Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

CA Small Claims Court - JX Question

Hi all, Family member asked me to look over a timeshare-e grinder03/25/18
This is not really my area, but here's an article on the sub guyingorillasuit03/26/18
Thanks, this is very helpful. The consumer/public policy an grinder03/26/18
Was your family member financially harmed? clocker103/26/18
Yep. They’re denying a primary benefit of the contract th grinder03/27/18
grinder (Mar 25, 2018 - 11:00 pm)

Hi all,

Family member asked me to look over a timeshare-esque agreement he entered into with a sketchy looking foreign business. Contract says that jurisdiction shall be the Dominican Republic and that the contract shall be interpreted under the laws of the Dominican Republic. Has anyone dealt with this type of agreement in CA small claims court? I've managed family member's expectations, but I'm wondering if there's a chance that small claims court might find such a clause to be unenforceable.

Thanks!

Reply Like (0)
guyingorillasuit (Mar 26, 2018 - 12:14 am)

This is not really my area, but here's an article on the subject: http://www.jonesday.com/Ninth-Circuit-Curbs-Enforceability-of-Forum-Selection-and-Choice-of-Law-Clauses-Against-California-Consumers-02-13-2009/

I don't think small claims is the right place for something like this, since they are limited to issuing money judgments, are not empowered to issue any declaratory or injunctive relief, and as a practical matter, don't like to do anything out of the ordinary. I would file a limited civil case, wait for the defendant to file a demurrer, and then defend against the demurrer.

Reply Like (0)
grinder (Mar 26, 2018 - 2:30 am)

Thanks, this is very helpful. The consumer/public policy angle is a good starting point. I can definitely imagine the practical issues with bringing something like this to small claims (among others) so I appreciate your suggestion.

Reply Like (0)
clocker1 (Mar 26, 2018 - 11:53 pm)

Was your family member financially harmed?

Reply Like (0)
grinder (Mar 27, 2018 - 2:54 pm)

Yep. They’re denying a primary benefit of the contract that family member paid in full based on an internal policy that isn’t supported by the contract.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread