A jeweler never gave me the ring he made that I paid for

[quincy]

You're kidding, right? Whether it's worth the hassle and cost of suing in Kansas (or trying to enforce a CA judgment in Kansas) for $888 is something you'll have to decide for yourself.





A California superior court would have personal jurisdiction over the seller, but the OP would have to sue in "regular" court since California small claims courts lack jurisdiction over non-residents, except in a couple circumstances not applicable here. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code section 116.340(e)-(g).

We really don’t know enough about the seller to rule out the possibility of filing a small claims suit against him in California. But the seller would need to be served in California.

 

[Taxing Matters]

But the seller would need to be served in California.

Not necessarily. Certainly if the seller was sued in Kansas service could be made in Kansas. And even if sued in California, service might still be able to be done in Kansas. The California bar article I linked earlier has suggestions on doing just that.

 

[quincy]

Not necessarily. Certainly if the seller was sued in Kansas service could be made in Kansas. And even if sued in California, service might still be able to be done in Kansas. The California bar article I linked earlier has suggestions on doing just that.

Ah. I didn’t read what you linked to.

Have now. Good information.

 

[zddoodah]

And even if sued in California, service might still be able to be done in Kansas. The California bar article I linked earlier has suggestions on doing just that.

That county bar association document is all well and good, but the law is what matters.

For starters, if the suit is filed in the limited division of the superior court (i.e., not small claims court), then service on a non-resident defendant may be effected by certified mail under section 415.40 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

However, if the suit is filed in small claims court, then "Service shall be made within [California], except" in cases involving (i) a claim relating to real property in California that is owned by a non-resident, or (ii) a claim relating to the operation of a motor vehicle in California by a non-resident. Civ. Proc. Code section 116.340(e)-(g). While I can't site a case (i.e., I'm not going to that time and effort), section 116.340 is typically interpreted to mean that California small claims courts lack personal jurisdiction over non-residents except in the two classes of cases mentioned in subsections (f) and (g).

The statement in the bar association document that "[a]n out-of-state defendant may be sued in Small claims Court in California if the dispute stems from actions in California" is overly broad, and the example of a defendant who "entered into, performed or breach [a contract] in California" is not supported by the law.

 

[quincy]

... typically interpreted to mean that California small claims courts lack personal jurisdiction over non-residents except in the two classes of cases mentioned in subsections (f) and (g).

What I have quoted above is incorrect. There are several ways a small claims court could have jurisdiction over an out-of-state resident. But we have not been given enough information on the seller (e.g., does he have a physical business in the state).