Taking a business owner to SCC multiple times for different invoices

[bluelink]

New Jersey

I have a boat in a private yard who the business owner charged me for different work and different things over the course of a few years. He is and been strong arming me into paying his bills by threatening a larger bill. For example, he gave me a storage bill of $1,300 after he verbally told me he would not and when I refused to pay he threatened to charge me a moving fee of $800 and an hourly storage rate starting then of $100. Which by the time I would get the boat out of there and pay someone else to store it it would be thousands! I had to pay every bill because of that.

So I have different storage bills, work that was done in increments and invoices for most things. I want to take him to court for one storage bill one day and another storage bill the next time in court.

The work was done in increments and under different contracts like verbally and written. So for example I have a contract to paint a section of the inside. In order to do the job the stuff inside has to be removed then painted. The inside was painted poorly and the stuff was not put back in. Then we had another contract to put the stuff back but not everything was put back . I want to sue him for painting poorly one day and then come back another day and sue him for not putting everything back.

I would like to get a lawyer and claim everything but he has time and money to put into lawyers and I do not. Plus I need to find some specialize people and even if I do find that they are not free. That is why I am exploring the SCC option.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

There is an article on the Small Claims process in NJ right here on Free Advice.

https://law.freeadvice.com/small_claims/small_claims/new-jersey-small-claims-court.htm

 

[Zigner]

I believe that the OP wants to know if all of his claims need to be consolidated, or if he can sue separately for each invoice, as each invoice represents a different instance.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

And I would have answered that question had he told us the total amount he wants to sue for. He didn't so I took the best option available.

 

[Zigner]

And I would have answered that question had he told us the total amount he wants to sue for. He didn't so I took the best option available.

Fair enough

 

[Zigner]

bluelink - if you file multiple cases at the same time, the other party would likely move to have them all consolidated and moved to a higher court.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I have a boat in a private yard

If this is an ocean going vessel, you may be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court. Admiralty Court doesn't have a small claims session that I'm aware of.

 

[quincy]

If this is an ocean going vessel, you may be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court. Admiralty Court doesn't have a small claims session that I'm aware of.

Really? How so?

The boat is in a storage yard.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Really? How so?

The boat is in a storage yard.

I don't remember much from my Admiralty Law class except to stay away from any ocean going vessels. The boat may be the subject of a maritime lien. Filing an Admiralty claim on the wrong court is a great way to bring on a malpractice claim.

 

[Zigner]

Two things:
First: There is no such thing as "Admiralty Court" in the U.S. (it's handled by the Federal District Courts).
Second: "The Supreme Court narrowed the application of admiralty rules and law beginning in 1972, when the Court established that a "maritime nexus" must exist for a tort to proceed in admiralty. The maritime nexus rule holds that in addition to taking place on navigable waters, the injury or damage must have a significant relationship with traditional maritime activity and a potentially disruptive effect on maritime commerce."

https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/jurisdiction-admiralty-and-maritime

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Two things:
First: There is no such thing as "Admiralty Court" in the U.S. (it's handled by the Federal District Courts).

So using that logic, there is no Federal Criminal Court. (it's handled by the Federal District Courts).

 

[quincy]

My understanding was that the issue had to occur on the water for maritime law to apply - and that any boat could be considered an "ocean going vessel."

There was an interesting inland lake case out of New York (if I remember correctly) where this was argued in some depth. I think it had to do with a Ski-doo accident. I will try to locate it.

 

[Zigner]

So using that logic, there is no Federal Criminal Court. (it's handled by the Federal District Courts).

If you'd like to look at it that way...sure.

 

[quincy]

First, bluelink's issue appears to be a contract matter.

And my memory was way off on the specifics but here is the maritime case I was thinking of (for what it's worth). It was discussed in a thread on this forum several years ago (which is where the New York and Skidoo might have come from).

Yamaha Motor Corp, et al v. Calhoun, et al: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1387.ZS.html

As a note: The above has nothing to do with bluelink's concerns.

 

[Litigator22]

New Jersey

I have a boat in a private yard who the business owner charged me for different work and different things over the course of a few years. He is and been strong arming me into paying his bills by threatening a larger bill. For example, he gave me a storage bill of $1,300 after he verbally told me he would not and when I refused to pay he threatened to charge me a moving fee of $800 and an hourly storage rate starting then of $100. Which by the time I would get the boat out of there and pay someone else to store it it would be thousands! I had to pay every bill because of that.

So I have different storage bills, work that was done in increments and invoices for most things. I want to take him to court for one storage bill one day and another storage bill the next time in court.

The work was done in increments and under different contracts like verbally and written. So for example I have a contract to paint a section of the inside. In order to do the job the stuff inside has to be removed then painted. The inside was painted poorly and the stuff was not put back in. Then we had another contract to put the stuff back but not everything was put back . I want to sue him for painting poorly one day and then come back another day and sue him for not putting everything back.

I would like to get a lawyer and claim everything but he has time and money to put into lawyers and I do not. Plus I need to find some specialize people and even if I do find that they are not free. That is why I am exploring the SCC option.

Convenient idea this notion of yours to resolve piecemeal your disputes with the guy. The problem with it is that it won't work and the reason is because of what is known as "the entire controversy doctrine". The application of which requires that a party's entire bundle of rights the components of which derive from a single or related transactions must be litigated in one proceeding or they are forever barred.

See: In Wm. Blanchard Co. v. Beach Concrete Co. 150 N.J.Super. at 292-93, 375 A.2d 675; Vision Mtge Co. vs. Chiapperini, Inc., Superior Court , New Jersey App. Div. Jan 1988 and cases cited; also R. 4:30A, which provides: "Non-joinder of claims or parties required to be joined by the entire controversy doctrine shall result in the preclusion of the omitted claims to the extent required by the entire controversy doctrine."