Well, I can guess what this is about, even though someone's posts aren't showing up. Just some random state laws regarding small claims jurisdictions: Idaho - from http://www.the3rdjudicialdistrict.com/Small_Claim_Pl_Filing.htm The person who files a claim is called the plaintiff. The person you are filing your claim against is called the defendant. You must file your claim at the county courthouse in the county where the defendant lives unless the defendant lives outside the state of Idaho. If the defendant lives outside Idaho, you must file your claim at the county courthouse in the county where your claim arose. For example, if your claim is about a car accident, then the county where the claim arose is the county where the accident happened. Michigan: - from http://www.36thdistrictcourt.org/civil.html The person being sued must do business or live within the city of Detroit, or the action must have occurred in the city of Detroit. California: from http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/superior/courts/smallclaims.html#Where Where the defendant lives or the defendant corporation or other entity has its principal place of business. Where the person or personal property was injured or damaged. Where the defendant signed the contract or where the contract was breached. Where the buyer resided at the time of entering into a retail installment account, or contract on a motor vehicle finance sale. Florida: from http://www.co.miami-dade.fl.us/clerk/Small_Claims.htm Actions may be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action occurred or where the property involved is located. ********** I don't have time to do all 50 states but that should be enough to prove my point. Found that food under the bridge yet?
Gang, you want to be ignorant about jurisdiction, that is your call... There is a reason that a statute reads "any court of competent jurisidiction" and NOT "any court of law" Jurisdiction does matter, and the reason that I was asking the poster of this thread what the CA did (send letters to the debtor or phone the debtor) was to establish whether a court in the debtor's jurisdiction could exert personal jurisdiction over the CA. Some of you ignore the ludicrous results that would ensue if you could sue anyone, ANYWHERE. It is simply not reality...
I have read some of your posts, and IMO, you are giving out incorrect info. No offense. You have to have thicker skin if you want to play this credit game.
Given everything that you posted, it would be appropriate to ask what the CA did in the forum state. IMO, reporting a tradeline to a CA is not a significant enough act--it may very well be ample for a particular judge. It is not obvious at all. On the other hand, if the CA sent letters to that consumer and phoned that consumer at their home, that would certainly be ample to create personal jurisdiction over the CA. IMO, it would be beneficial to play devil's advocate when considering filing suit. IMO, it's a good idea to think of the defendant's best defense. It may be "popular" to cheer on your fellow poster, but it is constructive, IMO, to consider the other side's best argument.
Hahahaha!!! LKH, that is great!! Look, now y'all, if you keep quoting this smart aleck, I have to keep reading these threads. Knock it off, OK? laughing myself silly.
I had no clue that all the CA's I battled couldn't touch me. No jurisdiction!!! Why didn't any of you tell me this a year ago? Damn you all to Hell!
Re: CA Want to Play Hardball.Let's Okay, I am one of the CN'ers who have battled this issue - and WON. I filed suit against the company (a non-profit) on my student loan. They are in NH and I live in AZ. They tried to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction - all the things The Kid brought up. They lost. They never sent notices to me in AZ - it was that they reported while I live in AZ. Since they reported inaccuracies while I lived in AZ - that gave me jursidiction to file - and the Judge agreed. Mommy2cats
Yes. And you may want to check to see if bonding ect. is in order in your state. I sent a few packing real quick when I discovered they were not complying with the state business laws in my state. These were supposed to be "tough" CA's. Ha Ha.
Re: CA Want to Play Hardball.Let's Yeppers! As much as I hate to say it, he has a point about jurisdiction. But he's over looking the fact that they DO have it. § 803. Definitions [15 USC 1692a] As used in this title -- (1) The term "Commission" means the Federal Trade Commission. (2) The term "communication" means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium. Reporting to your CR IS collection activity. It's communicating INDIRECTLY, through the medium of your report. An obvious oversight by our new legal guru. Collection activity doesn't HAVE to be via mail or a phone call as you seem to insist. It can be by ANY medium, directly or INDIRECTLY. So you see Kid, the plantiff does have "proper standing in judicio". (now we shall see if you can admit your error)
Re: CA Want to Play Hardball.Let's Wow, I haven't been on the board for a couple of days and it looks like we have another one of "those kinds of posters" lol. Look, Kid, you need to go do something more constructive with your time than sitting around here on this board spouting off stuff that isn't true. Catch a clue.
Re: CA Want to Play Hardball.Let's You give him too much credit Butch. Let him do his homework and dig up the case law. It's right under his nose. Gib
I know that my name doesn't carry any weight around here, but I have always filed where I am and have never had a venue problem. Once they place sdomething on your report or send it to your address, that's the place that you can file from, if it gets to that. I had one CA try to have it dropped for that reason, and the judge refused.
Well he won't let it go. He's one of those trolls who always has to be right...the stubborn type. Even if after a while he realizes he's wrong, he's going to keep talking in circles.
Re: CA Want to Play Hardball.Let's Ha! That'll happen My prediction... he'll just stop responding. Because that way, at least he won't be admitting he was wrong all along. Given all the crap he's been spouting, who can blame him? p.s Kid, please don't respond to any of my credit question if you ever feel inclined.. thank you
