Demand Letter for Corporate Defendant

[bokaba]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I am considering suing a California corporation in small claims court. I am aware that I should serve process to the corporation's agent listed on the Secretary of State's website. Should I also send my demand letter to this agent or to the corporation itself?

 

[bokaba]

This corporation also has multiple offices. The H.Q. listed is a P.O. box. Should I direct my demand letter to the attorney who is the agent for process or to the actual office where the defective work was done?

 

[Sloop John D]

I would start by sending the demand letter to the agent for service of process and see if you get a response. If you don't then you can try sending a second copy to the actual office where the work was performed.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I am considering suing a California corporation in small claims court. I am aware that I should (?) serve process to the corporation's agent listed on the Secretary of State's website. Should I also send my demand letter to this agent or to the corporation itself?

If you are of the mind that the corporation’s designated registered agent is obligated to take any action whatsoever with respect to your proposed "demand letter", or will voluntarily act upon it, such as forwarding it to the corporation, you are much mistaken.

But if you want to waste the postage, go ahead.

Also, contrary to your apparent belief, there are other means of effecting service of summons upon a California corporation such as personal service upon "the president, chief executive officer, a vice president, a secretary or assistant secretary, a treasurer or assistant treasurer, a controller or chief financial officer, or a general manager". Cal. CCP 416.10(b).

 

[bokaba]

I'm not holding my breath or anything.

 

[Sloop John D]

If you are of the mind that the corporation’s designated registered agent is obligated to take any action whatsoever with respect to your proposed "demand letter", or will voluntarily act upon it, such as forwarding it to the corporation, you are much mistaken.

That's really the only purpose an agent for service of process serves. If the designated agent isn't going to inform the corporation about lawsuits filed against them, then you shouldn't have any problem sending him the complaint and then getting a default judgment when the corporation fails to respond.

There's a decent chance that the selected agent for service of process has some affiliation with the corporation's chosen legal counsel. I don't think they'll just sit on a demand letter if it appears there is a valid claim.

 

[latigo]

That's really the only purpose an agent for service of process serves. If the designated agent isn't going to inform the corporation about lawsuits filed against them, then you shouldn't have any problem sending him the complaint and then getting a default judgment when the corporation fails to respond.

There's a decent chance that the selected agent for service of process has some affiliation with the corporation's chosen legal counsel. I don't think they'll just sit on a demand letter if it appears there is a valid claim.

Just curious, but is your noggin still cramping from this tortured logic? Mine is from trying to make sense of it.

First you report that the registered agent's sole function with respect to the designating corporation is to accept service of process on its behalf. (Agreed.)

But then in addition (and apparently only if the agent has some “affiliation with the corporation’s chosen legal counsel”) should it receive a letter of demand concerning a claim against the designating corporation (rather than summons and complaint) they ought not to “sit on it if the claim appears valid”. Did I miss anything?

Maybe it would be less tormenting for me if you were to explain how the claimant is to predict the “chances” of the agent having “an affiliation with chosen counsel” and if so, how the agent might go about unilaterally assessing the merits of the claimant’s written demand. And thus have some reasonable assurance that the agent will forward the letter on to the corporation.

BUT if as you suggest, the agent is inclined “not to inform the designating corporation about lawsuits pending against them” and thus permitting the plaintiff to breeze through and obtain a default judgment. In other words, the agent “sits on it”. Wouldn’t it be equally remiss with respect to a demand letter?

 

[Sloop John D]

Just curious, but is your noggin still cramping from this tortured logic? Mine is from trying to make sense of it.

First you report that the registered agent's sole function with respect to the designating corporation is to accept service of process on its behalf. (Agreed.)

But then in addition (and apparently only if the agent has some “affiliation with the corporation’s chosen legal counsel”) should it receive a letter of demand concerning a claim against the designating corporation (rather than summons and complaint) they ought not to “sit on it if the claim appears valid”. Did I miss anything?

Maybe it would be less tormenting for me if you were to explain how the claimant is to predict the “chances” of the agent having “an affiliation with chosen counsel” and if so, how the agent might go about unilaterally assessing the merits of the claimant’s written demand. And thus have some reasonable assurance that the agent will forward the letter on to the corporation.

BUT if as you suggest, the agent is inclined “not to inform the designating corporation about lawsuits pending against them” and thus permitting the plaintiff to breeze through and obtain a default judgment. In other words, the agent “sits on it”. Wouldn’t it be equally remiss with respect to a demand letter?

You're over thinking this. If a corporation has chosen an attorney to represent the company, then frequently they will simply designate the attorney as the agent for service of process. That means the demand letter goes right to the corporation's legal counsel.

Even if the agent for service of process is not the corporation's legal counsel, it's the job of the agent for service of process to make sure that important legal documents are getting sent to the right people. If the agent is doing his job, then he should forward any demand letters he receives to the appropriate individual who would be in charge of responding.

If you happen to find that the agent for service of process is not doing his job and is simply ignoring any correspondence that comes through, then you can serve the complaint on him, and then try to get a default judgment when the defendant fails to respond.

 

[bokaba]

I would prefer to avoid litigation if possible. I will wait a couple of weeks to hear from the agent or the H.Q. If I do not receive a response, I will send the demand letter to the actual office where the work was performed. If I hear no response or a total refusal to pay a settlement, I will go ahead and file my complaint and serve the agent as required by California law.

 

[tranquility]

I would prefer to avoid litigation if possible. I will wait a couple of weeks to hear from the agent or the H.Q. If I do not receive a response, I will send the demand letter to the actual office where the work was performed. If I hear no response or a total refusal to pay a settlement, I will go ahead and file my complaint and serve the agent as required by California law.

Have you talked with anyone there yet? I think there is little that will be accomplished by a "demand" letter that could not be resolved by a call. Or, are you just following protocol to check the box on the claim document?

 

[bokaba]

The defendant contacted me today just to let me know they wouldn't dignify my demand with a response. I guess we'll be going to court.

 

[tranquility]

That is not a surprise no matter the facts. Since we have no idea of what those facts are, we can't help you decide if going to court will help or hurt you.

 

[bokaba]

This is basically my fact statement minus specific names and dates:

I went into a local franchise tire center for routine maintenance about two months ago when they informed me that my radiator had a small crack and needed to be replaced immediately. The original radiator "appeared" to be working fine and was neither dropping coolant nor restricting flow. They weren't putting me on about the crack because they showed it me. I agreed to have the radiator replaced.

About a month and half later, I started having overheating problems out of the blue with no warning. One day, the engine shot up all the way to the top of the heat meter within a few minutes on the freeway. I was able to pull over and was towed back to my house. The radiator was empty and I refilled it. By morning, it was completely empty, so I had the car towed to the shop where the radiator had been installed. They examined the car and said that a heater hose had blown, which needed to be replaced. They replaced the heater hose and the car ran somewhat normally for about two days until the radiator drained again, this time luckily while it was parked in front of my house. The engine now would not even start. I had it towed back to the shop again.

This time they informed me that the head gasket had blown and would need to be replaced, but that was not work they were equipped to perform. I had the car then towed to another shop to perform the work. The mechanics at the other shop stated that the gasket was blown and that coolant had leaked into the oil, which had in turn leaked into the crankshaft causing the heads to knock. This would require an engine replacement. I check around to make sure this was the case and other shops agreed. The owner of the shop also noted that the radiator that had been installed initially was defective and the interior had collapsed causing restricting to the engine, which caused the engine to be destroyed.

The shop that installed the initial radiator did not notice the defect when my car was there for several days on and off over the course of the past three or so weeks. The new engine, towing fees, and rental fees, not including lost wages and the cost of the original work, totaled around $5,000. This is what I am seeking to recover. I suppose I will begin by complaining to the California Bureau of Automotive Repair and see if that gets the shop to the bargaining table.

 

[tranquility]

You have a lot of problems in your demand. The first is a probable limitation of liability in your contract. After that, is your cause of action. I assume you will claim product liability in that the radiator was defective. There will be some limitations on what damages you could claim there. Also, in any cause of action, it will be the theory of mitigation and, of course, causation. Both are related and relate to how the damage occurred. Finally will be proof. You have MANY steps that will need to be proven and each may take more than your word for this kind of money.

Good luck. You have a lot of work ahead of you. The only advice I can offer is to try to get as much proof as you can of each step including affidavits from experts regarding the defective radiator.