Defendant filed counter claim, are these things even allowed?

[Zigner]

It would be a little late for now.

Perhaps...probably. But, as clueless as the other party seems, they may have done something "wrong" that would allow them to argue it successfully still.

 

[quincy]

Perhaps...probably. But, as clueless as the other party seems, they may have done something "wrong" that would allow them to argue it successfully still.

The other party already filed a counterclaim.

If the other party has an attorney, and the attorney actually earned his "research" fee, jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss would have been considered. I assume there was some reason why it was believed Massachusetts had jurisdiction.

That said, small claims actions can be strange beasts with parties who are sometimes stranger. It is possible no one knows what they are doing. The judge will sort it all out.

 

[latigo]

Perhaps...probably. But, as clueless as the other party seems, they may have done something "wrong" that would allow them to argue it successfully still.

Not probably. Impossible inasmuch as the company's appearance in the action was not special to contest jurisdiction, but to seek an adjudication by the court.

Consequently it has irrevocably consented to not only this Massachusetts court assuming in personam jurisdiction, but any other courts of the state as to matters pertaining to the subject(s) of the litigation and properly submitted.

[SUP] As my granddad lawyer often expressed his frustration with his punk argumentative grandson law student: "If I a tell you a shoat weights 50 pounds, don't put the #!$&@ pig on the scales!" (It is amazing how smart granddad became after I learned something about the business of practicing law.) [/SUP]

 

[Zigner]

Not probably. Impossible inasmuch as the company's appearance in the action was not special to contest jurisdiction, but to seek an adjudication by the court.

Consequently it has irrevocably consented to not only this Massachusetts court assuming in personam jurisdiction, but any other courts of the state as to matters pertaining to the subject(s) of the litigation and properly submitted.

[SUP] As my granddad lawyer often expressed his frustration with his punk argumentative grandson law student: "If I a tell you a shoat weights 50 pounds, don't put the #!$&@ pig on the scales!" (It is amazing how smart granddad became after I learned something about the business of practicing law.) [/SUP]

My point is that if the other party is as clueless as they seem, it's possible (not likely by a long shot, but possible) that they didn't file their "paperwork" with the court for the counterclaim, which would mean that they still have time to fix their blunder.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Once he gets your final approval, then he will create the interactive map like you saw on the MN Pets website and that's the one we'll use internally here and I'll also send you the embedding information so that you can put it on your website for your clients if you'd like.

This is an interesting legal question. Looking at the MN Pets website, there is an interactive map, but the map is hosted by google. It would appear that this "agreement" was to build a map for display on OP's website. My best GUESS is that the miscreant affirmatively removed the map from Google, hence disabling the functionally.

If the map was being hosted by google, and MN company deleted it, I would agree that OP has a valid cause of action.

If the map was being hosted by the defendant, I believe defendant will prevail on the original claim since there is no agreement for defendant to continue hosting the map.

I don't think the defendant has a leg to stand on in regards to the counterclaim.

(The main reason I find this interesting is that I once developed an interactive map for an animal rescue organization)

 

[Zigner]

The other party already filed a counterclaim.

Possibly. They also may just have mailed paperwork to the OP without actually filing it.

If the other party has an attorney, and the attorney actually earned his "research" fee, jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss would have been considered. I assume there was some reason why it was believed Massachusetts had jurisdiction.

There is nothing mentioned about an attorney being involved. In fact, they are claiming $100 per hour for their "research", which makes me believe that no attorney is involved.

That said, small claims actions can be strange beasts with parties who are sometimes stranger. It is possible no one knows what they are doing. The judge will sort it all out.

Agreed.

 

[quincy]

This is an interesting legal question. Looking at the MN Pets website, there is an interactive map, but the map is hosted by google. It would appear that this "agreement" was to build a map for display on OP's website. My best GUESS is that the miscreant affirmatively removed the map from Google, hence disabling the functionally.

If the map was being hosted by google, and MN company deleted it, I would agree that OP has a valid cause of action.

If the map was being hosted by the defendant, I believe defendant will prevail on the original claim since there is no agreement for defendant to continue hosting the map.

It sounds to me to be the latter. Merricats said the company was hosting the map. Merricats was also apparently paying for some sort of service. And with no written and signed agreement, there could be no transfer of rights in the interactive map from designer to Merricats. The rights would remain with its creator.

Zigner, I got the impression that the company had at the very least consulted with an attorney. I see where I could be wrong, though. That said, if a counter complaint was filed, the company cannot now argue jurisdiction. And with an Internet business doing business in Massachusetts, it could probably be shown Massachusetts has jurisdiction anyway.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

If the map was being hosted by google, and MN company deleted it, I would agree that OP has a valid cause of action.

If the map was being hosted by the defendant, I believe defendant will prevail on the original claim since there is no agreement for defendant to continue hosting the map.

It sounds to me to be the latter. Merricats said the company was hosting the map.

The reason I suspect it is the former is that there was already mention of the MN Pets website, which embeds a google map. There is really no reason to reinvent the wheel and build a server to host a map when google "gives" that away for free.

OP may need to bring in an expert to analyze the embed code (previously mentioned) to determine if google or defendant hosted the map.

 

[quincy]

The reason I suspect it is the former is that there was already mention of the MN Pets website, which embeds a google map. There is really no reason to reinvent the wheel and build a server to host a map when google "gives" that away for free.

OP may need to bring in an expert to analyze the embed code (previously mentioned) to determine if google or defendant hosted the map.

If Merricats is looking to have an expert testify on the code for a small claims action, he better have damages enough to support that expense. And he should have a consultation with a local lawyer.

I am still not seeing what the suit is all about or what damages can be claimed, though.