In April of 2004 I received notice that my credit card dept of about $4800 plus late fees and penalties of about $1000 was being considered for collections. I was living in California when I initially signed up for the credit card and in 2003 moved to Oregon. Periodically for the next couple of years I was getting calls from collection agencies and my response was I didn't have any extra money at the time. In the summer of 2007 I received a summons to appear in court where the plaintiff was sueing me for $8900 plus 28% interest dating from May 2004 and shortly thereafter a date was set for arbitration. Just before the hearing the plaintiff dismissed the case without prejudice. Two days ago I received anotther summons to appear in court this time with the plaintiff requesting $6000 plus 26% interest dating from May of 2004. From my understanding California has a statute of limitations of 4 years while Oregon has a statute of limitations of 6 years. Would it make a difference and is it possible to move back to California and request a change of location for the court appearance to California since the statute of limitations is up in California?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j strongfeather

In April of 2004 I received notice that my credit card dept of about $4800 plus late fees and penalties of about $1000 was being considered for collections. I was living in California when I initially signed up for the credit card and in 2003 moved to Oregon. Periodically for the next couple of years I was getting calls from collection agencies and my response was I didn't have any extra money at the time. In the summer of 2007 I received a summons to appear in court where the plaintiff was sueing me for $8900 plus 28% interest dating from May 2004 and shortly thereafter a date was set for arbitration. Just before the hearing the plaintiff dismissed the case without prejudice. Two days ago I received anotther summons to appear in court this time with the plaintiff requesting $6000 plus 26% interest dating from May of 2004. From my understanding California has a statute of limitations of 4 years while Oregon has a statute of limitations of 6 years. Would it make a difference and is it possible to move back to California and request a change of location for the court appearance to California since the statute of limitations is up in California?

---

My research indicates the Statute runs in the State where the account was opened OR in the State where the last payment was made or there was activity.

California or Oregon?

No, you have no grounds to change venue in order to avoid the Statute. I also question whether the service in 2007 factors in. Why was it dismissed?

I think you can argue Statute; I don't know that you'll win.

There was no explanation in the judgement of dismissile why the plaintiff dismissed the case. Since the amount he was asking was $3000 over what I owed plus interest I believe he was hoping I would not fight the case giving him a very profitable victory. I also understand that the wording "without prefudice" gives me only a partial victory allowing the plaintiff to sue me later down the road which is what he is doing. It appears that since the amount I believe I owe agrees with what the plaintiff is asking and if the 6 year statute of limitations of Oregon applies instead of the California statute I may have no defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j strongfeather

There was no explanation in the judgement of dismissile why the plaintiff dismissed the case. Since the amount he was asking was $3000 over what I owed plus interest I believe he was hoping I would not fight the case giving him a very profitable victory. I also understand that the wording "without prefudice" gives me only a partial victory allowing the plaintiff to sue me later down the road which is what he is doing. It appears that since the amount I believe I owe agrees with what the plaintiff is asking and if the 6 year statute of limitations of Oregon applies instead of the California statute I may have no defense.

---

The Plaintiff can't dismiss the case. Only the Court can dismiss the case.

And, yes, undoubtedly the dollar figure includes interest, Court costs, legal fees - and the Plaintiff can refile.

Judy beat me to it. But my first reaction here is that a plaintiff cannot dimiss a case. Especially not with or without prejudice. That is up to a judge. Nor can the plaintiff even request dismissal because they are the party bringing suit. All the plaintiff can do is drop the suit, reserving the right to reinstitute the suit later on.

So something is not right here. Are you sure no hearing was held?