Being sued out of state, just a few questions?

[XNavyLT]

What is the name of your state? Illinois

Hi, all...I'm being sued in MD by a guy whom I bought a car from on Ebay, but did not pay for. I spoke to him on the phone before the auction, and everything seemed legit, I spoke to him after the auction end, and the guy seemed really shifty, so I decided NOT to go through with the purchase, because I didnt trust the guy.

OK, Per Ebay rules, he gets all his fees back from his listing, and insertion fees, so He's not damaged financially at all. he now wants to sue me for "BREECH (his spelling) of contract), with about $200 in money damages. he stated in an email he doesnt care if he wins, he just wants to see me spend money defending the suit in Baltimore. I explained to him, I would file a motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction, and he would be wasting his time. Well....today he sent me an email stating that he files this morning anyway.

I feel this qualifies for abuse of process, can I now sue in Illinois for the same? or would that need to go to MD?

After I get his subpoena theres an answer I need to send back, right? Is that where I can claim lack of jurisdiction, and a violation of my 14th amendment rights? or is there a separate for for that? Can that be done ex-parte, or will I need to travel to MD no matter what?

This guy was warned by me over and over that this is frivolous, and probably qualifies for abuse of process, but still......

Now...abuse of process...is that all punitive damages awarded? and how large can that case be?

Thanks for al your advice!

 

[tranquility]

I feel this qualifies for abuse of process, can I now sue in Illinois for the same? or would that need to go to MD?

It doesn't sound like abuse of process to me, but you would have to win first before filing in any event. Jurisdiction is complex and would require a lot of writing to where choices and facts would be understood before determining anything. However, just as he's suing where he wants, you can sue where you want.

After I get his subpoena theres an answer I need to send back, right? Is that where I can claim lack of jurisdiction, and a violation of my 14th amendment rights? or is there a separate for for that? Can that be done ex-parte, or will I need to travel to MD no matter what?

In many jurisdictions, an answer is consent to personal jurisdiction. In those places you need to make a special appearance or special pleading to not agree to the court's jurisdiction over you. (I'd hold off on the 14th amendment argument until it looks like you are going to lose the case, then it couldn't hurt. Before then it's just going to look silly.)

This guy was warned by me over and over that this is frivolous, and probably qualifies for abuse of process, but still......

Now...abuse of process...is that all punitive damages awarded? and how large can that case be?

Um...how is this frivolous? You did breach the contract. The seller did suffer some damages in some way. They might be hard to prove up, but they are there. He wanted to have money rather than a car. He got that, but you went back on the deal. Now, he's going to have to go through the time and effort all over again to sell the vehicle. He might get a lesser amount for it. There is *some* damage there no matter what some others on this forum think. How much? I don't know, but the lawsuit has some merit and he is probably going to win. It's just a matter of how much he will win that is in question.

 

[ForFun]

It's certainly not abuse of process.

I also think that there is a good chance that MD courts will have personal jurisdiction over you. You sought out the seller, and purposely entered into a contract with him knowing that he was selling a car from MD.

I'm very interested in the outcome, as I've discussed this issue with people in the past (and there isn't a lot of caselaw on the subject).

 

[XNavyLT]

It's certainly not abuse of process.

I also think that there is a good chance that MD courts will have personal jurisdiction over you. You sought out the seller, and purposely entered into a contract with him knowing that he was selling a car from MD.

I'm very interested in the outcome, as I've discussed this issue with people in the past (and there isn't a lot of caselaw on the subject).

Well here's my thoughts. And you're right, there isnt much caselaw on internet auctions and the like...YET.

Yes the seller was in MD, however I signed (clicked on bid) in IL. I've read alot of opinions of courts denying personal jurisdiction because the defendant did not have minimum contacts, nor did he own property in a state. Basically courts are reluctant to force someone to travel to defend a suit. I also disagree with your assertion of my jurisdiction, seeing as I dont meet the MD 'long arm' test. I believe I am out of reach of the arm, so to speak.

He sent me a threatening email stating that MD allows 3X damages for ebay suits, and after he files his attorney will contact me to settle the case, but I'd be paying HIS attorney fees. I think it's basically extortion. There was no attorney fee clause in the contract, so whatever he pays an attorney is his deal, can't be part of his suit (right??).

Now interesting that simply filing an answer to the suit would be denying myself a jurisdiction dismissal. I'm also glad you feel that my 14th amendment argument is a good one! I feel gratified somehow!

any more thoughts?

 

[tranquility]

Now interesting that simply filing an answer to the suit would be denying myself a jurisdiction dismissal. I'm also glad you feel that my 14th amendment argument is a good one! I feel gratified somehow!

No, your 14th amendment is not a good one. It's something to throw up if you are sure you are going to lose anyway, but I wouldn't use it until then as I don't see it at all.

Any substantive pleading can be consent to jurisdiction, even a motion--depending on the specifc court. However, all courts have rules for how to deal with the situation and you will have to review the state's or local rules for the answer as to how to respond.

Jurisdiction is hard, especially in this day of the internet. One problem is that you knew the seller was where he was when you specifically availed yourself to him by clicking. I don't believe there is a long-arm statute for the transaction you are describing, but re-read e-bay terms and conditions and the sellers ad and warnings as there may be a choice of law provision somewhere.

 

[ForFun]

Yes the seller was in MD, however I signed (clicked on bid) in IL. I've read alot of opinions of courts denying personal jurisdiction because the defendant did not have minimum contacts, nor did he own property in a state. Basically courts are reluctant to force someone to travel to defend a suit. I also disagree with your assertion of my jurisdiction, seeing as I dont meet the MD 'long arm' test. I believe I am out of reach of the arm, so to speak.

In MD, there is recent case law which states that a purposely sent email was enough to give MD courts jurisdiction. See Marycle v. First Choice, 890 A.2d 818, 166 Md. App. 481 (Md. App., 2006). I can see them concluding that a buyer who purposely contracted with a MD seller to buy a MD vehicle has satisfied the requirements of its long arm statute (which incidentally, is as broad as is allowed under the US Constitution).

 

[tranquility]

Awesome, well-reasoned case. It was very readable. For the first time, looking at a case on jurisdiction didn't make my eyes bleed. Good catch.

We could distinguish some facts between the case and the OP and I bet that decision will be appealed to the federal court system someday, but it looks bad for the OP in MD. I'm not sure I like the holding as it opens everyone up to substantial travel to defend themselves, but it was a good argument.

 

[XNavyLT]

No, your 14th amendment is not a good one. It's something to throw up if you are sure you are going to lose anyway, but I wouldn't use it until then as I don't see it at all.

Any substantive pleading can be consent to jurisdiction, even a motion--depending on the specifc court. However, all courts have rules for how to deal with the situation and you will have to review the state's or local rules for the answer as to how to respond.

Jurisdiction is hard, especially in this day of the internet. One problem is that you knew the seller was where he was when you specifically availed yourself to him by clicking. I don't believe there is a long-arm statute for the transaction you are describing, but re-read e-bay terms and conditions and the sellers ad and warnings as there may be a choice of law provision somewhere.

OK...well I'm at a slight impasse as of now. I'm still not even sure if the guy will follow through on his threats to sue me. He has the car back up for auction as of now, and my fingers are crossed that it sells for more than my winning bid, thus eradicating that portion of his basis for suit. I think that's all he could claim as damages, the difference between what he sold it for and my winning bid (if mine was higher).

I will do some research on MD, and city of Baltimore rules RE: filing answer and jurisdiction as you say. All in all it's been fun, and enlightening learning all I have about all this! I'm a former FL State Trooper, and haven't been involved in civil stuff too much. I will post any developments, and seek additional free advice when needed. Thanks!!!

 

[ForFun]

All in all it's been fun, and enlightening learning all I have about all this! I'm a former FL State Trooper, and haven't been involved in civil stuff too much. I will post any developments, and seek additional free advice when needed. Thanks!!!

Good luck with everything. Let us know how it turns out, especially if he ends up suing you, since this is an interesting question (the answer will probably be helpful for a lot of people).

 

[ForFun]

I'm not sure I like the holding as it opens everyone up to substantial travel to defend themselves, but it was a good argument.

Yeah, it's actually kind of scary.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Interesting case. Entirely distinguishable from internet auctions (as opposed to spam) I think, especially given the statute, but it was probably the correct result. Note 21 had some more interesting cases as well.