EMCC is the CA from h@ll. In March, I noticed that they'd entered a collection account on my TU report for $3001.00. I sent a validation letter, it was signed for and proof was never sent. I sent the estoppel letter in May. It was signed for, no validation was sent and I have an inquiry on my TU report that shows they removed the tradeline in May. Fast forward to last week...the tradeline is back. This time it's on my Equifax report. Amount is changed to $3008.00. I faxed the Intent to Sue letter on Friday. No response. I even called the corporate office and spoke with the Asst General Counsel who said he'd look into it. He never called me back and now they're giving me the runaround. I'm done with it and ready to sue. The only problem is, I don't know where to begin. Where do I file suit? In my state of their's? Should I send one more fax as a Final Demand (I gave them until noon to phone me with a resolution). Also, I disputed this with EQ. Should I wait for the results of the investigation before I file suit? Any suggestions or links that you guys can point me to would be great. I'm sick of these A-Holes. They're the only negative on my EQ report (down from over 10 bad account just a year ago!!). -LB
IMHO, this is all in my humble opinion, so don't take it any other way as I have been attacked for providing false/misleading information. LOL You can't sue this company in your state unless they at least have business presence in your state. If they are registered to do business in your state, then that is sufficient. If they sent you collection notices while you were in your state, that may be sufficient. If they have no contact with your state whatsoever, it may be tough to sue them there You can always sue them in their county where they do business.
I have to disagree. If they are trying to collect from you, they are doing business in your state, and you can sue them in your state.
Now, I've heard this same argument. That is they are attempting to collect from me in my state, I can sue them in my state. Any other opinions on this? -LB
Breeze- Is it your opinion that simply by placing the tradeline on his/her credit report, that constitutes trying to collect and doing biz in his/her state? Even if the CA has not sent any notices or made phone calls to his/her state, is it your opinion that the CA can be sued in that state?
It is not clear to me why you think that they are "attempting to collect from me in my state". What have they done in an attempt to collect? Have they called you? Have they sent you notices? IMO, this matters!
Yes, sue them in your state. You can sue them in the state of their residence, or you can sue them WHERE THE INJURY TOOK PLACE. You were INJURED in YOUR state, because that's where you live, and that's the state in which you pulled your credit report and were injured. BESIDES which, a violation of the FDCPA is a violation of a FEDERAL act, and therefore it doesn't matter if the violation took place on the planet of Pluto, the FDCPA and the FCRA gives the consumer the option of suing in federal court or any court of competent jurisdiction. No slimy CA is going to get venue changed from one state to another (or get the cased dismissed for wrong venue) by asserting that the small claims court judges are better in his state than in the one lbrown lives in. Then he's just begging for a judgement against him. Go get 'em, and let us know how it goes, lbrown.
Oh, lord, I'm sorry. I knew that, but I just woke up, and am still working on my first cup of coffee, and then I let what "THECHILD" was saying get me riled up, because he's giving you advice that is wrong. Good luck, and let us know how this turns out.
I will take the other side, folks. LOL You guys and girls are apparently ignoring personal jurisdiction. You can't just sue someone in any old state that you choose to. Just because an injury occurs in a particular state, in order to exert jurisdiction over an individual, that individual must have done something deliberate to that state, directed at citizens of that state. LOL, I know that you take the other side...but you are ignoring personal jurisdiction altogetherly. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, famous case.
Waalien- Call me names, real mature. How do you think that personal jurisdiction is satisfied in this hypothetical? Do you think that it needs to be satisfied? Your reference to any court of competent jurisdiction refers to subject matter jurisdiction.
Not only do you sue the CA in your own state but more specifically the COUNTY that you reside in. Many people have had lawsuits thrown out because they filed a lawsuit in a county courthouse that was closest to their residence but not their county of residence. Ask any landlord what type of tenant they "enjoy" suing and it is tenants who move out of state. Why? Because in order for the tenant to respond to the suit they must travel back to their original place of residence to file a response to the suit. Usually the tenants just give in to the landlord's blackmail instead of spending thousands of dollars in travel expenses. No matter how meritless the suit is travel expenses cannot be reimbursed.
That may be true, and I have seen such letters and cases. However, I think that you would be HARD PRESSED to find a case where personal jurisdiction was found in a hypo that is analogous to the one presented at the top of this thread. Think of the consequences for a minute: I am living in Chicago and a CA is reporting a debt. All of a sudden, I move down to the southern tip of Texas, without providing any notice. I move to some tiny little down down by the Mexican border and pull my credit report. OH NO, now I am injured by a collection agency, so I file suit in my little tiny town. Do I have personal jurisidiction over that CA? NO, FOLKS, YOU DON'T........does it seem reasonable that I should be able to sue them down there in that tiny town in Texas? Of course not, and that is not how the law works..sorry to say.
They've just added their tradeline to my CR. To my understanding, that's continued collection activity. -LB
The Kid, By placing a collection account on a person's credit report, this is considered collection activity.
Or you could see http://www.bayhouse.com/credit-forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=564 just as ONE example or even do a search HERE because there are people on this forum who have sued CA's in their home state and won. OH, and by the way, reporting to a credit bureau IS SOMETHING DELIBERATE DIRECTED AT A CITIZEN OF THAT STATE. It's a DELIBERATE act to report to the CRA's, especially in this case, where they deleted from one and added it to another. But you can keep your position if you like, I refuse to get into a pissing match with you, just because it seems like that is your only agenda for being here. I hear there's fresh food under the bridge, you might want to go check that out.
That is a different scenario indeed. In your hypo, the tenant has entered into a contract in a particular jurisdiction and was to carry out the contract in that jurisdiction. Not only that, the tenant took actions against that jurisdiction, specifically aimed at that jurisdiction--personal jurisdiction is appropriate.
