|
I'm about to get sued by my partner, the story of which is long,
convoluted, and irrelevant to my question here. My city of residence
is 500 miles away from my partner's, but in the same state. My sources
tell me that he is going to sue two of his employees (he calls it a
"friendly lawsuit", is that like "friendly rape"?) for the sole reason
that he can get the venue in his county. Is there a way to fight this
ruse? He is much wealthier than I and I would almost certainly lose
regardless of the merits of my case because I cannot afford the time
or expense of constant travel. If I have so little wealth, why is he
suing me? He is a venture capitalist, and he is using this technique
to do a hostile takeover of my half of the company, now that I have
spent all my capital building the company up, and it is becoming
successful. Any ideas?-Jitney
|
| |
| |
jtnospam@yahoo.com (jitney) wrote in news:b8002be7.0403200753.621bfe03
@posting.google.com:
I'm about to get sued by my partner, the story of which is long,
convoluted, and irrelevant to my question here. My city of residence
is 500 miles away from my partner's, but in the same state. My sources
tell me that he is going to sue two of his employees (he calls it a
"friendly lawsuit", is that like "friendly rape"?) for the sole reason
that he can get the venue in his county. Is there a way to fight this
ruse? He is much wealthier than I and I would almost certainly lose
regardless of the merits of my case because I cannot afford the time
or expense of constant travel. If I have so little wealth, why is he
suing me? He is a venture capitalist, and he is using this technique
to do a hostile takeover of my half of the company, now that I have
spent all my capital building the company up, and it is becoming
successful. Any ideas?-Jitney
Although convoluted, some more of the story may be relevant to your
question.
If this is a state suit, venue will be decided by state statute. If a
substantial part of the events leading to the cause of action arose in
the venue of the suit, the state statute probably allows that choice of
venue.
But you mention you are 500 miles away from where I believe you mean the
suit will occur. Do you live in another state? If so, your question is
probably about jurisdiction, rather than venue.
Just because the state court has personal jurisdiction over other
defendants doesn't mean that it has jurisdiction over all of them.
There aren't enough details posted, but depending on the subject matter
of the suit, the court may have in rem jurisdiction (relating to property
or status), even if it doesn't have personal jurisdiction over the
defendant.
Consitutionally, the state court could probably exercise jurisdiction
over you because you've probably had sufficient minimum contacts with the
state by running or owning a business when the events which created the
cause of action arose.
Additionally, depending on the case, that court may be able to exercise
in rem jurisdiction.
If you don't defend, and he wins, your state courts are required to honor
the judgement, with few exceptions.
|
| |
| |
My city of residence
is 500 miles away from my partner's, but in the same state.(snip)
We are all in the same state, unquestionably, and I will contest the
suit, and probably countersue. But which county? The travel costs
alone will wear me down financially, and he may be able to "buy the
pot" as poker players say, regardless of the merits of each side. Any
other ideas?-Jitney
|
| |
| |
On 21 Mar 2004 06:23:38 -0800, jtnospam@yahoo.com (jitney) wrote:
My city of residence
We are all in the same state, unquestionably, and I will contest the
suit, and probably countersue. But which county? The travel costs
alone will wear me down financially, and he may be able to "buy the
pot" as poker players say, regardless of the merits of each side. Any
other ideas?-Jitney
|
| |
| |
On 21 Mar 2004, jtnospam@yahoo.com (jitney) wrote:
My city of residence is 500
miles away from my partner's,
but in the same state [snip ]
We are all in the same state, unquestionably, and I
will contest the suit, and probably countersue. But
which county? The travel costs alone will wear me
down financially, and he may be able to "buy the
pot" as poker players say, regardless of the merits
of each side. Any other ideas?-Jitney
You say you "probably [will] countersue" and don't appear to say that
your (erstwhile?) partner has yet sued. If so, why haven't you
already sued (or sue tomorrow) on the basis of whatever would be your
counterclaim, in your county, and, if the (not yet?) other (still
would-be?) plaintiff later sues elsehwere based on more or less the
same basic allegedly underlying transactions and occurrences, why
don't you move to stay that other lawsuit or to consolidate it with
yours, on the ground that yours was the first commenced one?
I don't recall what if anything you said about where the partnership,
as such, was doing business or about what if anything you and your
partner agreed in the past about venue or the other underlying acts
that would be the subject or your or your partner's lawsuit(s) and so,
apart from the fact that you reside 500 miles away from that other
person, cannot and do not comment on whether where he resides might be
the most over-all desirable (or maybe even required) venue for a
lawsuit (or lawsuits) concerning the partnership.
|
| |
| |
You say you "probably [will] countersue" and don't appear to say that
your (erstwhile?) partner has yet sued. If so, why haven't you
already sued (or sue tomorrow) on the basis of whatever would be your
counterclaim, in your county, and, if the (not yet?) other (still
would-be?) plaintiff later sues elsehwere based on more or less the
same basic allegedly underlying transactions and occurrences, why
don't you move to stay that other lawsuit or to consolidate it with
yours, on the ground that yours was the first commenced one?(snip)
Basically because I can't afford one. I have talked to several
attorneys, and so far none will take it on contingency.
My partner waited until I had spent all my capital building up the
business, and then he struck me with a torrent of false allegations
and threats to sue. I am sure I have a good case, but I cannot afford
to defend myself.
I am not trying to start a pity party, but let it serve as a warning
to inventors and other entrepreneurs: I am told that this kind of
behavior is very common with venture capitalists.-Jitney
|
| |
| |
On 21 Mar 2004, jtnospam@yahoo.com (jitney) wrote:
My partner waited until I had spent all my capital
building up the business, and then he struck me
with a torrent of false allegations and threats to sue.
I am sure I have a good case, but I cannot afford
to defend myself. I am not trying to start a pity party,
but let it serve as a warning to inventors and other
entrepreneurs: I am told that this kind of behavior
is very common with venture capitalists.
Saying belatedly that you can't afford to defend yourself merely
underscores but hardly answers the question why you imply that you
chose before and then at and then further during the course of your
relationship not to negotiate for and obtain within your partnership
agreement some form of fair but comparatively inexpensive means of
dispute compulsory dispute resolution, e.g., final/binding arbitration
administered unde AAA rules.
DITTO for choice-of-venue purposes regardless whether you and your
partner did/didn't agree to arbitrate your differences.
It is easy (especially after the fact) to point a finger of blame.
And, maybe, your partner is the epitome of an S.O.B. you imply he is.
But that you claim to have been "told" what you say above is a fact
that itself underscores that (especially when opting nonetheless to
deal with someone you now say you ought have known was likely to make
false allegations and threats to sue, etc). you readily might have
negotiated for a wide variety of (mutually fair) protections, if you
had not chosen not to do so, and might just as readily said, "No" to
his offer of affiliation/partnership as "Yes" if he had rejected
fairly made dispute resolution proposals from the very outset of your
relationship.
I grant that, having made the choices you imply you did, you still
have to deal (or if you prefer just try to walk away from) the person
you characterize as "partner" but who you now find so distasteful. Nor
is anything I say here intended to justify someone who would make
false accusations or abuse the legal system.
But _especially_ for a person intelligent (if non-delusional) enough
to label himself as an "entrepreneur and inventor" not to have
addressed the above summarized issues in a timely and also effective
manner is a shocking self-indictment.
|
| |
| |
nospam@isp.com wrote in message news:<405e212e.27025973@news.east.earthlink.net>...
On 21 Mar 2004, jtnospam@yahoo.com (jitney) wrote:
Saying belatedly that you can't afford to defend yourself merely
underscores but hardly answers the question why you imply that you
chose before and then at and then further during the course of your
relationship not to negotiate for and obtain within your partnership
agreement some form of fair but comparatively inexpensive means of
dispute compulsory dispute resolution, e.g., final/binding arbitration
administered unde AAA rules.
DITTO for choice-of-venue purposes regardless whether you and your
partner did/didn't agree to arbitrate your differences.
It is easy (especially after the fact) to point a finger of blame.
And, maybe, your partner is the epitome of an S.O.B. you imply he is.
But that you claim to have been "told" what you say above is a fact
that itself underscores that (especially when opting nonetheless to
deal with someone you now say you ought have known was likely to make
false allegations and threats to sue, etc). you readily might have
negotiated for a wide variety of (mutually fair) protections, if you
had not chosen not to do so, and might just as readily said, "No" to
his offer of affiliation/partnership as "Yes" if he had rejected
fairly made dispute resolution proposals from the very outset of your
relationship.
I grant that, having made the choices you imply you did, you still
have to deal (or if you prefer just try to walk away from) the person
you characterize as "partner" but who you now find so distasteful. Nor
is anything I say here intended to justify someone who would make
false accusations or abuse the legal system.
But _especially_ for a person intelligent (if non-delusional) enough
to label himself as an "entrepreneur and inventor" not to have
addressed the above summarized issues in a timely and also effective
manner is a shocking self-indictment.
In hindsight, yes. It is hard to be an expert in everything, and I am
no more an expert in law than you are in polymer chemistry. Nor am I
the first or last inventor/entrepreneur to be ripped off. I understand
that medical doctors are commonly snookered by con artists. Are they
stupid? No. It is their very expertise in their narrow field that
preoccupies their time and resources, making them non-experts in other
non-related fields.
I am publishing this as a warning to other inventors/entrereneurs. To
the extent that your contribution has reinforced that warning, I thank
you.-Jitney
|
| |
| |
jtnospam@yahoo.com (jitney) wrote in
news:b8002be7.0403210623.7995402e@posting.google.com:
My city of residence
We are all in the same state, unquestionably, and I will contest the
suit, and probably countersue. But which county? The travel costs
alone will wear me down financially, and he may be able to "buy the
pot" as poker players say, regardless of the merits of each side. Any
other ideas?-Jitney
The correct county is determined by your state's rules of civil proceedure.
This could be the county where the cause of action arose, the county where
a transaction leading to the cause of the action occurred, the county where
the property in dispute lies (if the suit is about property), a county
where any jointly and severably liable defendant resides, or somewhere else
depending on the state's RCP.
You say you will contest the suit and countersue. Then, in another post,
you say you can't afford representation. Do you intend to handle this pro
se?
|
| |
| |
Najena <najena@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94B4D0E5F506najenahotmail@64.62.191.83>...
jtnospam@yahoo.com (jitney) wrote in
news:b8002be7.0403210623.7995402e@posting.google.com:
The correct county is determined by your state's rules of civil proceedure.
This could be the county where the cause of action arose, the county where
a transaction leading to the cause of the action occurred, the county where
the property in dispute lies (if the suit is about property), a county
where any jointly and severably liable defendant resides, or somewhere else
depending on the state's RCP.
You say you will contest the suit and countersue. Then, in another post,
you say you can't afford representation. Do you intend to handle this pro
se?
If I have to. I am trying to take up a collection among friends and
family, so far with only limited success. A very hazardous venture, I
know, but the alternative is to be hit with a summary judgement and
lose everything without a fight. I am trying to give myself a basic
legal education in the library now, before you laugh please try to see
the desperation of my predicament. Meanwhile, I have to make a living
somehow. I do believe there is a God in heaven that will defend the
innocent and judge the guilty, and He uses ordeals like this to bring
those that love Him closer to Him.-Jitney
|
| |
| |
|
