small claims - domestication

[mrmagoo]

What is the name of your state? virginia
i have a question regarding a person in california i'm considering suing in smalll claims court. if i file the claim in virginia and won, how hard is it and what would it involve to have the case domesticated and the award or judgement placed in that person's jurisdication? thanks!

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

What is the name of your state? virginia
i have a question regarding a person in california i'm considering suing in smalll claims court. if i file the claim in virginia and won, how hard is it and what would it involve to have the case domesticated and the award or judgement placed in that person's jurisdication? thanks!

My response:

Please explain why Virginia would have jurisdiction over a California citizen. What type of action are you planning to file? Did the California party have any "contacts" with the State of Virginia; e.g., does the California citizen own real estate in, or conduct business within, or have a domicile within, the State of Virginia? If Virginia does not have jurisdiction, for whatever reason, a Virginia court (the judge) may dismiss the action you have filed.

But, to answer your question, and at this point, assuming Virginia does have jurisdiction to hear your claims, all but a few jurisdictions allow a party with a final judgment from another state to use an expedited procedure to "domesticate" (register) an out-of-state judgment, effectively converting it into a local judgment.

Pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), the holder of a California judgment entitled to "full faith and credit" (i.e., a jurisdictionally valid final judgment) may file with the clerk of the court of the other state an authenticated copy of the judgment, an affidavit setting forth the name and last known address of the judgment creditor, and any required filing fee. The out-of-state clerk will mail notice of the filing to the judgment debtor and file proof of this mailing in the docket. The judgment creditor may also mail notice of the filing to the judgment debtor and file proof of mailing with the clerk.

A California judgment so registered may be enforced in accordance with the laws of the registering jurisdiction, as if it had been originally rendered in that jurisdiction. However, execution or other process frequently may not issue until some time after filing of the judgment or notice of judgment; and, upon the judgment debtor's request, enforcement may be stayed upon a showing that an appeal is pending or will be taken, or that a stay has been granted in California, along with proof that any required bond has been posted. Additionally, a stay may be granted in accordance with the laws of the out-of-state jurisdiction. [See UEFJA §§ 1-§§ 5]

Although state law is silent on the subject, the cause of action to establish a foreign country judgment as a California judgment probably accrues when the foreign country judgment is entered or otherwise becomes effective. This is because (i) the Act authorizes California courts to stay all proceedings until a foreign country judgment is finally determined on appeal, or until the time for appeal has expired; and (ii) no proceeding to domesticate a foreign country judgment is deemed pending unless a complaint is filed with a California court.

A judgment from a sister state is entitled to the same "full faith and credit" in every court within the United States as it has by law or usage in the courts of the sister state. [See U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 1; 28 USCA § 1738; see also Valley Nat'l Bank v. A.E. Rouse & Co. (9th Cir. 1997) 121 F.3d 1332, 1335--federal court may not refuse to enforce valid state court judgment on ground enforcement would violate some unarticulated federal public policy]

Thus, a sister state judgment rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties is given collateral estoppel and res judicata effect nationwide:

"A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land. For claim and issue preclusion (res judicata) purposes, in other words, the judgment of the rendering State gains nationwide force." [Baker by Thomas v. General Motors Corp. (1988) 522 U.S. 222, 233, 118 S.Ct. 657, 663-664 (parentheses in original); see also Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Jennett (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 104, 113, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 359, 364]

Enforcement measures governed by local law:
Nonetheless, "full faith and credit" does not mean states must adopt the practices of other states regarding the time, manner and mechanisms for enforcing judgments. Indeed, enforcement measures do not travel with the sister state judgment; rather, such measures remain subject to the "even-handed control of forum law." [Baker by Thomas v. General Motors Corp., supra, 522 U.S. at 235, 118 S.Ct. at 665]

Accordingly, a sister state judgment is enforced in California pursuant to California law.

Enforcing Sister State Judgments in California:
A sister state judgment cannot be enforced in California until it is "domesticated" (or registered) as a California judgment in accordance with applicable law--generally, pursuant to the Sister State Money-Judgments Act or by bringing an action to establish the judgment in California (see Ca Civ Pro § 1913). Thus, a writ of execution may not issue on an out-of-state judgment until it is entered as a California judgment; and recordation of a sister state judgment in California will not itself create a real property judgment lien. [Kahn v. Berman (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1499, 1505, 244 Cal.Rptr. 575, 577-578]

Sister State Money-Judgments Act:
Under the Sister State Money-Judgments Act ("SSMJA," Ca Civ Pro § 1710.10 et seq.), a money judgment obtained in another state may be filed with a California court and a California judgment immediately entered thereon. The judgment so obtained is fully enforceable in California (subject generally to a 30-day stay after service of notice of entry on the judgment debtor. [Washoe Develop. Co. v. Guaranty Fed'l Bank (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1521-1522, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 479, 481--SSMJA provides expeditious and economical registration procedure for enforcing sister state money judgments]

Scope of Act
Applicable only to money judgments:
Generally, all out-of-state money judgments are enforceable under the Act . . . except for family law support orders (enforceable instead under the UIFSA, Ca Fam § 4900 et seq.). Nonmoney judgments are all outside the scope of the Act. [Ca Civ Pro § 1710.10; as to enforcement of sister state support orders]

Thus, if a sister state judgment requires both the payment of money and performance of some other act (e.g., the conveyance of land), the nonmoney portion of the judgment must be enforced by separate civil action.

IAAL

 

[mrmagoo]

IAAL, sorry I wasn't clear about my case. I purchased some very expensive sports merchandise from a Ebay client who sells items to people all over the country, this person has a website but calls california home.

i am from virginia. i was under the assumption that since I reside in virginia and this person from california, either state has venue.
i'm not sure how this apply to selling items over the internet since this person sells to people nationwide. again, I appreciate all your help and looking forward to your reply.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

IAAL, sorry I wasn't clear about my case. I purchased some very expensive sports merchandise from a Ebay client who sells items to people all over the country, this person has a website but calls california home.

i am from virginia. i was under the assumption that since I reside in virginia and this person from california, either state has venue.
i'm not sure how this apply to selling items over the internet since this person sells to people nationwide. again, I appreciate all your help and looking forward to your reply.

My response:

Okay, this is a "contract" matter. I wish you had mentioned that in your initial post.

Well, you can try filing in Virginia - - since the contract was consummated in Virginia, but due to the fact that a one-time sale to a Virginia citizen, and the fact that the California citizen doesn't have any business or domicile or real estate in Virginia, it's highly doubtful that you'll be able to satisfy the "minimum contacts" requirement for jurisdiction in Virginia; i.e., the Virginia judge may very well dismiss your claim, without prejudice, so that you can re-file in California.

You see, this is one of the major problems of people doing business across State lines. They don't realize that when problems arise, that "relief" in the courts can be very trying, and VERY expensive.

For your own well-being, please stop conducting business across State lines. By and large, the items that you purchased were more than likely available locally and, if so, you could have avoided all these new problems.

Moral of the Story - -

When conducting business across State lines, one of the parties knows that the amount in controversy, and the abilities of the party, make it extremely disadvantageous to sue. This is why so many people get ripped off, because one of the parties to the contract knows that it is economic suicide to enforce their rights, and just give up.

Buy locally, or don't buy at all.

IAAL

 

[ettermaj]

Long Arm

State = PA

I know that many states have some long arm statutes that might give you standing. For example, PA's long arm gives any Pennsylvania resident who has suffered a pecuniary loss or other wrong from an out of state resident standing to bring suit in a PA court. Generally, provided that you can substantiate your residency you can bring suit and the courts would have SJ & PJ.

-Josh

 

[racer72]

State = PA

I know that many states have some long arm statutes that might give you standing. For example, PA's long arm gives any Pennsylvania resident who has suffered a pecuniary loss or other wrong from an out of state resident standing to bring suit in a PA court. Generally, provided that you can substantiate your residency you can bring suit and the courts would have SJ & PJ.

-Josh

What it the hell does this have to do with the OP? Absolutely nothing.

 

[JETX]

Though I think that 'Etter' brings up a good issue (jurisdiction in the 'world' of internet reach), it doesn't apply in this case.

The original 'advertisement' was not made on a site established and run by the seller, but by ebay. As such, this is MISSING an essential link required to establish the SELLERS jurisdiction into Pennsylvania.

For more on this, I refer you to:
"In deciding the jurisdiction issue, the Pennsylvania Superior Court discussed the "emerging case law" with respect to Internet jurisdiction. The Third Circuit's district courts addressing of the relationship between personal jurisdiction and foreign Internet websites have established a "sliding scale" of jurisdiction based largely on the degree and type of interactivity on the website. The court essentially mandated a three-tier scale, which consists of passive websites, interactive websites, and aggressive websites. Id. at 449. The distinctions are self-explanatory. Passive websites simply make information available for those from other states who are interested, interactive websites allow a user to exchange information with the host computer, while aggressive websites enter into contracts with residents of other jurisdictions and are involved in the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet. Essentially, the sliding scale of jurisdiction is based predominantly on the degree and scope of the interactivity on the website. Id at 450.

As further discussed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Taylor v. Fedra International, Ltd. 2003 Pa. Super. 233, 828 A.2d 378, 381 (Pa. Super 2003), there are two types of in personam jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. The first type of personal jurisdiction is general jurisdiction, which is derived from a defendant's general activities with the state. The second type is specific jurisdiction, which is more specific and arises out of the defendant's actions in the underlying cause of action. In the cases of both in personam and general jurisdiction, however, the exercise of jurisdiction must be in compliance with Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, which adopts the minimum requirements of the United States Constitution's due process clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Essentially, as was originally explained in the seminal case of Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985), in order to meet the due process requirement, it still must be shown that a defendant had meaningful contact with the forum and had availed itself to the forum's benefits and such that it also should be subjected to the forum's state laws and regulations."
http://www.marshalldennehey.com/cm/defensedigest/defensedigest114.asp

 

[coosi]

What about this?

International Star Registry of Illinois v. Bowman-Haight Ventures, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7009 (N.D. Ill. 1999)

Facts: In International Star Registry, International Star Registry (ISR), an Illinois corporation, sued Bowman-Haight Ventures (BHV), a Virginia corporation, in the Northern District of Illinois. ISR claimed that BHV committed acts of trademark infringement and unfair competition and that jurisdiction was proper in Illinois because of BHV's Internet contacts with residents of the state of Illinois. In response, BHV argued that the court did not have personal jurisdiction.

Held: The court found that BHV's Internet activity in Illinois put BHV into the "clearly doing business" category on the Zippo sliding scale and, consequently found that it had personal jurisdiction over BHV. The court based its holding on the fact that BHV sold its product over the Internet through a secure credit card order form to at least twenty-two Illinois residents and, consequently, economically benefited from transacting business in Illinois.

www.unc.edu/courses/law357c/cyberprojects/spring01/Jurisdiction/pj/internetcases.htm

 

[coosi]

Bochan v. La Fontaine et al. 1


Facts: Plaintiff, a Virginia resident, sued defendants, Texas and New Mexico residents, for defamation for posting libelous messages from Texas and New Mexico on Internet newsgroups.

Ruling: The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).

Analysis: Defendants posted “unsavory postings” regarding plaintiff and defendants' arguments regarding John F. Kennedy conspiracy theories. Plaintiff alleged that the Texas defendants posted the allegedly defamatory messages using an account with AOL, a Virginia-based company, had advertised, promoted, and sold their book in Virginia, knew that plaintiff resided and worked in Virginia, and knew that the reputational harm, as well as the emotional distress, would be suffered in Virginia. Plaintiff alleged that the New Mexico defendant had a website for his business, Computer Works, which is interactive, contains contact information and advertisements, and is accessible to Virginia residents 24 hours a day, and had advertised specific computers in a variety of newsgroups suggesting that he would take credit cards over the Internet, and that there were no geographical limitations on buyers.

The Texas defendants asserted they (a) had not been in Virginia since 1993, when they drove from National Airport to the District of Columbia, (b) had not participated in any book promotions in Virginia, (c) received no royalties from Virginia sales as they did not directly sell their book in Virginia, nor did they directly receive royalties on books sold by others in Virginia, but rather received royalties on the total books sold by their publisher to national chains, and (d) had never derived any revenue that they are aware of from Virginia. Moreover, they alleged they (a) did not have their own website, (b) did not conduct commercial activity over the Internet, and (c) made the allegedly defamatory postings by accessing the Internet through a California-based Internet service provider.

The New Mexico defendant asserted he (a) had never conducted any business in Virginia, (b) had only visited Virginia once, in 1994, to attend a Washington, D.C. conference and visit some historic sites in Virginia, (c) did not use any Virginia-based company in posting the allegedly defamatory comments, but instead used either California or New Mexico-based Internet service providers, and (d) did not direct his Internet postings to any Virginia resident. In addition, he noted that (a) his website specifically states that Computer Works (his company) sells computers only in New Mexico, and (b) Computer Works has never sold any computers or computer products to anyone in Virginia.

Plaintiff contended that jurisdiction exists over all defendants on the basis of two separate prongs of Virginia's long arm statute, Va. Code §8.01-328.1(A)(3) and §8.01-328.1(A)(4). Under §8.01-328.1(A)(3), a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant who causes "tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth." Under §8.01-328.1(A)(4), a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant who causes "tortious injury in this Commonwealth by an act or omission outside this Commonwealth" if that defendant (a) regularly does or solicits business in Virginia, (b) engages in any other persistent course of conduct in Virginia, or (c) derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered. The court agreed with the analysis in Telco Communications Group, Inc. v. An Apple a Day, Inc., 977 F. Supp. 404 (E.D. Va. 1997) that jurisdiction existed under §8.01-328.1(A)(3) for the Texas residents on the ground that "ut for the Internet service providers [AOL] and users present in Virginia, the alleged tort of defamation would not have occurred in Virginia."

The court found that the New Mexico defendant (who did not use AOL) owned Computer Works, had solicited business in Virginia by promoting and advertising his computer hardware company on the Internet through its website, accessible to Virginia Internet users 24 hours a day. The court found the website to be interactive in several ways, although no sales were concluded through it. “Moreover, even if the website contains sufficient geographic limitations to diminish its jurisdictional significance outside those geographic areas, Harris's own advertisements of specific computers on Internet newsgroups include his name, company and telephone numbers so that he can be contacted, and state that there are no surcharges for Visa or Mastercard, occasionally specifically request reply by email, and in no way appear to place geographical limits on buyers.” “Under these circumstances,” the court ruled, [defendant] sufficiently advertises and solicits business within Virginia to find personal jurisdiction within the meaning of §8.01-328.1(A)(4) of the Virginia long-arm” statute.

www.madcapps.com/writings/asurvey.htm - 274k

 

[JETX]

What about this?

International Star Registry of Illinois v. Bowman-Haight Ventures, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7009 (N.D. Ill. 1999)

What about it?? Your 'reference' is in the wrong jurisdiction and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issues raised in this thread.

Shows that you need to be able to read and UNDERSTAND court rulings and their application.

 

[JETX]

Coosi, quit posting!!
Neither of your posts have ANY relevance to the issues at hand in this thread.

Clearly, you are ignorant on the issues of law.... and their application.

 

[coosi]

This is what I was responding to regarding
"relevance to the issues at hand in this thread."

Quote:
Originally posted by gizmo91298
What is the name of your state? virginia
i have a question regarding a person in california i'm considering suing in smalll claims court. if i file the claim in virginia and won, how hard is it and what would it involve to have the case domesticated and the award or judgement placed in that person's jurisdication? thank

My response:

Please explain why Virginia would have jurisdiction over a California citizen. What type of action are you planning to file? Did the California party have any "contacts" with the State of Virginia; e.g., does the California citizen own real estate in, or conduct business within, or have a domicile within, the State of Virginia? If Virginia does not have jurisdiction, for whatever reason, a Virginia court (the judge) may dismiss the action you have filed.

 

[JETX]

Okay, since you seem incapable of understanding very simple concepts, lets try this one more time.... very slowly so that you might be able to follow.....

The original writer is in VIRGINIA. The site the product was 'advertised' on is eBay (in CALIFORNIA). The seller is in CALIFORNIA.
With me so far???

Your first post was about a an ILLINOIS company being sued for "trademark infringement and unfair competition' by a VIRGINIA company in FEDERAL court in ILLINOIS!! Can you see where this is NOT relevant to the issue??

Your second post was about a VIRGINIA resident suing defamation against an individual TEXAS (while using a web server based in VIRGINIA) and NEW MEXICO (claiming that their site had 'solicited' business in VIRGINIA). Can you see where this is also NOT relevant to the issue.

Did you miss the fact that the seller has NO independent 'internet presence' in VIRGINIA or anywhere else for that matter???

Clearly, Coosi, you are a twit.... and a nitwit!!

 

[coosi]

The original writer is in VIRGINIA. The site the product was 'advertised' on is eBay (in CALIFORNIA). The seller is in CALIFORNIA.
With me so far???

***The OP stated "if I file a claim in Virginia"

***He bought the items over the internet

Your first post was about a an ILLINOIS company being sued for "trademark infringement and unfair competition' by a VIRGINIA company in FEDERAL court in ILLINOIS!! Can you see where this is NOT relevant to the issue??

Held: The court found that BHV's Internet activity in Illinois put BHV into the "clearly doing business" category on the Zippo sliding scale and, consequently found that it had personal jurisdiction over BHV. The court based its holding on the fact that BHV sold its product over the Internet through a secure credit card order form to at least twenty-two Illinois residents and, consequently, economically benefited from transacting business in Illinois.

***This was a FEDERAL court decision.

Your second post was about a VIRGINIA resident suing defamation against an individual TEXAS (while using a web server based in VIRGINIA) and NEW MEXICO (claiming that their site had 'solicited' business in VIRGINIA). Can you see where this is also NOT relevant to the issue.

Plaintiff contended that jurisdiction exists over all defendants on the basis of two separate prongs of Virginia's long arm statute, Va. Code §8.01-328.1(A)(3) and §8.01-328.1(A)(4). Under §8.01-328.1(A)(3), a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant who causes "tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth." Under §8.01-328.1(A)(4), a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant who causes "tortious injury in this Commonwealth by an act or omission outside this Commonwealth" if that defendant (a) regularly does or solicits business in Virginia, (b) engages in any other persistent course of conduct in Virginia, or (c) derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered. The court agreed with the analysis in Telco Communications Group, Inc. v. An Apple a Day, Inc., 977 F. Supp. 404 (E.D. Va. 1997) that jurisdiction existed under §8.01-328.1(A)(3) for the Texas residents on the ground that "ut for the Internet service providers [AOL] and users present in Virginia, the alleged tort of defamation would not have occurred in Virginia."

The court found that the New Mexico defendant (who did not use AOL) owned Computer Works, had solicited business in Virginia by promoting and advertising his computer hardware company on the Internet through its website, accessible to Virginia Internet users 24 hours a day. The court found the website to be interactive in several ways, although no sales were concluded through it. “Moreover, even if the website contains sufficient geographic limitations to diminish its jurisdictional significance outside those geographic areas, Harris's own advertisements of specific computers on Internet newsgroups include his name, company and telephone numbers so that he can be contacted, and state that there are no surcharges for Visa or Mastercard, occasionally specifically request reply by email, and in no way appear to place geographical limits on buyers.” “Under these circumstances,” the court ruled, [defendant] sufficiently advertises and solicits business within Virginia to find personal jurisdiction within the meaning of §8.01-328.1(A)(4) of the Virginia long-arm” statute.[/QUOTE

**And, no big news here, you are frequently a horses patooty

 

[JETX]

Post all the drivel you want. The bottom line is still the same.... you have NO legal experience or knowledge, which is clear in your posts. And no matter how simply I try to explain the issue to you, your legal ignorance is still preventing you from understanding.
I am through trying to help you.... and trying to undo your damage on this forum. Say goodbye.