Removing a case from small claims

[Wendy Rivers]

What is the name of your state (MI)?

Hi,

If I am the defendant in a small claims case being sued for 750. is it advantageous for me to ask to have the case heard by a jury in regular civil court? I am thinking it will be more costly for the plantiff to hire a lawyer so the plantiff would be likely to just drop the suit against me. Is this a recommended tactic?

Wendy

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (MI)?

Hi,

If I am the defendant in a small claims case being sued for 750. is it advantageous for me to ask to have the case heard by a jury in regular civil court? I am thinking it will be more costly for the plantiff to hire a lawyer so the plantiff would be likely to just drop the suit against me. Is this a recommended tactic?

Wendy

If you want to pay even more in court costs, sure. Go right ahead.

(that's if the higher court would even take the case)

 

[Willlyjo]

If you want to pay even more in court costs, sure. Go right ahead.

(that's if the higher court would even take the case)[/QUOTE

There is no way the Superior Court will take a case that is seeking 750.00 in damages. Only Small Claims would have jurisdiction for such a claim.

 

[latigo]

If you want to pay even more in court costs, sure. Go right ahead.

(that's if the higher court would even take the case)

That regrettable piece of unschooled, misleading guesswork reflects such abject ignorance of the theme of this web site as to be pathetic!

And knowing that you possess no legal credentials whatsoever, it shows pitiable lack of character and your concern for the interests of the users of this site.

Neither The Michigan Court Rules, The Michigan Rules of Civil Procedure, nor those of the Federal Court System, nor those of any of the other 49 states contain a SHOPPING LIST FOR LITIGANTS!!!

 

[TigerD]

Once again Willjo proves greater ignorance than Joe's willy possesses.

OP Here is the rule you are looking for:
http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/CurrentCourtRules/1Chapter4DistrictCourt.pdf
Rule 4.306 Removal to Trial Court
(A) Demand. A party may demand that the action be removed from the small
claims division to the trial court for further proceedings by
(1) signing a written demand for removal and filing it with the clerk at or before
the time set for hearing; or
(2) appearing before the court at the time and place set for hearing and
demanding removal.
(B) Order; Fee. On receiving a demand for removal, the court shall, by a written
order filed in the action, direct removal to the trial court for further proceedings.
(1) The order must direct a defendant to file a written answer and serve it as
provided in MCR 2.107 within 14 days after the date of the order.
(2) A copy of the order must be mailed to each party by the clerk.
(3) There is no fee for the removal, order, or mailing.
(C) Motion for More Definite Statement. After removal, the affidavit is deemed to be
a sufficient statement of the plaintiff's claim unless a defendant, within the time
permitted for answer, files a motion for a more definite statement.
(1) The motion must state the information sought and must be supported by an
affidavit that the defendant
(a) does not have the information and cannot secure it with the exercise of
reasonable diligence, and
(b) is unable to answer the plaintiff's claim without it.
(2) The court may decide the motion without a hearing on just and reasonable
terms or may direct that a hearing be held after notice to both parties at a time
set by the court.
(3) If the plaintiff fails to file a more definite statement after having been
ordered to do so, the clerk shall dismiss the claim for want of prosecution.
(D) Default. On removal, if the defendant fails to file an answer or motion within
the time permitted, the clerk shall enter the default of the defendant. MCR 2.603
governs further proceedings.
(E) Procedure After Removal. Except as provided in this rule, further proceedings in
actions removed to the trial court are governed by the rules applicable to other civil
actions.

DC

 

[Proserpina]

That regrettable piece of unschooled, misleading guesswork reflects such abject ignorance of the theme of this web site as to be pathetic!

And knowing that you possess no legal credentials whatsoever, it shows pitiable lack of character and your concern for the interests of the users of this site.

Neither The Michigan Court Rules, The Michigan Rules of Civil Procedure, nor those of the Federal Court System, nor those of any of the other 49 states contain a SHOPPING LIST FOR LITIGANTS!!!

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, my friend.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Removing a case from small claims for the sole purpose of increasing costs to the plaintiff would be frowned upon by the court.

 

[FlyingRon]

Removing a case from small claims for the sole purpose of increasing costs to the plaintiff would be frowned upon by the court.

And the plaintiff still can go pro se in District court. Usually you remove to district court because Michigan small claims does not allow the lawyers and the person who is making the motion wishes to be so represented.

 

[swalsh411]

You could also consider acting like an honorable person with a sense of morals and believe that the case should be heard on it's merits.

 

[Willlyjo]

Once again Willjo proves greater ignorance than Joe's willy possesses.

OP Here is the rule you are looking for:
http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/CurrentCourtRules/1Chapter4DistrictCourt.pdf
Rule 4.306 Removal to Trial Court
(A) Demand. A party may demand that the action be removed from the small
claims division to the trial court for further proceedings by
(1) signing a written demand for removal and filing it with the clerk at or before
the time set for hearing; or
(2) appearing before the court at the time and place set for hearing and
demanding removal.
(B) Order; Fee. On receiving a demand for removal, the court shall, by a written
order filed in the action, direct removal to the trial court for further proceedings.
(1) The order must direct a defendant to file a written answer and serve it as
provided in MCR 2.107 within 14 days after the date of the order.
(2) A copy of the order must be mailed to each party by the clerk.
(3) There is no fee for the removal, order, or mailing.
(C) Motion for More Definite Statement. After removal, the affidavit is deemed to be
a sufficient statement of the plaintiff's claim unless a defendant, within the time
permitted for answer, files a motion for a more definite statement.
(1) The motion must state the information sought and must be supported by an
affidavit that the defendant
(a) does not have the information and cannot secure it with the exercise of
reasonable diligence, and
(b) is unable to answer the plaintiff's claim without it.
(2) The court may decide the motion without a hearing on just and reasonable
terms or may direct that a hearing be held after notice to both parties at a time
set by the court.
(3) If the plaintiff fails to file a more definite statement after having been
ordered to do so, the clerk shall dismiss the claim for want of prosecution.
(D) Default. On removal, if the defendant fails to file an answer or motion within
the time permitted, the clerk shall enter the default of the defendant. MCR 2.603
governs further proceedings.
(E) Procedure After Removal. Except as provided in this rule, further proceedings in
actions removed to the trial court are governed by the rules applicable to other civil
actions.

DC

And who in their right mind would go through all that mumble jumble to litigate a matter in District Court that would allow one to secure a judgement for 750.00? Such a ploy by either the Plaintiff or Defendant would be more costly and time consuming. There is absolutely no benefit to do such a thing as remove from Small Claims to District unless there is other issues that would raise the damages and/or complicate the case allowing the need for an Attorney's representation.

BTW...I don't believe the Plaintiff nor the Defendant would want to pay an Attorney to rep them in a higher court since the cost would probably be twice the amount in Attorney fees. And, in my honest opinion, if the Plaintiff or the Defendant would do this pro se for such a simple case, they could very well be sanctioned for creating a waste of the court's time and resources.

 

[TigerD]

And, in my honest opinion, if the Plaintiff or the Defendant would do this pro se for such a simple case, they could very well be sanctioned for creating a waste of the court's time and resources.

Sigh ...
Come, you are a tedious fool. You speak an infinite deal of nothing.

 

[Willlyjo]

Sigh ...
Come, you are a tedious fool. You speak an infinite deal of nothing.

It's funny how an Attorney (Latigo) looked at responses, which include mine, an hour later, before he called Proserpina on her ignorant post. Seems like he was okay with what I posted. I see him as credible--not you.

 

[Proserpina]

Sigh ...
Come, you are a tedious fool. You speak an infinite deal of nothing.

DC, there comes a point where you just have to laugh.

(No amount of backpedaling by Willlyjo will help him - 'fraid that's the truth)

 

[Willlyjo]

DC, there comes a point where you just have to laugh.

(No amount of backpedaling by Willlyjo will help him - 'fraid that's the truth)

You and DC just can't admit my posts make more sense than yours,eh? You can't discern between truth and fiction. At least you aint accusing me of practicing law.

 

[quincy]

You and DC just can't admit my posts make more sense than yours,eh? You can't discern between truth and fiction. At least you aint accusing me of practicing law.

No one will ever accuse you of practicing law, Willly, because you have to know at least a little bit of law in order to be accused of practicing it.

See FlyingRon's post among the others to see why you are wrong once again.

Honestly, Willly, why don't you just find a Justin Bieber website to play on - the kids there may be more amused by you than we are.