10 ms·

I'm glad this worked out for the OP. However, I think he may have made a couple mistakes that could have been avoided for a smoother process. The big one is no

I'm glad this worked out for the OP. However, I think he may have made a couple mistakes that could have been avoided for a smoother process. The big one is not retaining an attorney. No, he doesn't have to for small claims court, but Uber clearly had its legal team looking at this. Now, I understand that lawyers are expensive and carry their own issues - but if he'd won the case with an attorney, he could potentially have secured attorney's fees as well. Plus, a good way to make a company cave on an issue like this is to say "direct all requests to my attorney; I'm not speaking to you on this matter." I realize getting a lawyer isn't always feasible, though, especially in small claims, so I'll assume it just wasn't possible for this case (also, I'm not a lawyer, this is just based on my understanding of the small claims process). Still, giving Uber all the evidence in the case after a suit had been filed but before any discovery had been ordered was a misstep. Small claims court rarely has formal discovery - the process by which each side finds and turns over evidence to the other side. The OP was - as far as I can tell - under no obligation to give evidence to the Uber rep of any kind. He should not have; they used it against him. What he should have done was say "we can discuss this in court, or you can make me whole now and avoid that," and NOTHING else. Edit: A line I really enjoyed from the piece: "They were a company that shows blatant disrespect to authority, operating illegally in cities and using technology to intentionally avoid law enforcement." Yep. That's Uber in a nutshell. Well played.

jessriedel 9y ago
I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums? "Here is the evidence I have that you're in the wrong" can sometimes hurt you later in court, but it can avoid the entire mess by convincing the party that they will likely lose, or yield a compromise.
- schwap 9y ago
  > I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums? I think when you're facing a large entity and their thousands of dollars per billable hour legal team, it makes sense to leverage any advantage you can.
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  > I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums? Initially, no. By the time you're in a court of law, yes. Once you file suit - small claims or not - discussion time is over. If you make that decision prematurely, that's not great, but there's no taking it back except by dismissing the suit, which would have been a mistake.
  - kpxxx 9y ago
    > Once you file suit - small claims or not - discussion time is over. Not true in America at least. Parties can agree to settle at pretty much anytime. Most civil filings don't even make it to trial, and even those that do often end up in settlement.
- someonewhocar3s 9y ago
  Giving your casefile away, without receiving one in return, means the adversary is fully prepared, and you're not. It is close to obstruction of law. Don't. Especially not with Uber!
- quanticle 9y ago
  >I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums? Yes it is. Why? Because they won't hesitate to do exactly that to you in the reverse situation. In this (almost literal) prisoners dilemma, the corporation has already defected. You gain nothing by cooperating.
skinnymuch 9y ago
The guy only got $4K. Retaining a lawyer for just that amount wouldn't be worth it, would it? I have no clue how small claims works and how likely it is to have attorney fees be included if you win like you mentioned. The guy had to fly back to Boston again for the second time around. He'd also likely have spent some money in Boston like getting around. None of that was included in the final amount either. I'm not sure if a lawyer or someone more in the know how of how small claims/courts work would have been able to get it. And even if you can, how easy is it to get it. Agree on the mistake of giving Uber all the info. The guy was trusting Uber not to be as scummy as they ended up being. I'm sure he has learned his lesson and next time regardless of company, especially once lawsuit stuff has come into play, will do what you said: > What he should have done was say "we can discuss this in court, or you can make me whole now and avoid that," and NOTHING else.
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  > The guy only got $4K. Retaining a lawyer for just that amount wouldn't be worth it, would it? I have no clue how small claims works and how likely it is to have attorney fees be included if you win like you mentioned. The guy had to fly back to Boston again for the second time around. He'd also likely have spent some money in Boston like getting around. None of that was included in the final amount either. I'm not sure if a lawyer or someone more in the know how of how small claims/courts work would have been able to get it. And even if you can, how easy is it to get it. It can be worth it, especially if - as OP mentioned - part of his goal was to prove his case to Uber, not so much to specifically recover the money. He didn't necessarily need an incredible A++ 10/10 lawyer, just somebody decent who could devote a couple hours to advising him and act as a go-between for settlement negotiations. Having a lawyer levels you up in the eyes of court systems and corporations both. Is it perfectly worth it? Not necessarily. Is it very good advice for people considering any kind of legal action? I think so.
  - morninj 9y ago
    I agree that representation would be better, but in reality, a D- 4/10 lawyer would still be too expensive to be worth it here.
balls187 9y ago
How would retaining an attorney work in small claims?
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  IIRC it's the same as doing it anywhere else. You retain someone to represent you and they do so. In some states, you must appear on your own - but not in MA, I don't think, and you can still have an attorney advising you even if they can't appear with you.
  - dbcurtis 9y ago
    Certainly in California you must represent yourself. But you can consult an attorney. They will point out the counter-arguments that you need to be prepared for, which is a very valuable service.
    - balls187 9y ago
      Any idea of the ball park costs for such consultation? I'm looking at taking two parties to small claims court, over ~$1,000 USD, and wonder if it's worth the fees to seek legal guidance.
      - dbcurtis 9y ago
        Nope, not worth it. Cheap lawyers are ~$250/hour.
      - lathiat 9y ago
        Seems unlikely, at least in Australia it's common for lawyers to be $400+/h; even for a relatively simple case I was looking to have a lawyer review an employment contract.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Well, an attorney might suggest they not use words like robbery. Robbery is defined, as a legal term. This is just simple theft. Robbery requires force, implied force, or fear. It's going to suck if this guy gets sued for libel. Theft is often a misdemeanor where robbery is often a felony. They are pretty different things, legally speaking.
lazyant 9y ago
I called several attorney offices for a small claim court case (max $2k in that particular state iirc) and they laughed at me.
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  It's true that in small claims you often don't need one to represent you in the actual proceeding - and many lawyers, especially fairly "big" ones, would have no interest. However, retaining one to advise you on how to navigate the process, how to phrase your arguments, how to communicate with the opposing party, etc., is probably valuable even if they aren't running the case for you directly.
  - enjo 9y ago
    In most (maybe all?) small claims courts you are forbidden to have a lawyer present. Companies generally send an administrative assistant or something similar. You are welcome to retain an attorney before and after the hearing, but they can not be present during.
    - ivraatiems 9y ago
      In Massachusetts, you may have an attorney in small claims court. [1] I think most states allow it, but it isn't super common to actually do. [1] http://www.mass.gov/ago/consumer-resources/consumer-assistance/small-claims-court.html http://www.mass.gov/ago/consumer-resources/consumer-assistan...
      - kobeya 9y ago
        Not in California, fwiw. (Mention only because many people here are in CA, although I know the op is in MA).
  - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
    Courts do have their own small-claims advice service (for free too, I think) which serves the same purpose.
rustid 9y ago
So this is my story. I didn't have the money for an attorney. Also I tried to deal with this out of court and that is expected in small claims. They only hear your side if you try and resolve it first, and that includes sharing evidence.
- ivraatiems 9y ago
  First of all, glad you were able to do this and keep Uber accountable - and thanks for putting in the effort where others would have given up. It's expected that you'll try to resolve things before filing a suit, and it's expected to try to settle if possible once suit has been filed, but it's not my understanding that those negotiations necessarily involve giving info to the other party that isn't to your advantage except as part of actual discovery. Were you told at some point by the magistrate or court otherwise that you had to do that?

jessriedel 9y ago

I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums? "Here is the evidence I have that you're in the wrong" can sometimes hurt you later in court, but it can avoid the entire mess by convincing the party that they will likely lose, or yield a compromise.

schwap 9y ago
> I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums? I think when you're facing a large entity and their thousands of dollars per billable hour legal team, it makes sense to leverage any advantage you can.
ivraatiems 9y ago
> I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums? Initially, no. By the time you're in a court of law, yes. Once you file suit - small claims or not - discussion time is over. If you make that decision prematurely, that's not great, but there's no taking it back except by dismissing the suit, which would have been a mistake.
- kpxxx 9y ago
  > Once you file suit - small claims or not - discussion time is over. Not true in America at least. Parties can agree to settle at pretty much anytime. Most civil filings don't even make it to trial, and even those that do often end up in settlement.
someonewhocar3s 9y ago
Giving your casefile away, without receiving one in return, means the adversary is fully prepared, and you're not. It is close to obstruction of law. Don't. Especially not with Uber!
quanticle 9y ago
>I get that big companies are not your friend, but is it really necessary to wage total war by using all possible legal advantages and issuing ultimatums? Yes it is. Why? Because they won't hesitate to do exactly that to you in the reverse situation. In this (almost literal) prisoners dilemma, the corporation has already defected. You gain nothing by cooperating.

skinnymuch 9y ago

The guy only got $4K. Retaining a lawyer for just that amount wouldn't be worth it, would it? I have no clue how small claims works and how likely it is to have attorney fees be included if you win like you mentioned. The guy had to fly back to Boston again for the second time around. He'd also likely have spent some money in Boston like getting around. None of that was included in the final amount either. I'm not sure if a lawyer or someone more in the know how of how small claims/courts work would have been able to get it. And even if you can, how easy is it to get it. Agree on the mistake of giving Uber all the info. The guy was trusting Uber not to be as scummy as they ended up being. I'm sure he has learned his lesson and next time regardless of company, especially once lawsuit stuff has come into play, will do what you said: > What he should have done was say "we can discuss this in court, or you can make me whole now and avoid that," and NOTHING else.

ivraatiems 9y ago
> The guy only got $4K. Retaining a lawyer for just that amount wouldn't be worth it, would it? I have no clue how small claims works and how likely it is to have attorney fees be included if you win like you mentioned. The guy had to fly back to Boston again for the second time around. He'd also likely have spent some money in Boston like getting around. None of that was included in the final amount either. I'm not sure if a lawyer or someone more in the know how of how small claims/courts work would have been able to get it. And even if you can, how easy is it to get it. It can be worth it, especially if - as OP mentioned - part of his goal was to prove his case to Uber, not so much to specifically recover the money. He didn't necessarily need an incredible A++ 10/10 lawyer, just somebody decent who could devote a couple hours to advising him and act as a go-between for settlement negotiations. Having a lawyer levels you up in the eyes of court systems and corporations both. Is it perfectly worth it? Not necessarily. Is it very good advice for people considering any kind of legal action? I think so.
- morninj 9y ago
  I agree that representation would be better, but in reality, a D- 4/10 lawyer would still be too expensive to be worth it here.

balls187 9y ago

How would retaining an attorney work in small claims?

ivraatiems 9y ago
IIRC it's the same as doing it anywhere else. You retain someone to represent you and they do so. In some states, you must appear on your own - but not in MA, I don't think, and you can still have an attorney advising you even if they can't appear with you.
- dbcurtis 9y ago
  Certainly in California you must represent yourself. But you can consult an attorney. They will point out the counter-arguments that you need to be prepared for, which is a very valuable service.
  - balls187 9y ago
    Any idea of the ball park costs for such consultation? I'm looking at taking two parties to small claims court, over ~$1,000 USD, and wonder if it's worth the fees to seek legal guidance.
    - dbcurtis 9y ago
      Nope, not worth it. Cheap lawyers are ~$250/hour.
    - lathiat 9y ago
      Seems unlikely, at least in Australia it's common for lawyers to be $400+/h; even for a relatively simple case I was looking to have a lawyer review an employment contract.
KGIII 9y ago
Well, an attorney might suggest they not use words like robbery. Robbery is defined, as a legal term. This is just simple theft. Robbery requires force, implied force, or fear. It's going to suck if this guy gets sued for libel. Theft is often a misdemeanor where robbery is often a felony. They are pretty different things, legally speaking.

lazyant 9y ago

I called several attorney offices for a small claim court case (max $2k in that particular state iirc) and they laughed at me.

ivraatiems 9y ago
It's true that in small claims you often don't need one to represent you in the actual proceeding - and many lawyers, especially fairly "big" ones, would have no interest. However, retaining one to advise you on how to navigate the process, how to phrase your arguments, how to communicate with the opposing party, etc., is probably valuable even if they aren't running the case for you directly.
- enjo 9y ago
  In most (maybe all?) small claims courts you are forbidden to have a lawyer present. Companies generally send an administrative assistant or something similar. You are welcome to retain an attorney before and after the hearing, but they can not be present during.
  - ivraatiems 9y ago
    In Massachusetts, you may have an attorney in small claims court. [1] I think most states allow it, but it isn't super common to actually do. [1] http://www.mass.gov/ago/consumer-resources/consumer-assistance/small-claims-court.html http://www.mass.gov/ago/consumer-resources/consumer-assistan...
    - kobeya 9y ago
      Not in California, fwiw. (Mention only because many people here are in CA, although I know the op is in MA).
- DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
  Courts do have their own small-claims advice service (for free too, I think) which serves the same purpose.

rustid 9y ago

So this is my story. I didn't have the money for an attorney. Also I tried to deal with this out of court and that is expected in small claims. They only hear your side if you try and resolve it first, and that includes sharing evidence.

ivraatiems 9y ago
First of all, glad you were able to do this and keep Uber accountable - and thanks for putting in the effort where others would have given up. It's expected that you'll try to resolve things before filing a suit, and it's expected to try to settle if possible once suit has been filed, but it's not my understanding that those negotiations necessarily involve giving info to the other party that isn't to your advantage except as part of actual discovery. Were you told at some point by the magistrate or court otherwise that you had to do that?