4 ms·

Here is the HN discussion to Part 1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16217241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16217241 Pretty surprised how much Equif

Here is the HN discussion to Part 1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16217241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16217241 Pretty surprised how much Equifax spent trying to win this case. I'm sure they're doing it to dissuade others from suing them as well but after reading this I really want to sue myself. I wonder if they'll appeal the verdict again.

danielvf 9y ago
The second judgement is final. No appeal.
- razwall 9y ago
  Not through an ordinary appeal, but they could file for an extraordinary writ. Given the number of small claims cases that Equifax has been facing, it might be something they would consider.
- anarazel 9y ago
  IANAL. It's not inconceivable they could make further trouble nevertheless: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/102/164.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/1... The relevant part appears to be: "The Eloby court's dictum suggests that section 117.12 was designed to preclude only appeal, motions for new trial, and motions to vacate judgment. The court's initial issuance of the alternative writ further suggests that section 117.12 was not read as curtailing the ability of appellate courts to review important issues arising in small claim actions. Following the lead of the Eloby court, we read section 117.12 as not foreclosing appellate court review by extraordinary writ. Since statewide precedents can only be created by appellate courts, jurisdiction to decide appropriate small claims court issues must be retained by appellate courts in order to secure uniformity in the operations of the small claims courts and uniform interpretation of the statutes governing them. We do not believe that the Legislature intended to make all actions of the superior courts in such cases totally unreviewable or reviewable only on certification. (Code Civ.Proc., s 911; Cal.Rules of Court, rule 61(b).) " This seems a bit weird.
  - danielvf 9y ago
    Thanks!
g051051 9y ago
They probably don't care about the cost, it's the precedent they're trying to block or overturn. And I don't see how even the appeal can stand against further appeals (or whatever they do next to protest what they consider an invalid ruling).
- DanBC 9y ago
  Do small claims cases create precedent?
  - g051051 9y ago
    IANAL, so it may not be "Precedent" with a capital P, but it is a court ruling and the guy put a huge amount of crazy stuff into it that other crazies can now point to and say "see, a judge agreed with all of this".
ficklepickle 9y ago
These scummy corps do it all the time. A critical illness insurance co. tried to not pay my mom because they had their own technical definition of a heart attack. She sold herself the policy, and didn't even know this. In fact, it was subsequently ruled illegal and new policies couldn't use this definition. But they flew in lawyers to her small town, so she had to go to small claims court while recovering from a heart attack. All to try and avoid paying about 20k. She settled for most of it, in the end.

danielvf 9y ago

The second judgement is final. No appeal.

razwall 9y ago
Not through an ordinary appeal, but they could file for an extraordinary writ. Given the number of small claims cases that Equifax has been facing, it might be something they would consider.
anarazel 9y ago
IANAL. It's not inconceivable they could make further trouble nevertheless: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/102/164.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/1... The relevant part appears to be: "The Eloby court's dictum suggests that section 117.12 was designed to preclude only appeal, motions for new trial, and motions to vacate judgment. The court's initial issuance of the alternative writ further suggests that section 117.12 was not read as curtailing the ability of appellate courts to review important issues arising in small claim actions. Following the lead of the Eloby court, we read section 117.12 as not foreclosing appellate court review by extraordinary writ. Since statewide precedents can only be created by appellate courts, jurisdiction to decide appropriate small claims court issues must be retained by appellate courts in order to secure uniformity in the operations of the small claims courts and uniform interpretation of the statutes governing them. We do not believe that the Legislature intended to make all actions of the superior courts in such cases totally unreviewable or reviewable only on certification. (Code Civ.Proc., s 911; Cal.Rules of Court, rule 61(b).) " This seems a bit weird.
- danielvf 9y ago
  Thanks!

g051051 9y ago

They probably don't care about the cost, it's the precedent they're trying to block or overturn. And I don't see how even the appeal can stand against further appeals (or whatever they do next to protest what they consider an invalid ruling).

DanBC 9y ago
Do small claims cases create precedent?
- g051051 9y ago
  IANAL, so it may not be "Precedent" with a capital P, but it is a court ruling and the guy put a huge amount of crazy stuff into it that other crazies can now point to and say "see, a judge agreed with all of this".

ficklepickle 9y ago

These scummy corps do it all the time. A critical illness insurance co. tried to not pay my mom because they had their own technical definition of a heart attack. She sold herself the policy, and didn't even know this. In fact, it was subsequently ruled illegal and new policies couldn't use this definition. But they flew in lawyers to her small town, so she had to go to small claims court while recovering from a heart attack. All to try and avoid paying about 20k. She settled for most of it, in the end.