must fill out a proof of service by mail form. Then, make sure you file this proof of service form with the court and keep a copy for yourself."

But I don't know any adult who will do this for me, so my other option is to pay a process server. I really can't afford to do that, though, it would be a financial burden. And I don't think standing around the Plaintiff's Attorney's building, trying to get a pedestrian to serve it for me for ten or twenty dollars is a good idea.

Am I not correct, did I misunderstand the information? Thanks for your reply.

 

[California Denizen]

I was suggesting that the clinic might be able to help you prepare your case, not take it for free. They're students; they're not licensed to practice law yet.

Yes, I know that. I just can't find any clinic with law students who will handle a Personal Injury case. My last hope is the LARC workshop next week, where they give people a 20 minute free counseling session. But I'm afraid that they, too, might not deal with Personal Injury lawsuits, as their website isn't clear on that. They have a web page where you can post your question, and they'll get back to you. Been two days now, still waiting...maybe Monday they'll send me their response.

But if you're determined that's it's got to be all or nothing; either a lawyer taking your case pro bono or risking it all to do it yourself, there's nothing I can say that will change that.

Maybe I wasn't clear on my posts, but I believe I already stated I'm looking for legal guidance re. getting the correct forms and filling them out properly. Mentioning my failed struggle to get an attorney pro bono is another part of my crisis. I possibly misunderstand the steps in responding to a summons, but since I have no lawyer to process my reply I am, ipso facto, serving as my own attorney.

Guess I'm wrong on that, as "In Pro Per" only means ""for one's own person," not acting as one's attorney.

Good day to you, thanks for your reply. I'm learning as fast as I can, and right now I'm a pathetic neophyte.

 

[Tax Counsel]

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.

Unless your attorney is not a very good one, that is almost certainly NOT what your attorney said. Your current financial situation means that the plaintiff has no assets or income of yours that the plaintiff can attach to collect. You may still be sued in those circumstances and get a judgment against you. The judgment creditor just wouldn't have any way to collect his judgment. So why would the plaintiff bother suing you when you have nothing now that he can get? The reason is that judgments last a long time and while your financial situation today might not get the plaintiff anything, it is possible that in the future you may get assets or income the creditor can attach (e.g large gift, inheritance, lottery winnings, etc). So he gets the judgment and sits and waits to see how things turn out. If you get something in the future, he can then execute his judgment and collect.

Your landlord is not liable for YOUR conduct. Your landlord is liable if he was somehow negligent and that negligence contributed to the dog bite incident. The plaintiff can't get a judgment against the landlord simply because he gets a judgment against you. He has to prove a different case regarding the landlord than the case he makes against you. That's up to your landlord to deal with, and if he was a smart landlord he'd have insurance that would cover him for this kind of thing. If he does have that insurance then the insurance company will provide the lawyer for him. If your case gets dismissed, it does not get the case against the landlord dismissed. The landlord would have to file his own motion to dismiss, and would need a valid legal reason why the case against him should be dismissed. As things stand right now, there isn't much you can do to help your landlord here that wouldn't end up hurting your situation. Just focus on your case and let the landlord focus on his.

 

[California Denizen]

The SF Bar provides services for indigent criminal defendants. Yours is not a criminal case.

I don't think so, their website doesn't state the limitations of their services in such a strict fashion. They knew my case is civil (personal injury), accept my $35 initial consultation fee, knowing my low income on Social Security, then set me up to speak with an attorney a few days later. I'm sure they ALSO assist indigent criminal defendants for free, but NOT just them, on a pro bono basis.

I filled out their "see if you're eligible for free services" online questionnaire, and clicked on "send," they later said I am eligible, then started looking for an attorney who'd take my case. In short, they screwed me outta $35 and wasted my valuable time.

 

[cbg]

Being eligible for something and being guaranteed it are not the same thing.

 

[California Denizen]

So why would the plaintiff bother suing you when you have nothing now that he can get?

He doesn't know yet that I'm judgment proof. But I'll let him know come Monday, via email.

So he gets the judgment and sits and waits to see how things turn out. If you get something in the future, he can then execute his judgment and collect.

Fine with me, 'cause I'm 72 years old with nothing of material value to my name...I prefer to live simply. I appreciate your explanation.

Your landlord is not liable for YOUR conduct. Your landlord is liable if he was somehow negligent and that negligence contributed to the dog bite incident.

The dog bite is alleged, not proven yet, and I doubt it will ever come to that. Be that as it may, one of Plaintiff's claims is that the landlord failed to put up a sign in the apartment building's lobby and hallways warning there are two dangerous dogs in the building. Doesn't strike me as a capable attorney to say that, and he's only gotten his license to practice in 2021.

Oh yeah, the dogs are dangerous alright: dangerously cute! 25 pounds each of huggable love. Everyone in my building adored them, during the almost two years I dog sat for them, a day or two per week. There were only a few residents, including the manager, who were hostile towards me before the pups even showed up. I am an activist in support of our LGBT homeless, and some folks HATE the homeless, and therefore yours truly be association. So they harassed me over the doggies, as they seek whatever opportunity they can find, to deny me privacy and happiness.

As things stand right now, there isn't much you can do to help your landlord here that wouldn't end up hurting your situation. Just focus on your case and let the landlord focus on his.

I see. My own ignorance of how the law works regarding my case has caused me to be needlessly worried and anxious. Your explanation has done a great job of easing my nerves. So, forget about being my own attorney, let the Plaintiff's Lawyer know my Judgment Proof status, and maybe I won't even have to file and deliver an Answer. Whew! You're my hero, as are others who've replied to me, for the most part. Here is one (among many) delightful video of the pooches, which I guarantee will put a big smile on your face (just 34 seconds), my way of saying thank you for all the nice people who've bothered to reply to me here, with their thoughtful and sincere suggestions, opinions and links:

 

[California Denizen]

Being eligible for something and being guaranteed it are not the same thing.

Of course not, but the way they went about it was blatantly underhanded....by referring me to a super expensive attorney when they knew I'm on a very low income. They did not apologize for that, either, when I called them on it. The SF Bar claims to be of assistance to the poor and vulnerable, not to the rich and powerful.

 

[justblue]

Were the dogs off leash in a common area when the alleged bite occurred? Were you in the habit of letting the dogs out unsupervised?

 

[California Denizen]

Were the dogs off leash in a common area when the alleged bite occurred? Were you in the habit of letting the dogs out unsupervised?

No, not in the habit at all, not even once in awhile. Just as I was about to step out, I turned around for a second to grab the poop bags and a breeze blew the door open, and the dogs ran out with their leashes on. I rushed downstairs after them, to see them standing around some fellow and barking at him. So I quickly grabbed their leashes and rushed them outside, to stop their barking. When I picked up their leashes, I saw no sign of any bite on his legs, ankles or feet (he was wearing short pants down to the knees, and a pair of plastic slide slippers.) He seem distraught, but when I saw no harm done, I said to him sorry my dogs scared you, they don't bite, and exited with the pups.

Most people, seeing how harmless and small they are, crack up when they are barked at, and attempt to pet them, whereupon they usually back away, but sometimes allow themselves to be touched. They do NOT bite. The Plaintiff never approached me to say he was bitten, nor did he say "Your dog just bit me" that day in the lobby...it was only 10 months later I got the summons. I know he was coached by our senile building manager, who is fuming with hatred at some of the residents, including myself, for no good reason...he's just senile.

One of the complaints is the plaintiff had to get rabies shots, which makes it look like my friend's dogs aren't up to date with their booster vaccines. They are, and the pooches were their rabies tags all the time, and I have the vaccination papers here in my apartment. Anyone is welcome to ask to see the proof. And the building manager also has a copy of the tags and papers via snapshots I sent him in a text. Did he fail to show them to the Plaintiff, or maybe intentionally kept them from him as a malicious act against me? And why didn't the doctor he supposedly saw to get these shots, contact the manager or myself, to find out the dogs WERE vaccinated? I suspect skulduggery on the manager's part.

There were other outrageous claims the Plaintiff made against me, that were obviously told to him by the manager, in order to set me up. Such as claiming he had to go through extensive therapy due to the trauma the dogs created, and even had to quit his job. Which job is, of all things, working in a Corgi coffeehouse!

I always keep the dogs on leashes inside my building when we're not in my apartment. Though sometimes one or the other slips out of their collar, but all they'll do is run up to someone (if anyone's in the hallway or lobby) and bark at them, or dash around in play. I quickly place the collar back on immediately. Most folks this happens to just laugh and say how adorable they are. When I have to squeeze by someone while going up or down the stairs, the dogs never nip at them, they slip right by. They might bark a bit, but it stops soon as they've passed another person.

That's it in a nutshell. Thanks for your query. Though I do want to add:

There's the occasional idiot who plays the drama queen and screeches and hollers if the dogs bark near them while I'm walking them outside. The kind of people (though thankfully few and far between) who actually HARASS the pups and start barking back at them to get them even MORE excited. They think that's funny, but I don't. The Plaintiff seems to be one of those drama queens who decided to turn this into a lawsuit, per the suggestion of our building manager. The whole suit is frivolous, as far as I can tell...and I doubt the Plaintiff's Attorney has good odds to win the case.

 

[adjusterjack]

I've deleted several posts that appeared to be straying into mutual impoliteness. Please stick to the "legal" aspects of the discussion.

 

[army judge]

He doesn't know yet that I'm judgment proof. But I'll let him know come Monday, via email.

If I were sitting in your position, being sued wouldn't worry me one drop of sweat.

Why?

Let's say I was sued, but I had less than five US Dollars to my name.

[That isn't the case for me, as I'm just pretending.]

Let's say I only received about $1,000 US Dollars in social Insecurity benefits monthly.

The person suing me would never receive $1.00 from my pitiful, poor as Job's turkey self.

I'm the role model of a judgment proof defendant.

Anyone that sues a judgment proof person is an idiot.

 

[Zigner]

I don't think so, their website doesn't state the limitations of their services in such a strict fashion. They knew my case is civil (personal injury), accept my $35 initial consultation fee, knowing my low income on Social Security, then set me up to speak with an attorney a few days later. I'm sure they ALSO assist indigent criminal defendants for free, but NOT just them, on a pro bono basis.

I filled out their "see if you're eligible for free services" online questionnaire, and clicked on "send," they later said I am eligible, then started looking for an attorney who'd take my case. In short, they screwed me outta $35 and wasted my valuable time.

Please share the link to this website, because I'm not seeing it the same as you.