5 ms·

Most states are at will, but he wasn't employed in "most states", now was he?

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Juppor is talking about suing in Florida courts. Florida is absolutely at will. He may be able to sue to collect a foreign court judgement instead, but it is notoriously difficult to collect judgments, even us Court judgments, if the other party stonewalls you
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  That's not how choice of law works. If you are operating a business in jurisdiction A and open a branch in jurisdiction B, you have a nexus to jurisdiction B and can't say your branch exists under the legal umbrella of jurisdiction A. Of course, you can assert that your customer and employment contracts are under the law of jurisdiction A, but such assertions don't magically trump statutory law. Contractual provisions can often be dismissed as unenforceable.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    He already sued and won in jurisdiction B. The money is in jurisdiction A. No banks and police in jurisdiction A will honor a legal document from jurisdiction B. This leaves you to the situation described above. The best option is to take the decision from jurisdiction B into a new court proceeding and jurisdiction A and ask them to honor it with a local court order in A. They may or they may not. Even within the United States you might have a court order in one state or payment, and another state that refuses to enforce it within their jurisdiction.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      No banks and police in jurisdiction A will honor a legal document from jurisdiction B. Except that that is often not the case, because of things like federalism, treaties and so on. Anyway, you're missing the point; you're now talking about a judgement from jurisdiction B, whereas earlier you were arguing that the rules from jurisdiction A could apply in jurisdiction B. If a plaintiff goes to jurisdiction A with a judgement from jurisdiction B (eg pursuing the money as you suggested), you wouldn't retry the case under the rules of jurisdiction A. The reason is that the defendant (in this case the company headquartered in Florida qua jurisdiction A) agreed to the rules of the Netherlands (qua jurisdiction B) when it filed to get a business license there. It would be different if a Dutch worker had sought employment with a company in Florida, and then complained when he didn't like the employment standards he found himself subjected to. It's the fact that the company committed itself to NL/EU law when opening a subsidiary there that subjects them to its judgments. The issue of the business license imposes conditions upon its beneficiary within the scope of its use. Suppose something is legal your jurisdiction but not in mine. While you are in your jurisdiction, I can't sue or prosecute you for doing The Thing there. But if you come to my jurisdiction, do The Thing, and then return to your own, you can't shake off that liability because you don't get to bring your legal environment with you. The only exception I can think of offhand is with international diplomats, who get quasi-immunity because they are formally representing a different country, and whose embassies/consulates are allowed to operate under the law of their home rather than host countries.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        You are repeating what I have already said. >Juppor is talking about suing in Florida courts. Florida is absolutely at will. He may be able to sue to collect a foreign court judgement instead
    - angry_octet 4y ago
      To inject some expertise: "Enforcement of Judgments in the United States: Overview" https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-034-2858 https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-034-2858
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Thank you! this largely agrees with the link I posted 7 hours ago. Particularly relevant, is that if you want to collect in the US, you have to go to the courts in the US and show them the foreign judgment. There are many circumstances where these are not accepted. >Juppor is talking about suing in Florida courts. Florida is absolutely at will. He may be able to sue to collect a foreign court judgement instead
        angry_octet 4y ago
        I think it would be a fairly clear cut debt case. It might take a bit of lawyering to collect on the debt, but there are firms which would take it on a contingency basis. If they are trying to avoid payment it will kink any activity in the EU, all over a relatively paltry sum. The lesson though is that if you're dealing with potential shysters, like NFT promoters and other dodgy stuff this firm is doing (who else pays 70k Euro per year plus commissions to telemarketers??) then make sure they have assets in your jurisdiction that you can put a lien on, and ideally require cash up front.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think you are probably right. It is worth noting that most of the money at stake isnt simple debt like back wages. It looks like the lion's share is essentially punitive damages. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know where this falls in relation to types of decisions that are applicable.

Juppor is talking about suing in Florida courts. Florida is absolutely at will. He may be able to sue to collect a foreign court judgement instead, but it is notoriously difficult to collect judgments, even us Court judgments, if the other party stonewalls you

anigbrowl 4y ago
That's not how choice of law works. If you are operating a business in jurisdiction A and open a branch in jurisdiction B, you have a nexus to jurisdiction B and can't say your branch exists under the legal umbrella of jurisdiction A. Of course, you can assert that your customer and employment contracts are under the law of jurisdiction A, but such assertions don't magically trump statutory law. Contractual provisions can often be dismissed as unenforceable.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  He already sued and won in jurisdiction B. The money is in jurisdiction A. No banks and police in jurisdiction A will honor a legal document from jurisdiction B. This leaves you to the situation described above. The best option is to take the decision from jurisdiction B into a new court proceeding and jurisdiction A and ask them to honor it with a local court order in A. They may or they may not. Even within the United States you might have a court order in one state or payment, and another state that refuses to enforce it within their jurisdiction.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    No banks and police in jurisdiction A will honor a legal document from jurisdiction B. Except that that is often not the case, because of things like federalism, treaties and so on. Anyway, you're missing the point; you're now talking about a judgement from jurisdiction B, whereas earlier you were arguing that the rules from jurisdiction A could apply in jurisdiction B. If a plaintiff goes to jurisdiction A with a judgement from jurisdiction B (eg pursuing the money as you suggested), you wouldn't retry the case under the rules of jurisdiction A. The reason is that the defendant (in this case the company headquartered in Florida qua jurisdiction A) agreed to the rules of the Netherlands (qua jurisdiction B) when it filed to get a business license there. It would be different if a Dutch worker had sought employment with a company in Florida, and then complained when he didn't like the employment standards he found himself subjected to. It's the fact that the company committed itself to NL/EU law when opening a subsidiary there that subjects them to its judgments. The issue of the business license imposes conditions upon its beneficiary within the scope of its use. Suppose something is legal your jurisdiction but not in mine. While you are in your jurisdiction, I can't sue or prosecute you for doing The Thing there. But if you come to my jurisdiction, do The Thing, and then return to your own, you can't shake off that liability because you don't get to bring your legal environment with you. The only exception I can think of offhand is with international diplomats, who get quasi-immunity because they are formally representing a different country, and whose embassies/consulates are allowed to operate under the law of their home rather than host countries.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      You are repeating what I have already said. >Juppor is talking about suing in Florida courts. Florida is absolutely at will. He may be able to sue to collect a foreign court judgement instead
  - angry_octet 4y ago
    To inject some expertise: "Enforcement of Judgments in the United States: Overview" https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-034-2858 https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-034-2858
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Thank you! this largely agrees with the link I posted 7 hours ago. Particularly relevant, is that if you want to collect in the US, you have to go to the courts in the US and show them the foreign judgment. There are many circumstances where these are not accepted. >Juppor is talking about suing in Florida courts. Florida is absolutely at will. He may be able to sue to collect a foreign court judgement instead
      - angry_octet 4y ago
        I think it would be a fairly clear cut debt case. It might take a bit of lawyering to collect on the debt, but there are firms which would take it on a contingency basis. If they are trying to avoid payment it will kink any activity in the EU, all over a relatively paltry sum. The lesson though is that if you're dealing with potential shysters, like NFT promoters and other dodgy stuff this firm is doing (who else pays 70k Euro per year plus commissions to telemarketers??) then make sure they have assets in your jurisdiction that you can put a lien on, and ideally require cash up front.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think you are probably right. It is worth noting that most of the money at stake isnt simple debt like back wages. It looks like the lion's share is essentially punitive damages. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know where this falls in relation to types of decisions that are applicable.