5 ms·

What does Nolo say about corporations or LLCs? That's what we are talking about here. Individual people have the option of hiring a lawyer in some states but

What does Nolo say about corporations or LLCs? That's what we are talking about here. Individual people have the option of hiring a lawyer in some states but most don't. Corporations on the other hand, because they are "legal" and not "natural" persons don't get that right. They must be represented by counsel. A corporation can't represent itself in court because it's not a "natural person". They MUST use a lawyer.

staticautomatic 7y ago
Not true. In CA, a business can hire outside counsel to advise them on the suit but outside counsel cannot represent them in court. There are circumstances in which the business can send an in-house lawyer as its agent, but never an outside one. I'm not a lawyer but was once my former employer's agent in court in a small claims suit we filed against HP. I assure you there's no requirement that corporate parties be represented by lawyers.
- Nrsolis 7y ago
  Good old California. Looks like they created a new category called "limited civil" that is a blend of small claims and regular civil court. I guess they needed to feed some more lawyers. Either way, SOMEBODY from the company is gonna have to show up and answer the court. That person isn't going to want to be there and is probably way too busy to deal with you. It will be easier to pay and move on. As I said, every state is different. Honestly, he SHOULD sue them in "limited civil" court if he can. Heck, I'd argue that if there are enough people who've had their gear stolen via this company then he could have a class-action if he really wants to push it. The legal system sucks for getting quick justice but it's an effective tool for bringing someone (or some company) to the table who refuses to make amends. I've used small claims to my advantage before. The $50 you pay in a filing fee is a great deal of satisfaction when you get a call from the opposing party's lawyer looking to make a deal.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    In CA, the choice of court is mainly about two things: 1) The amount of money at stake, and 2) Whether you're asking the court to do anything other than award money. Small Claims: $10K or less ($5K if plaintiff is a business), only asking for money. Limited Civil: $25K or less, only asking for money. Unlimited Civil: More than $25K AND/OR asking for something other than money. As an individual suing a company you absolutely would NOT want to file in Limited Civil if you had the option of filing in Small Claims, among other reasons because in Limited Civil the company you're suing can be represented by a lawyer and the filing fees are considerably more expensive.
    - Nrsolis 7y ago
      California is weird. On the east coast (NYC in particular), things are a bit more sane in some ways and a bit crazier in others. Of course, this is all inside baseball. As a practical matter, it's HIGHLY LIKELY that this will never get before a judge. No corporation is going to send their CEO to court to argue a case and if they can't send a lawyer to small claims, they will just submit a motion to move the case to regular civil court because reasons. Of course, if that happens, then they've already lost. It will be FAR more expensive to litigate in plain old civil court. For the record, IANAL but I've hired and fired a bunch of them and done this dance a few times already on both sides of the coin. Bunch of lawyer friends too. One of them was just on TV doing a press conference for his client, a Navy SEAL. YMMV.
      - staticautomatic 7y ago
        You seem to be commenting well beyond the bounds of your knowledge or expertise. 1. None of this is weird. NY has even more kinds of courts than CA does, including "limited" courts just like CA. I consult on lawsuits around the country, including in various courts in CA and NY, and NY is at least as screwy as CA in every meaningful way I can think of. 2. To the contrary, small claims suits are highly likely to make it in front of a judge. In fact, that's just about the only place they're likely to go because small claims courts strongly discourage the use of pretrial motions. A business that is sued is not required to send the CEO just because they're not allowed to send a lawyer. They can either send a regular employee or they can send no one, in which case they're more or less guaranteed to lose by default. 3. A defendant can't remove a properly filed small claims suit to a higher court just because they feel like it. The small claims venue either has to be improper or there have to be some very unusual extenuating circumstances for the courts to even consider removal. There's an abundance of case law on this, and for good reason, including in NY.

staticautomatic 7y ago

Not true. In CA, a business can hire outside counsel to advise them on the suit but outside counsel cannot represent them in court. There are circumstances in which the business can send an in-house lawyer as its agent, but never an outside one. I'm not a lawyer but was once my former employer's agent in court in a small claims suit we filed against HP. I assure you there's no requirement that corporate parties be represented by lawyers.

Nrsolis 7y ago
Good old California. Looks like they created a new category called "limited civil" that is a blend of small claims and regular civil court. I guess they needed to feed some more lawyers. Either way, SOMEBODY from the company is gonna have to show up and answer the court. That person isn't going to want to be there and is probably way too busy to deal with you. It will be easier to pay and move on. As I said, every state is different. Honestly, he SHOULD sue them in "limited civil" court if he can. Heck, I'd argue that if there are enough people who've had their gear stolen via this company then he could have a class-action if he really wants to push it. The legal system sucks for getting quick justice but it's an effective tool for bringing someone (or some company) to the table who refuses to make amends. I've used small claims to my advantage before. The $50 you pay in a filing fee is a great deal of satisfaction when you get a call from the opposing party's lawyer looking to make a deal.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  In CA, the choice of court is mainly about two things: 1) The amount of money at stake, and 2) Whether you're asking the court to do anything other than award money. Small Claims: $10K or less ($5K if plaintiff is a business), only asking for money. Limited Civil: $25K or less, only asking for money. Unlimited Civil: More than $25K AND/OR asking for something other than money. As an individual suing a company you absolutely would NOT want to file in Limited Civil if you had the option of filing in Small Claims, among other reasons because in Limited Civil the company you're suing can be represented by a lawyer and the filing fees are considerably more expensive.
  - Nrsolis 7y ago
    California is weird. On the east coast (NYC in particular), things are a bit more sane in some ways and a bit crazier in others. Of course, this is all inside baseball. As a practical matter, it's HIGHLY LIKELY that this will never get before a judge. No corporation is going to send their CEO to court to argue a case and if they can't send a lawyer to small claims, they will just submit a motion to move the case to regular civil court because reasons. Of course, if that happens, then they've already lost. It will be FAR more expensive to litigate in plain old civil court. For the record, IANAL but I've hired and fired a bunch of them and done this dance a few times already on both sides of the coin. Bunch of lawyer friends too. One of them was just on TV doing a press conference for his client, a Navy SEAL. YMMV.
    - staticautomatic 7y ago
      You seem to be commenting well beyond the bounds of your knowledge or expertise. 1. None of this is weird. NY has even more kinds of courts than CA does, including "limited" courts just like CA. I consult on lawsuits around the country, including in various courts in CA and NY, and NY is at least as screwy as CA in every meaningful way I can think of. 2. To the contrary, small claims suits are highly likely to make it in front of a judge. In fact, that's just about the only place they're likely to go because small claims courts strongly discourage the use of pretrial motions. A business that is sued is not required to send the CEO just because they're not allowed to send a lawyer. They can either send a regular employee or they can send no one, in which case they're more or less guaranteed to lose by default. 3. A defendant can't remove a properly filed small claims suit to a higher court just because they feel like it. The small claims venue either has to be improper or there have to be some very unusual extenuating circumstances for the courts to even consider removal. There's an abundance of case law on this, and for good reason, including in NY.