Received a Small Claims Court summons as I'm getting ready to relocate abroad

[diputz42]

I am in California but am soon relocating to Germany.

I am a natural born US citizen and I own property in California. The small claims summons I was served with was related to a plumber that came to my condo January 2013 to unclog a clogged toilet sewer line. The thing is the plumber showed up at my condo with the building manager (this is a 300+ unit high rise) to perform the work. I was never given a price estimate and never signed off on any of the work since I assumed the building would handle the charges since the clog was in common wall between my unit and a neighboring unit.

After completing the job, the plumber contacted me and insisted that I pay them $250 for the job. They claimed I had signed off to authorize the work. When they sent me the signed invoice, the signature was not mine and it was in fact the building's head engineer that signed off on the work. I argued with the plumber that if the building signed off on the work, they should recoup the costs from the building itself, not from me.

I left the business a negative Yelp review detailing the lack of communication they displayed in failing to disclose the cost of the job to me prior to performing services and the lack of professionalism they displayed in failing to even get my expressed consent in working. They then sent me various letters over the next 5 months threatening to sue me if I didn't remove the "slanderous" yelp review. I held by my position that my review was a first hand encounter of my experience with their company and that none of it was untrue. I also updated the review to clarify what was fact versus opinion.

In the last correspondence I received from the plumber, they requested that I remove my review from Yelp. It also stated that "As a courtesy, ... the charges for the job were waived."

On June 14, I was served Form SC-100 to appear in Small Claims Court. Well, technically, I wasn't even served myself. They served my roommate who happens to have the same first name as I do. According to my roommate, the server simply showed up, asked him "Are you [First Name]?", upon which he replied "Yes". The server then gave my roommate the papers and left without verification of his identity. Would this constitute invalid service?

Also, the business is suing me for $5,000! Some arbitrary number that, according to them, is for "balance, plus all late fees and compensation for negative review."

So the court trial is set for June 30, 2014. The problem is my flight has already been booked. I fly out to Germany on June 29 so I can arrive on June 30 and begin employment on July 1. I'm not coming back to the US until December 19 for the holidays. Is this a valid reason to file SC-150 to postpone the trial until my winter break? And if so, how likely would a court be willing to postpone the trial for 6 months?

The last part. Per California Civil Code 1670.8, it's illegal for businesses to threaten consumers to remove a negative review. Doing so is punishable up to $2,500 plus $10,000 for a "willful" violation. Can I counter-sue the business for $10,000 for their retaliatory tactics in this matter?

 

[Zigner]

Per California Civil Code 1670.8, it's illegal for businesses to threaten consumers to remove a negative review.

No, it's not. That has been proposed, but not passed.

 

[Proserpina]

Unless you want a default judgment, you best be in court that day.


Take a look here, and tell us which part may be relevant:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_2351-2400/ab_2365_bill_20140424_amended_asm_v98.htm

Did your contract include such a provision?

 

[Zigner]

Unless you want a default judgment, you best be in court that day.


Take a look here, and tell us which part may be relevant:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_2351-2400/ab_2365_bill_20140424_amended_asm_v98.htm

Did your contract include such a provision?

It doesn't matter. That's not a law, it's a bill.

 

[Proserpina]

No, it's not. That has been proposed, but not passed.

I'm not convinced it actually says what OP thinks it says anyway...

 

[Proserpina]

It doesn't matter. That's not a law, it's a bill.

Shhh, I was cross-typing. Flash fingers, you are

 

[Zigner]

Shhh, I was cross-typing. Flash fingers, you are

Let me bask in it - I'm rarely fast enough to keep up!

 

[dcatz]

Actually, the bill passed in May. No alternative effective date was specified, so it will become effective January 1, 2015. No provision is included for retroactive application, so statutory construction would dictate that there is none. Under the circumstances, it seems rather frivolous to discuss whether the provisions of a prospective law comport with your understanding of how that law might apply to your particular present problem. It isn’t Law yet.

Good service wasn’t made, but filing the SC-150 to ask for a postponement will be treated as a waiver of the defect. And you’re correct in your assumption: the Court will not be happy with a 6-month delay. What it will do is anybody’s guess. Mine is that it will be granted nevertheless, because there’s good cause and statutory compliance, but it’s a guess.

To fully comply with the requirements of SC-150, you have to act promptly. Are you going to indicate that you’ve filed a counter-claim (and actually try to do it)?

My advice would be to settle the case with a Release and mutual “walk-aways”. The plaintiff once offered to waive it’s claim and would probably return to that position. You’ve already had well over a year on Yelp, even if you delete your review (could you?).

I believe you’re both PO’d and, if the litigation continues, both are going to be unhappy with the results, whatever they may be.