I am being sued by internet PDL Tremont

Please do not threaten to report them to the ag and ftc - DO IT! When you threaten it is just like the treats from many of the ca's and pdls - it doesnt hold water. And cc the pdl with the complaints.These places beleive that they are above the law so we have to use the laws to our advantage.

Here is my take on things.Most creditors threaten to sue either where contract started or your state of residence. I am unsure of California law,but most states state for a suit to be legal you must be sued in your state of residence.Pm Law Student,he is in Law School in California. I would file a letter to that court stating that since you do not live in South Dakota,the suit should be dismissed entirely and the company should be sanctioned for bringing an improper suit to their court house. You will demand dismissal with prejudice due to improper venue.

This is my thought as well Cajun, I am having problems trying to word the letter because i am not sure of how to word it exactly. Should i make it long or short and to the point your last sentence is very good.

There is wording in there web site that says that if they want they can bring a small claims suit in south dakota here is the quote from there web site

Non-Arbitration of Collections: Should the Borrower default on repayment of the loan and collection action is necessary, Lender may file a small claims action in Minnehaha County in South Dakota.

is this binding or even legal?

I found this info on the CA courts website -

Even if they are allowed to bring a suit in south dakota,the judgement would be completely useless until it has been domesticated in a california court.

So should i take the route that they are suing in the wrong court, i dont want to anger the Judge.

I don't think it would anger the judge, but it really isn't the "wrong" court. I think they can bring the suit in South Dakota, at least as a matter of procedure but they will need to bring a SECOND case in California to enforce any judgment. The danger is your boss will just see a judgement from A court and assume he has to do the garnishment. Most employers aren't going to go pay a lawyer to find out if a judgment counts or not. So get your employer in the loop if you can.

i have told them, and she said that she will have to do the garnishment if it is a court order. I called the clerk for South Dakota and she said that they will not garnish for a ruling that it is up to the plaintiff to collect his money. So i guess i am at plan B which is to ask for a telephone appearance and argue that Tremont should have taken the full amount on the due date. Not just the interest and that they shouldnt be awarded anything more then the amount i borrowed.

That's the problem. A South Dakota judge has no authority in California so your boss can legally ignore anything they send (unless they get a California court to domesticate the judgment). But very few bosses would know this on their own, let alone be willing to get in the middle of something like this. And they definitely aren't going to reach into their own pockets to pay a lawyer to tell them what's what.

Here's my take on it. Based on the law that Goudah has cited, it seems like they will make the argument that if they are doing business in South Dakota, they were technically hurt in South Dakota. However, you can also make the claim that since you live in California and have never set foot in South Dakota, they were technically doing business in California (where they are not licensed, btw). Based on that premise, they lose, because they were doing business illegally and would be better off to just take your payment, like they should have done in the first place.
A South Dakota judge is not a member of the California Bar, and will know that they can not issue legal garnishments for California.

This is way beyond my realm of knowledge so I don't have anything else to add but I think that kscornell is right. I am not sure what to do about your employer but if you get this lawsuit thrown out then you won't have to worry about that.

Thanks, Sass--but I think that we really need Law Student here! Hope he's home from school!!

You're welcome ks....and you are right...LawStudent is GOOD, he really knows his stuff! But I really do think you gave some good advice there. I was at a complete loss

This isn't about what the judge will do. It's about what Tremont does with the judgment. They will mail a copy of the judgment to the employer with a letter requesting it be paid from the borrower's wages. It isn't "legal" but it looks official and most employers are fooled by it.

If the employer garnishs on an invalid legal instrument,they will be on the hook to pay back their employee along with any additional damages employee suffered because of their actions. Out of state judgements mean absolutely nothing to another state until they are domesticated.

And hopefully, some HR clerk won't be fooled by this! I still don't feel good about it--too easy to screw up...