Can one Californian sue another Californian for loan that happened in Japan?

[CaliCJ]

California

Went with a "friend" to Japan, loaned him $1,000 while in Japan. He agreed to pay back but hasn't paid anything yet and keeps making excuses month after month. We are both from California and USA citizens. He's in California now, I'm still in Japan but will be returning back soon. Do I have any options here or does this mean that I can't bring a civil lawsuit in USA since it happened in Japan? All I have is his admission on Facebook messages of how much he owes me, but I assume that wouldn't be reliable evidence (or would it?). Once back in USA, I plan to get him on video (with permission) or on a written contract admitting that the loan took place if I have to.

Thank You

 

[CaliCJ]

and we were not living in Japan, just there on vacation as US/California citizens still.

 

[CameronNewport]

Yes, you can sue your friend in CA, and yes, you can use the Facebook messages as evidence.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Expect him to argue the CA court has no jurisdiction over a loan taking place in another country and win.

 

[CameronNewport]

Expect him to argue the CA court has no jurisdiction over a loan taking place in another country and win.

That result is unlikely.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

That result is unlikely.

Please show me where CA law asserts claims of jurisdiction over the country of Japan.

 

[tranquility]

Please show me where CA law asserts claims of jurisdiction over the country of Japan.

Please show me where that is the relevant inquiry here.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Please show me where CA law asserts claims of jurisdiction over the country of Japan.

The defendant, over whom CA courts can assert personal jurisdiction, is a resident of CA, not the Country of Japan (or is Japan still an Empire?)

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

The defendant, over whom CA courts can assert personal jurisdiction, is a resident of CA, not the Country of Japan (or is Japan still an Empire?)

Not for a contract with no ties to CA other than the physical location of the parties that contracted. The contracted originated and was carried out in a foreign country. No parts of the contract are tied to CA.

 

[las365]

Hey OHRoadwarrier, wanna go on a vacation with me? Any foreign country will do. Bring plenty of cash, okay? I think I'll need a loan while we're there.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Hey OHRoadwarrier, wanna go on a vacation with me? Any foreign country will do. Bring plenty of cash, okay? I think I'll need a loan while we're there.

I know better than to give you a loan there, LOL. For anyone missing the significance of this discussion. The pertanent things are FCMJRA and Hague Convention. Basically, absent a foreign judgment stating the contract is in default and payable to OP, the CA court cannot grant itself jurisdiction. If there was a foreign judgment in place, it can then choose to recognize and enforce it.

 

[latigo]

Not for a contract with no ties to CA other than the physical location of the parties that contracted. The contracted originated and was carried out in a foreign country. No parts of the contract are tied to CA.

So your thinking is that the physical location of the debtor has no jurisdictional significance unless the debt originated in the forum state. Right?

So, being committed to that theory you would have to proffer that if the “friendly loan” was made during their flight to or from Japan the only possible forum that could exercise in personam jurisdiction would be somewhere in the mid Pacific Ocean!
___________________

In your campaign to impress with your gathered and scattered brand of legalese why don’t you see what you can learn about “TRANSITORY CAUSES OF ACTION”!

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

So your thinking is that the physical location of the debtor has no jurisdictional significance unless the debt originated in the forum state. Right?

So, being committed to that theory you would have to proffer that if the “friendly loan” was made during their flight to or from Japan the only possible forum that could exercise in personam jurisdiction would be somewhere in the mid Pacific Ocean!
___________________

In your campaign to impress with your gathered and scattered brand of legalese why don’t you see what you can learn about “TRANSITORY CAUSES OF ACTION”!

Incorrect, Federal law has established that activities occurring in international water on a ship, flight, etc... that originates or terminates in the US can be handled by US courts.

 

[CameronNewport]

Please show me where CA law asserts claims of jurisdiction over the country of Japan.

Does OP want to sue Japan? If not, then why would I need to show you that CA courts have jurisdiction over Japan? The OP wants to sue a CA resident. CA courts have jurisdiction over CA residents.

 

[LdiJ]

Does OP want to sue Japan? If not, then why would I need to show you that CA courts have jurisdiction over Japan? The OP wants to sue a CA resident. CA courts have jurisdiction over CA residents.

What's more, its between two US citizens who are both residents of CA. Its a no brainer, CA has jurisdiction.