I posted the order. I see a lot about my failure to provide "admissible" evidence. It reads to me like I should submit a motion for reconsideration with an affidavit and explain a few things.
Here's the faxed order:
http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/803/3527.html
If I should really find the time to file in California, do I have to name American Agencies there too?
That's really weird. And I just don't have the time. Still working 100 hour weeks and so behind on publishing filings and haven't done any press releases yet, it's really time to get the word out.
I'm not superwoman and my day has only 24 hours.
My head his spinning from all that jurisdiction talk.
Posted by Christine at February 2, 2004 03:38 AMAn affidavit isn't going to help unless you have different facts from what you presented so far. PacBell simply is not subject to personal jurisdiction in an Arizona court under this fact pattern.
This will have to be refiled in California.
As for American, I don't see how you'll be able to argue successfully that they were the agents of PacBell. I may have misunderstood, but it appears that PacBell simply sold the debt (along with a number of others) to American Agencies. It doesn't appear that PacBell retained AA as an agent, who would presumably collect the debt and transfer it to PacBell if so.
So you might have to file against American separately.
Posted by: OneL at February 2, 2004 05:51 AM
I don't know why the judge mentions NUMEROUS times my lack of "admissible" evidence if it makes no difference.
Did you read it?
And regarding Am. Ag, there seems to be confusion. I'm suing them too, because of their collection practices while collecting on behalf of Pacific Bell. I don't want to hold Pacific Bell liable for their actions AFTER the sale, but BEFORE the sale.
And lastly, what happens to justice when consumers have to sue in another state?
There is no justice.
Posted by: Christine Baker at February 2, 2004 12:42 PM
Yes, I read the order in full.
The judge mentions the lack of admissible evidence for two reasons:
(1) You did not provide proof that American acted as an agent of PacBell. The court appears to believe you claimed this, whether you did or not, and further, that you did so to establish any contacts of American's ultimately are those of PacBell's as well.
(2) As the plaintiff, you have the burden of proving that PacBell is properly in Arizona's jurisdiction. You did not meet that requirement because you did not provide any evidence that PacBell "engage[d] in conduct aimed at, and having an effect in" Arizona.
The court isn't saying PacBell did not nothing wrong. It's simply saying that Arizona courts are not the place to address PacBell's wrongdoing.
Now this is not to say you couldn't establish that Arizona has jurisdiction over *American.* But that would be a different lawsuit.
As for justice, it tends to skew toward the defendants on jurisdiction issues. That usually works for the little guy, too, though certainly not in cases like these!
Posted by: OneL at February 6, 2004 05:18 PM