I. RELIEF REQUESTED
The defendants request that the Court grant an Order allowing this case to be transferred from Small Claims Court to District Court because of the potential complicated nature of the claims presented and the unavailability of an adequate representative in Washington State to represent defendant Best Buy Co., Inc.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
This lawsuit was first filed on or about March 18, 2002.’ The plaintiffs alleged
claims for damages arise out of a pricing error for one of the products listed on defendant’s
website, www.bestbuy.com. The error in pricing occurred when the computer graphics card
“GEFORCE 3 T1200 128MB DDR AGP” was incorrectly listed for the retail price $129.99,
instead of the actual retail price of $399.99. The error occurred because the graphics card,
which was to be available by pre-order prior to the actual release date, was assigned a
fictitious price and fictitious name in the defendant’s computer system in order to safeguard
against product information leaks and to protect the manufacturers trade secrets.
On February 6, 2002 at 12:00a.m., the product was available on the defendant’s
website for pre-ordering. While the fictitious pre-assigned name of the product was changed
to reflect the actual name of the product on the website, the fictitious price of $129.99 was
never changed. The error was not discovered for several hours, but was quickly changed to
reflect the actual retail price on the website. During the approximately twelve hours the
pricing error was on the website, defendant received approximately 4,000 pre-orders for the
product at issue. Emails were sent to those who made pre-orders based on the fictitious price
expressing defendant’s apologies and offering a $30 digital coupon towards the purchase of
the product in question.
Further, defendant’s website contains the following disclaimer and limitation of
liability for this type of occurrence:
Errors on Our Site
Prices and availability are subject to change without notice. Errors will be corrected where discovered, and Best Buy reserves the right to revoke any stated offer and to correct any errors, inaccuracies or omissions including after an order has been submitted and whether or not the order has been confirmed and your credit card charged.2
Additionally, the website states that the use of the website is expressly at the user’s risk and that defendant will not be liable for damages from using the site, including but not
limited to mistakes, errors or omissions on the site.3 Defendant is a Minnesota corporation
duly registered and authorized to conduct business in Washington State. Defendant does not
maintain any corporate offices in Washington State and does not have a duly authorized
representative competent to testify to the allegations made in plaintiff’s Complaint here in
Seattle. As a corporation, defendant is entitled to have a duly authorize representative appear
for and defend its interests in this litigation.
III. ISSUE PRESENTED
Is defendant entitled to have this case removed from Small Claims Court to
District Court because of the complicated nature of the claims presented by the
plaintiff and the disadvantaged position they will be in without a proper corporate
representative and without the aid in their defense by legal counsel? Does the Small Claims Court lack jurisdiction to hear a case against a Minnesota
IV. EVIDENCE RELIED ON
Defendant relies on the pleadings and records previously filed herein.
V. LEGAL AUTHORITY
Legal authority relied on includes RCW 12.40 et seq. And RCW 4.12.030.
VI. LEGAL DISCUSSION
The ends of justice will not be served and the defendant will be unfairly
preludiced if it is forced to defend this case without representation by legal
counsel in Small Claims Court.
Defendant asserts the Small Claims Court is respectfully not the proper forum to hear this case. This case is more complicated than it appears on its face and the defendants are
entitled to legal representation to defend this matter. The plaintiff appears to be making a breach of contract claim against the defendant
for damages allegedly incurred as the result of the pricing error on defendant’s website;
however, the true nature and extent of the plaintiff’s claims against defendant are unknown.
Breach of contract theories are varied and complicated in nature. If forced to proceed,
defendant will be at a double disadvantage due to the fact that it does not have an adequate
representative in the State of Washington to testify to these matters, and due to the fact that
defendant should be entitled to legal representation when having to defend the contract
claims asserted by the plaintiff. The defendant is entitled to litigate the issues presented and
raise certain legal defenses that they will be unable to do in Small Claims Court because they
cannot be represented by an attorney.
Additionally, the defendant has had no opportunity to engage in discovery to
determine the true nature and extent of the plaintiffs alleged damages claim, and even if
there has been a breach as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs claim for relief may or
may not be recoverable in a civil action. Defendant is not in the proper position nor will it
have the proper legal background in the Small Claims setting to raise objections and hold the
plaintiff to his burden of proof on these claimed damages because it cannot have an attorney
present.
RCW 4.12.030 contains the grounds for a litigant to change venue in a case. It states
in pertinent part that “The court may, on motion, in the following cases, change the place of
trial when it appears by affidavit, or other satisfactory proof:
(3) That the convenience of witnesses or the ends off justice would be forwarded by
the change[.]” (Emphasis added.) Additionally, the defendant does not have a qualified representative available in
Washington to adequately represent its interests in this case. Long v. McLeod, 6
Wn.App.848, 496 P.2d 540 (1972). If this case proceeds as scheduled, it will be left
inadequately represented, virtually defenseless and at the mercy of the Court.
The Small Claims Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear a case in which the
defendant is an out of State corporation. Defendant Best Buy, Inc. is a Minnesota Corporation. The proper jurisdiction to file
this claim should have been in Minnesota, not Washington. The rules for Small Claims state
“A small claims case must be filed in the jurisdiction of the defendant’s residence.. .“
Defendant respectfully submits Small Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and that it does
not have the jurisdiction to hear this case. The proper forum for this case is at the very least
District or Superior Court, not Small Claims Court.
VII. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court transfer this
case to District Court so that the parties may litigate the contract issues and alleged damages
and that both may be represented by counsel. Forcing the defendants to litigate this case in
Small Claims court without the aid of legal counsel would be unfairly prejudicial and would
not serve the ends of justice.
|
|
