1/7     Anyone has any luck suing a person/business outside of California
        through small claim court?  How can the court order the defendant
        to appear in this case?
        \_ The same way that they order people in the state to appear.
           Just because a person is out of state doesn't mean that he/she
           can't be sued and required to show up in court. The only issue
           here is whether the court will uphold that it has jurisdiction
           over the case.
           \- this is not strictly correct. a business has to have
              "dealings" in california to be sued in a CA court.
              in the case of a person, this is more unlikely unless
              possibly the suit is over some issue that required being
              in CA ... like say a car accident or some tort involving
              such a physical act. there are things called "long arm
              statues" which is how corts can compel non-residents/remotely
              incorped busness to appear, but i am not sure if small claims
              courts have differnt long arm statues. for a real/large business
              it is highly likely that they have enough business presence
              in CA .. in which you can probably check with the sec of state's
              office who the califnornia agent is for process service/summons.
              for somebody who runs a hotdog stand in louisiana, you probably
              cant sue them for food poisioning in CA court. on an amusing note
              on the jurisdiction question you may want to look at Mayo v.
              Satan and His Staff. --psb
              \_ Yes, psb, we know this. What do you think "jurisdiction over
                 case" means? It is strictly correct. If you don't know what
                 \- as someone i know used to say "i dont mind tautologies;
                    they're always true!". saying you can sue in court X
                    if court X has jurisdiction i suppose is meaningless and
                    unhelpful more than true/untrue. "the court feels" ...
                    is driven by guidelines such as the ones i discuss.--psb
                 "jurisdiction over the case" means don't comment. Also, you
                 don't need a business presence in CA to be sued in CA. All
                 that is required is that the court feels that it has original
                 jurisdiction on the matter involved. Under the UCC this means
                 the place of business, and if the business was conducted
                 in CA then the court will find it has original jurisdiction.
                 If all fails, you can go file a suit in Federal Court, and
                 there will NOT be ANY questions about original jurisdiction,
                 but for a small claims matter it's not worth the money.
                       \-mr. d. ass: you also misuse the term "original
                         jurisdiction" ... that is in contrast to appelate
                         jurisdiction, not geography or "diversity juris-
                         diction". as you suggest, federal ct may be an
                         option, but whether it is worth the money is not
                         fully up to the plaintiff, but there is a minimum
                         specified in the USC and USCA. See e.g.
                         http://csua.org/u/amm
                         \_ Uhm, no, there is really only the concept of
                            "original jurisdiction". It encompases what you
                            refer to as "geographic jurisdiction", which in
                            reality is a fiction. So STFU dumbass. Original
                            Jurisdiction always comes from the lower courts,
                            and appellate courts have original jurisdiction
                            in certain types of cases. There also isn't
                            really a term caled "appellate jurisdiction,"
                            which is a fiction also. However, since it's
                            unfortunately come into common usage I suppose
                            that it can be considered as such.
                            Read up on some Prosser/Keaton.
                 \_ I belive the problem here is that the two of you
                    are confusing two separate ideas: personal jx and
                    \- i'm not the one confused. the OP is the one
                       specifcally asking about the geographic/diversity
                       issue.
                       \_ Sorry. The guy who was responding to you is
                          a doofus, and I should be doing hw instead of
                          writing about jx...
                          writing about jx on the motd...
                    subject matter jx. A ct must have both in order
                    to hear a case. SMJX is sometimes refered to as
                    "original jx" in the context of fed cts.
                    In order for a ct to hear a case, it must first
                    have SMJX. In general state cts are cts of general jx
                    and have original jx over all cases. Fed cts are cts
                    of limited jx and have original jx only over two types
                    of cases, federal question (USC Title 28 Sec 1331) and
                    diversity (USC Title 28 Sec 1332). The jx of the fed
                    cts are limited by Article 3 of the Constitution.
                    In order for a case raise a fed question the complaint
                    must arise from the constitution, treaties of the US
                    or laws of the fed gov.
                    In order for a case to be in diversity two requirements
                    must be met: (1) the claim must be greater than $75K (if
                    you are trying to sue in small claims, you can't meet
                    this) and there must be complete diversity in citizenship
                    "across the v". Complete diversity means that no plaintiff
                    and no defendant must be citizens of the same state. A
                    corporation is considered a citizen of 2 places, the
                    place where it is incorporated and the place where it has
                    its primary place of business. The primary place of bus.
                    can be determined using one of two tests: (1) the nerver
                    center test (where are the admin offices located) or (2)
                    the muscle test (where the manufacturing occurs).
                    Personal jx is a different idea. It is refers to the
                    power of a ct to compel a person to appear before it and
                    defend a suit. PJ is proper in a state if the defendant
                    (1) resides there or (2) was personally served with
                    process in the state. PJ may also be proper over non-res
                    defendants IF the state has a long arm statue authorizing
                    the exercise of PJ over non-res defendants. Almost all
                    states have such statues. Some states (ex NY) enumerate
                    the circumstances under which PJ may be properly exercised
                    by the states cts over non-res, while others (ex CA) say
                    that any exercise of PJ consistent with Due Process is
                    okay.
                    Even if there is a statue that says that PJ can be
                    exercised by the ct, that exercise must be consistent
                    w/ the requirements of Due Process which according to
                    the USSC means that that the defendant has to have min
                    contacts w/ the state AND the exercise of PJ must be
                    consistent with traditional notions of fair play and
                    substantial justices (see Intl. Shoe)
                    If the case is related to some specific action of the
                    defendant w/ or in the state, then even a single
                    contact may be enough (specific jx). If the case is
                    unrelated to the contacts of the defendant in the
                    state, then lots of contacts are need.
                    There are lots of factors that a ct considers when
                    figuring out if PJ is fair: (1) the burden on the
                    defendant to defend in the state, (2) the interest
                    of the plaintiff in efficient resolution, (3) the
                    interest of the state, (4) interests of other states
                    and (5) shared interests of many states.
                    I'm sure this was WAY more than you possibly wanted
                    to know. Anyway, the upshot of all this is that if
                    you are suing a non-resident corp in small claims
                    ct you will probably not have any basis for being
                    in fed ct and you will probably have a hard time
                    compeling the corp to appear.  However, you may be
                    able to get a judgment by default and then via
                    Full Faith and Credit get a lean on the corp's
                    property in its home state. Then you can show up
                    at the annual shareholders meeting and say that
                    you are not leaving the bldg until the deadbeat
                    corp makes you whole. This is an effective way
                    to get your money and your ass kicked in one go.
              \_ http://www.tamerlane.ca/library/cases/humour/mayo_v_satan.htm
                          \_ Sorry, you're wrong. If you actually understood
                             substantive law instead of merely googling for
                             stuff you'd understand what
                             "original jurisdiction":
                             really means. And PSB, stop junking up the motd
                             with your google transcripts. I'm sure we can
                             all cut and paste from the web. That doesn't mean
                             you know shit about the law.
                             \- are you the person whose orginal contribution
                                [sic] was the tautology above?
                                \_ My friend, if you actually knew anything
                                   about law you'd realize that it is filled
                                   with tautologies. Res ipsa loquitur.
                                   An example of this include the following:
                                   the description of cause-in-fact or
                                   actual cause
                                   the description of proximate cause
                                   the concept of what a reasonable person is
                                   the concept of what negligence is
                                   the definition of intent
                                   the definition of voluntary
                                   Take a 1L course in substantive law,
                                   see if you can pass it. Then come back
                                   and we'll talk.
                                   \_ First time poster, long time listener
                                      here.  The description of 'actual cause'
                                      is not as simple and tautological as you
                                      may think.  Email me for technical
                                      details. -- ilyas
                                   \- the law may be filled with tautologies
                                      but your first respose was totally
                                      useless. Well 99% useless. You claim
                                      1. you may be able to reach out to
                                      someone in another state 2. and you can
                                      do so if the court decides you can.
                                      while i suppose point #2 is sort of a
                                      "legal realist" answer [the law is what
                                      courts say it is ... as opposed to some
                                      metaphysical body of a priori principles
                                      of justice], it's not helpful to the OP.
                                      if you are an attorney and gave me
                                      advice like that, i'd not only think the
                                      "law's an ass" but my lawyer was too.
                                      some tautolgies ... or "analytic
                                      statements" are trivial, some are
                                      merely uninteresting and some are
                                      useful or insightful. 1=1 is trivial.
                                      x^23+x^5+x+5=8 has solution x=1 is
                                      a useless factoid. sum 1/2^x from 1
                                      to infinity = 1 is "interesting" ...
                                      so all of these are "tautologies across
                                      the equal sign", but only one is a
                                      valuable observation.
           \_ Thanks.  I am doing this for someone.  I have sent two
              emails to the debtor and I was never able to reach the
              debtor by phone.  Small claim court is the next logical
              step?
              \-email is pretty worthless. send a demand letter by registred
                or cert mail or whatever it is called.
              \_ If the person you are trying to sue is a non-resident
                 the ct may not have any effective way to compel them
                 to appear and defend (provided PJ is proper in the
                 state in which you bring your suit). Since the cap on
                 small claims is $2,500, many non-residents will just
                                 \_ Not neccesarily true, certain
                                    districts allow you to sue up to
                                    $5000. It depends on the district
                                    and the state.
                 decide that it is not worth the hassle and won't appear.
                 You will be given a judgment by default, but in order
                 to enforce this judgment you will have to travel to
                 a state where the defendant resides and ask a ct in
                 that state to enforce the judgment (the ct has to b/c
                 of Full Faith and Credit).
                 Enforcement is a bit easier if the non-resident has
                 property in the state in which you sue. As part of
                 your suit you can ask the ct for a pre-judgment
                 attachment of the property. If the defendant is a
                 no-show, then you will be awarded judgment by default
                 and you can ask the ct to order a sheriff's sale of
                 the property to satisfy your judgment.
                 \- law person: for a good time you may wish to look up
                    789 F. Supp. 395 ... also avail at:
                    http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Noble-v-BradfordMarine
                    Last line is sort of funny, w.r.t. jurisdiction.