Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint;any suggestions?

Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> Abe <[email protected]> writes:
>> Agreed. Good preparation. Reimbursement for lost wages for court
>> appearance won't happen.
>
> So should I leave it in my claim or remove it? I.e., I
> concede that I probably won't get it, but does it hurt to ask
> for it?

It makes you look like a greedy fool to ask for something that
you are neither legally entitled to, nor could the court grant
it even if they wanted to.

---

› See More: Going to small claims court tomorrow against Sprint;any suggestions?

Evan Platt <[email protected]> writes:
>Why not just dispute the credit card charge?

Been there, done that, got the T shirt.

I disputed the charge. The credit card company contacted
Sprint, and Sprint sent them a copy of the invoice from when
I purchased the phone. I never disputed purchasing the
phone; what Sprint didn't bother to tell the credit card
company was that I returned it afterwards. This is all
mentioned in the document I posted. Perhaps you did not
read all of it.

The folks at Discover Card told me that if I could come up
with proof that I returned the phone (proof which I did
subsequently manage to come up with), they would reconsider
the dispute. By that point, however, I was sufficiently
pissed at Sprint that I decided to sue them instead, in
particular because I felt that I had an excellent case for
triple damages under MGL Chapter 93A.

>And at least here in California, the last time I went to small claims,
>you couldn't add on 'trbled damages' or anything - no pain and
>suffering, etc.

If that's true, then Massachusetts differs from California in
this regard. Note that the triple damages I asked for were
not for "pain and suffering." MGL Chapter 93A, the
Massachusets state law pertaining to unfair or deceptive trade
practices, permits the plaintiff to ask for double or triple
damages if he can demonstrate that the defendant's violation
of the law was "willful or knowing."

Google it if you're curious.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Evan Platt <[email protected]> writes:
>On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:14:12 -0700, Abe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It probably won't hurt to leave it in, but it's better to take it out
>>because asking for something you know you're not entitled to under the
>>law can make a judge pause to look more critically at other
>>allegations. Not that you have anything to worry about there, but why
>>take chances?
>
>Agreed. Ask for it once you win.

If I'm not legally entitled to ask for lost wages due to the
court appearance before I win the case, then why would I
possibly be entitled to ask for it afterwards?

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

Evan Platt <[email protected]> writes:
>Not that simple, IIRC. (Been there done that). There's a process you
>need to go through.

Yes. It's documented at
<http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/wonsccase.html>.

>I believe the first option would be taking money from the cash
>register, but no, it can't be a sprint store - it would have to be
>sometihng at the Corporate HQ.

No, it doesn't. Any property owned by the defendant that can
be identified can be seized by a constable and sold to pay the
judgment plus the constable's fee. I wouldn't be able to ask
a constable to seize property owned by a Sprint franchise,
since the franchises buy their merchandise from Sprint and
then sell it so it isn't actually owned by Sprint, but I would
certainly be able to ask a constable to seize anything in a
Sprint-owned store. If Sprint owns the store, then Sprint
owns the property in it, and it can be seized.

>I'm pretty sure the law protects companies to the point where you
>couldn't do anything at the store level.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, at least for Massachusetts. You
appear to be familiar with the laws in California, not
Massachusetts. They do not necessarily bear any relation to
each other.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

On 2007-08-23, Jonathan Kamens <[email protected]> wrote:

> The folks at Discover Card told me that if I could come up
> with proof that I returned the phone (proof which I did
> subsequently manage to come up with), they would reconsider
> the dispute. By that point, however, I was sufficiently
> pissed at Sprint that I decided to sue them instead, in
> particular because I felt that I had an excellent case for
> triple damages under MGL Chapter 93A.

I can appreciate your frustration, but if you had paperwork from the
return, wouldn't it have been a lot easier and cheaper to finish the
process with Discover?

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

"Jonathan Kamens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sprint didn't show up. The clerk magistrate entered a default judgment
> in my favor.

Please keep us posted on how things turn out. I find this very interesting.

--
Donald R. Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Evan Platt <[email protected]> writes:
>Because it can't hurt to ask for it afterwards.

Yes, it *can* hurt, because the verdict is by no means the
end of the process. If Sprint is uncooperative about paying
the judgment, then I will need the cooperation of the clerk
magistrate to make collection go smoothly. It is in my best
interest not to appear "uppity" in any way, so as not to give
the clerk magistrate any conscious or unconscious reason to
be less cooperative.

Furthermore, as other people have already noted, lost wages
due to court appearances are legally not recoverable. You are
suggesting that I ask the judge to give me something that I'm
not legally entitled to. That's just wrong. Just because
Sprint stole money from me doesn't mean I'm entitled to steal
from them, and yes, convincing the judge to award damages to
which I'm not legally entitled would be stealing.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

On Aug 24, 12:56 am, "Donald Newcomb" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Jonathan Kamens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Sprint didn't show up. The clerk magistrate entered a default judgment
> > in my favor.
>
> Please keep us posted on how things turn out. I find this very interesting.
>
> --
> Donald R. Newcomb
> DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Also interesting that the friggin small clamins court can't figure out
the judgement amount for a simple cell phone case on the court day.
How complicated can this be? Don't they do this every day?

[email protected] writes:
>Also interesting that the friggin small clamins court can't figure out
>the judgement amount for a simple cell phone case on the court day.
>How complicated can this be? Don't they do this every day?

I gave the clerk magistrate a lot of written evidence. She
needs to review it all to determine whether Sprint's violation
was egregious enough to warrant double or triple damages, and
she also needs to review the letter I sent and the
requirements of Chapter 93A to confirm that I met them. All
that will take a lot more time than just reviewing my math;
you're right that she could have done that on the spot, if
that was all she needed to do.

If I'd demanded full resolution during the hearing, she would
have been more likely to decline to order double or triple
damages, because she wouldn't have had time to review all of
the evidence and realize just how outrageous Sprint's
behavior was.

She didn't need me to be present while she reviewed the
evidence, and therefore she didn't need to do it during the
session and thereby hold up all the other people who are
waiting for their cases to be heard.

Yes, I wish it had been fully resolved at the hearing, but I
understand why it wasn't and I agree with her decision to
take the matter under advisement.

--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/

"Jonathan Kamens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sprint didn't show up. The clerk magistrate entered a default judgment
> in my favor.
<snip>

After winning a default judgment, it is generally best to wait until after
the appeals period has passed before making any attempt to collect. Small
claims defendants have appeals rights in most jurisdictions, and you don't
want to wake them up until that right is gone.

That advice wouldn't apply when there is an asset that could dissappear,
such as as bank account that could be easilly attached.

This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
here: http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com . And I am not your attorney.

McGyver

On Aug 24, 9:57 am, [email protected] (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
> >Also interesting that the friggin small clamins court can't figure out
> >the judgement amount for a simple cell phone case on the court day.
> >How complicated can this be? Don't they do this every day?
>
> I gave the clerk magistrate a lot of written evidence. She
> needs to review it all to determine whether Sprint's violation
> was egregious enough to warrant double or triple damages, and
> she also needs to review the letter I sent and the
> requirements of Chapter 93A to confirm that I met them. All
> that will take a lot more time than just reviewing my math;
> you're right that she could have done that on the spot, if
> that was all she needed to do.
>

Isn't it this magistrate's job to know the law? This isn't some
complicated anti-trust case. It's a simple consumer case, and the
magistrate sitting in small claims should already know the consumer
law. You shouldn't have to ***** it out for her. Any decent judge
with experience could decide this on the spot, unless they're getting
paid by the hour.




> If I'd demanded full resolution during the hearing, she would
> have been more likely to decline to order double or triple
> damages, because she wouldn't have had time to review all of
> the evidence and realize just how outrageous Sprint's
> behavior was.
>
> She didn't need me to be present while she reviewed the
> evidence, and therefore she didn't need to do it during the
> session and thereby hold up all the other people who are
> waiting for their cases to be heard.
>
> Yes, I wish it had been fully resolved at the hearing, but I
> understand why it wasn't and I agree with her decision to
> take the matter under advisement.
>
> --
> Help stop the genocide in Darfur!http://www.genocideintervention.net/

[email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 24, 9:57 am, [email protected] (Jonathan Kamens)
> wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>>> Also interesting that the friggin small clamins court can't figure
>>> out the judgement amount for a simple cell phone case on the court
>>> day. How complicated can this be? Don't they do this every day?
>>
>> I gave the clerk magistrate a lot of written evidence. She
>> needs to review it all to determine whether Sprint's violation
>> was egregious enough to warrant double or triple damages, and
>> she also needs to review the letter I sent and the
>> requirements of Chapter 93A to confirm that I met them. All
>> that will take a lot more time than just reviewing my math;
>> you're right that she could have done that on the spot, if
>> that was all she needed to do.

> Isn't it this magistrate's job to know the law?

That isnt what she needs the extra time for, she's using that to scrutenise the detail of
what Sprint actually did to see if that is bad enough to justify double or triple damages.

> This isn't some complicated anti-trust case. It's a simple consumer
> case, and the magistrate sitting in small claims should already know
> the consumer law. You shouldn't have to ***** it out for her.

He isnt *****ing out the law for her, he spelt out what Sprint actually did or didnt do.

> Any decent judge with experience could decide this
> on the spot, unless they're getting paid by the hour.

Or they have enough of a clue to not delay other cases while she
scrutenises the list of what Sprint did and didnt do that he presented.

Makes a lot more sense to do that when others arent waiting for the judge etc.

>> If I'd demanded full resolution during the hearing, she would
>> have been more likely to decline to order double or triple
>> damages, because she wouldn't have had time to review all of
>> the evidence and realize just how outrageous Sprint's
>> behavior was.
>>
>> She didn't need me to be present while she reviewed the
>> evidence, and therefore she didn't need to do it during the
>> session and thereby hold up all the other people who are
>> waiting for their cases to be heard.
>>
>> Yes, I wish it had been fully resolved at the hearing, but I
>> understand why it wasn't and I agree with her decision to
>> take the matter under advisement.

[email protected] wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> [email protected] wrote
>>> [email protected] (Jonathan Kamens) wrote
>>>> [email protected] wrote

>>>>> Also interesting that the friggin small clamins court can't figure
>>>>> out the judgement amount for a simple cell phone case on the court
>>>>> day. How complicated can this be? Don't they do this every day?
>>
>>>> I gave the clerk magistrate a lot of written evidence. She
>>>> needs to review it all to determine whether Sprint's violation
>>>> was egregious enough to warrant double or triple damages, and
>>>> she also needs to review the letter I sent and the
>>>> requirements of Chapter 93A to confirm that I met them. All
>>>> that will take a lot more time than just reviewing my math;
>>>> you're right that she could have done that on the spot, if
>>>> that was all she needed to do.

>>> Isn't it this magistrate's job to know the law?

>> That isnt what she needs the extra time for, she's using that
>> to scrutenise the detail of what Sprint actually did to see if
>> that is bad enough to justify double or triple damages.

>>> This isn't some complicated anti-trust case. It's a simple consumer
>>> case, and the magistrate sitting in small claims should already know
>>> the consumer law. You shouldn't have to ***** it out for her.

>> He isnt *****ing out the law for her, he spelt out what Sprint
>> actually did or didnt do.

> Yes, in fact that is exactly what he did:

Nope.

> "The only thing she seemed concerned about was that my demand
> letter didn't explicitly mention Chapter 93A or demand a written
> response, but I pointed out to her that Chapter 93A doesn't
> actually require that, and gave her a copy of the law to prove it. "

That isnt what she needed THE EXTRA TIME without the court in session for.

> Clearly the judge doesn't know the law, because if she did she wouldn't be
> worried about his letter not mentioning 93A when the law doesn't require it.

That isnt what she needed THE EXTRA TIME without the court in session for.

>>> Any decent judge with experience could decide this
>>> on the spot, unless they're getting paid by the hour.

>> Or they have enough of a clue to not delay other cases while she
>> scrutenises the list of what Sprint did and didnt do that he presented.

> Look, this is a simple case.

No it isnt when deciding whether Spint's action
or inactions warrants double or triple damages.

> How much simpler could it be or how much more scruteny
> can it take to figure out? Some of the best and clearest
> evidence he has as to what Sprint has been doing is that they
> didn't even show up, ignoring him just as they have all along.

Doesnt mean that they warrant double or triple damages.

THATS what the scruteny of the evidence is about.

> And the dopey judge has the plaintiff standing there, so if
> she thinks about it for 2 mins, she has the opportunity to
> ask him questions again, instead of trying to figure out
> what he said while looking at a pile of papers 2 weeks later.

But she cant easily see the detail of Sprints actions or inactions that way.

<reams of your puerile **** flushed where it belongs>

>> Makes a lot more sense to do that when others arent waiting for the judge etc.

>>>> If I'd demanded full resolution during the hearing, she would
>>>> have been more likely to decline to order double or triple
>>>> damages, because she wouldn't have had time to review all of
>>>> the evidence and realize just how outrageous Sprint's
>>>> behavior was.
>>
>>>> She didn't need me to be present while she reviewed the
>>>> evidence, and therefore she didn't need to do it during the
>>>> session and thereby hold up all the other people who are
>>>> waiting for their cases to be heard.
>>
>>>> Yes, I wish it had been fully resolved at the hearing, but I
>>>> understand why it wasn't and I agree with her decision to
>>>> take the matter under advisement.

At 26 Aug 2007 07:49:45 -0700 [email protected] wrote:

> Yes, in fact that is exactly what he did:
>
> "The only thing she seemed concerned about was that my demand letter
> didn't explicitly mention Chapter 93A or demand a written response,
> but
> I pointed out to her that Chapter 93A doesn't actually require that,
> and gave her a copy of the law to prove it. "
>
> Clearly the judge doesn't know the law, because if she did she
> wouldn't be worried about his letter not mentioning 93A when the law
> doesn't require it.


I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing there's more to writing a "Chapter
93A" demand letter than simply NOT referring to it as a Chapter 93A
demand letter!

There are likely certain critera or specific language necessary to
meet the requirements of Chapter 93A.

As the OP said:

"she also needs to review the letter I sent and the requirements of
Chapter 93A to confirm that I met them."

If specific wording or phrasing is needed to meet the requirements,
she might have to hit the books rather than just wing it off the top
of her head.


> Look, this is a simple case. How much simpler could it be or how
> much more scruteny can it take to figure out?

Well if it's so simple, why didn't the OP just assert in his letter
that he was demanding resolution under Chapter 93A of Massachusetts
law? He's not a lawyer- perhaps his belief that he met all of the
necessary elements is wrong, or it's "too close to call" without
consulting the statute.

> Some of the best and
> clearest evidence he has as to what Sprint has been doing is that
> they didn't even show up, ignoring him just as they have all along.

Sprint knows not appearing results in a default judgement. I'm sure
there was an error made somewhere, or just an unfortunate (for
Sprint!) circumstance.

A bazillion years ago, when I managed a Radio Shack store in Fall
River, Massachusetts, I got a call from my district manager to get
to the county courthouse ASAP. It seems the company's lawyer for
that area was stuck in Boston traffic and they needed a company rep
at the courthouse to prevent losing a small claims action by default.

Since I was the closest employee to the courthouse, I was told to go
there in case the lawyer didn't make it in time, and try stall the
proceedings as much as possible.

As it turned out, the court was running behind schedule (surprise,
surprise!) and the lawyer, although an hour late, got there before
the case was called and I went back to work. As it turned out, the
other party failed to show up and I, the non-lawyer, narrowly missed
winning my first case! ;-)

Something very similar might have happened to Sprint- how many
lawyers do you think they retain in Massachusetts? ;-)


--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:yarAi.15619
[email protected]:

> If specific wording or phrasing is needed to meet the requirements,
> she might have to hit the books rather than just wing it off the top
> of her head.
>
>

You all must live in some Utopian society I can't find. It's much more
likely she needed time to contact her political bosses to see if Sprint had
any of them on a string she'd be better off to not break. She's consulting
with the machine to see what's best for the political machine, not you, who
is of no consequence at one vote on a rigged Diebold voting machine.

Sprint is a member of CTIA, a huge lobby group, who can cut off millions of
dollars in "campaign contributions" if someone pisses them off or creates a
new legal problem for them. The money machine political parties are all
bribed by the corporate lobby, whos sole purpose is to prevent this.

Sure would be fun to be a fly on the wall in her office when she makes that
phone call....(c; She's waiting to see how much money the machine can
produce as a reward for her ruling for Sprint. Happens every day.

Larry
--