Has anyone here had a SC case dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction? I filed a claim against NH Higher Ed (In NH) in small claims court here in Arizona earlier this month. (by the way, even though it said they copied me - I never received a copy - the Court had to give me a copy...) Any way, they are moving it to District with the sole intention of filing a Motion to Dismiss Based on Lack of Jurisdiction. My feeling is that all of the violations they made were while I have been living in Arizona - therefore it IS proper jurisdiction. (other than also reporting it incorrectly on my credit report for six years - and according to the Special Legislation on Student Loans it ALSO appears that they've been reporting in inaccurately for six years longer than they should have been! The sad part is that is a fully paid up student loan! (it is reporting as CURRENTLY 120+ days late. When I asked for validation they retaliated by putting a more derogatory comment on my credit file. Any one have thoughts or experiences with SC and jurisdiction? Mommy2cats
I meant "SC" as in Small Claims Court in Arizona. NH Higher Ed is moving it to District Court in Arizona. Mommy2cats
I'm sorry. I misread. So you mean AZ state court? I guess I'll also add my only piece of knowledge re the situation. If it's federal court there has to be a certain amt in controversy (10,000?) and the company has to reach out to AZ. They do reach out to AZ. I don't know about the state court situation. Sorry not to be of much help.
Each small claims court has there jurisdiction rules. In my case the debts that the CA was trying to collect on were made where i live so i could sue in my hometown per say... I believe in the FCRA you can sue in any court of competent juridiction. Fair Credit Reporting Act - Section 618 § 618. Jurisdiction of courts; limitation of actions [15 U.S.C. § 1681p] An action to enforce any liability created under this title may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has materially and willfully misrepresented any information required under this title to be disclosed to an individual and the information so misrepresented is material to the establishment of the defendant's liability to that individual under this title, the action may be brought at any time within two years after discovery by the individual of the misrepresentation. this might help to... Jefferson Burns Plaintiff CASE NO. CV-02-402 Equifax Information Services ORDER RE JURISDICTION Defendant THE ABOVE ENTITLED matter came on for trial in small claims court on May 14, 2002 before the undersigned. Both parties appeared. At the beginning of the proceeding, the court noted that this matter was brought under Federal Law, specifically under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USCS 1681. The court stated that it believed such actions had to be filed in United States District Court and dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court further stated that plaintiff was free to research the issue and re-file in small claims if he could present the court with authority for proceeding in state court. The court has since reviewed 15 USCS 1681 nd the cases interpreting it and concludes that its initial ruling was in error. Under 15 USCS 1681p an action to enforce any liability under the Fair Credit Reporting Act may be brought in either state or federal court. The court notes, however, that only monetary damages are recoverable in small claims court. Damage for pain and suffering and punitive damage awards are prohibited. Idaho Code 1-2301. Plaintiff is limited to recovery of his actual out of pocket expennses. The court can not discern from plaintiff's claim the nature of the damages he is seeking. In the event that plaintiff is asking for damages for humiliation, mental distress, or the like, small claims is an inappropriate forum and the matter should be re-filed in either magistrate or district court depending on the amount of damages sought. NOW THEN IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may, without additional filing fees and without the need to reserve the defendants, re-note this matter for trial in small claims court. SO ORDERED THIS 14th day of May 2002. Barbara Buchanan
