Breeze- I post under "The Kid" and no other name. Humblemarc and I have moved on from our previous dispute, whereas you are still stuck on it. If you put me on "ignore" or whatever, then just ignore me and don't talk about me. You make a lot of posts that have nothing at all to do with credit. (see above) I don't want to hear my name mentioned in your posts anymore. You don't care about me, I don't care about you--now move on and talk about credit.
I'm not saying that there is no such case, but I would be very surprised to see one that supports this statement below. Do you know of any such cases? "Filing in the district where the letter was received has been upheld even where the debt collector's letter had been forwarded to a district in which it did not do business. "
The Kid, if a letter was sent to you in Salem, MA and was then forwarded to you by the post office to oh...say Rochester, NY, you could file in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York because that is where you reside. If you did not receive a letter from them, but found oh..say a Michigan debt collector reporting on your credit report and say you disputed with the CRAs and the MI debt collector and finally decided to sue them, you could sue them in US District court where you reside. Basis for venue would be: Plaintiff resides in Monroe County. L (who hopes this is an on topic post as I've missed pertinent facts in previous posts recently...lol...but I think this is what you are saying.)
The DOC is good at this also * I agree Kid if you are going to use the ignore button then keep your mouth shut about the person being ignored. In other words put up and shut up. You know it really takes guts to bad mouth someone you have on ignore when you know they can't defend themselves against you, real courageous rite? On the other hand being ignored has it's advantages as you can say what ever you want without having to put up with the ignoring persons static. LB 59
<chuckle> And LB has been on everyone's ignore list at one time or another and knows what he's talking about. Sorry LB...couldn't resist! As I said a while back...you add character to this board L
You mentioned that this theory has been upheld. Do you know of any citeable case that has upheld this theory? thanks
Jurisdiction is base upon "minimal contact". Read the 3rd one down re: mail to another state. Same as sending a collection letter to another state. That is where the contact was made, giving that state jurisdiction. The defendant (individual or business) has engaged in at least a small but significant amount of activity that constitutes "minimum contacts" in the state in which you've filed the lawsuit (and the case involves that activity). "Yuck," you may be thinking -- "what the heck are 'minimum contacts'?" You're not alone -- many judges and lawyers wonder the same thing. The "minimum contacts" requirement generally means that a defendant (person or business) who is a citizen of a different state must have enough connection to the state where a case has been filed for a judge to conclude that it's fair for the state to exercise power over the defendant. While it's risky to overgeneralize in these situations, a judge would probably conclude that "minimum contacts" exist in the following situations: A business with its headquarters in another state maintains a branch office, store or warehouse in the state in which the suit is filed. A business with its headquarters in another state sends mail order catalogs into the state in which the suit is filed. An individual who is a citizen of another state solicits business by making phone calls to customers or publishing advertisements in the state in which the suit is filed. An Internet service provider that is a citizen of another state does business with paid subscribers or takes online orders from customers in the state in which the case is filed.
LKH- Thanks, I agree with you 100%. Gib- thanks for the case, will check it out. I have a CA that I am thinking about sueing, and I received a forwarded letter at my new residence, 2000 miles away from his office and where I used to reside. Now, the CA is also registered to do biz in my current state of residence (which is a strong personal jurisdiction condition), but it can't hurt to have additional ammo. Well, here is part of the first paragraph of Calder v. Jones: "The Supreme Court, Justice Rehnquist, held that it was proper for a court in California to exercise jurisdiction over two Florida newspapermen in a libel action arising out of their intentional conduct in Florida which was allegedly calculated to cause injuries to plaintiff in California." IMWO, unless the defendant can reasonably calculate that the injury will occur in another state, then there is no personal jurisdiction. So, IMWO, unless a CA can calculate where the letter will be forwarded, then there is no personal jurisdiction in that state. Thanks again for the case...
Sigh, tix, have we discussed this case? Was this the CA that we both were fighting? I lost the email!
I disagree, if a CA is reporting something on your credit report, it can be reasonably expected to harm you where you reside, no matter where that may be. Gib
LOL, true, we have lost sight of this thread. IMWO, if you are going to appeal, then demand a jury trial and see if you can get the jury to decide what a "reasonable amount of time" is. A question of fact can go to a jury, a question of law can't go to a jury. Now, it is not always clear what is a question of fact vs. what is a question of law. IMWO, this "reasonable time" thing sounds a lot like a question of fact that could go to a jury. As far as whether or not Equifax was at fault, I would inquire with Equifax--make them give you a written response stating that it was reported by the CA twice. Even if the CA did report it twice, is this pure negligence?
LMAO...well, I did sue a Michigan collection agency who was reporting on my credit report in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York and had no juridictional issues. That good enough for ya? I responded to your post, but I was not the one who mentioned caselaw. I waded through hundreds of citations when I was researching my cases, but try not to refer to caselaw here unless I have it on hand simply because I don't have the energy to sort through them all again to post it here to prove some sort of point. L
Unfortunately, appealing a case does not give you a second chance. You have to appeal based on an error of law (i.e., the judge made an error in applying the law). The appeals court reviews the prior courts actions...they do not look at new evidence or give you a chance to provide more evidence. L
Whether or not it is good enough for me is irrelevant, rather it is important whether or not it would be good enough for a judge. I could imagine the look on the judge's face if somenone cited "Whyspers from Creditnet's" case. I'm not downplaying your case, but it is not published, it is not citeable, and it has no authority... Believe me, I am not trying to "prove a point". Some of the advice here may be intended to assist someone "prove a point" in a court of law! For that matter, cases DO matter! As for appeals, I agree that determinations of fact are not reviewable unless the judge clearly abused her discretion. I erred in suggesting that the "reasonable time" fact could be submitted to a jury. It has been resolved by a judge, and is reviewable only under a "clear abuse of discretion" standard.
New evidence can be presented on an appeal under limited circumstances, when the evidence could not reasonably have been obtained prior...
