Do Companies Sue If You Don't Pay Civil Demands

[chuckycheese]

Your friend is a knucklehead. If you don't pay the Civil Demand, Target will drag you into court for it. Then you get to pay the Civil Demand AND Target's court costs.
.

Civil demand firms (almost all in either Florida or New York) don't sue people; they try to intimidate people. An investigative reporter did a story on the subject (on ABC, as I remember) and found no evidence that any of them have ever sued anybody. Here's why:

First of all, they would have to sue you in small claims court where the crime took place. So, they've either got to go there or hire an attorney in the area to work on their behalf. After that, they've got to win the case. After that, they've got to collect. After that, they've got to split their award with the store that hired them.

Do you think they're going to do that for an amount that only totalled a few hundred dollars...in the beginning? I heard an experienced lawyer in the San Francisco area say he'd never, ever heard of anyone being sued over a civil demand for shoplifting. I find that very easy to believe.

And.....in Arkansas, collection agencies can't sue in small claims court, attorneys aren't allowed and the right to sue can't be transferred.

[bam!]

HAHAAHHAAHAH to Chucky Cheese. Do you not think that most companies have local lawyers on their payroll in states where they do business. I know that my company has a corporate legal team, but when we get sued in FL, we have private, local lawyers licensed to practice in that state ready to defend us.

Law Missy can testify to that.

[chuckycheese]

HAHAAHHAAHAH to Chucky Cheese. Do you not think that most companies have local lawyers on their payroll in states where they do business. I know that my company has a corporate legal team, but when we get sued in FL, we have private, local lawyers licensed to practice in that state ready to defend us.

Law Missy can testify to that.

You need to read my post again...especially the last sentence. I'd respond further but I couldn't make sense of most of what you wrote.

[525601minutes]

in Arkansas, collection agencies can't sue in small claims court, attorneys aren't allowed and the right to sue can't be transferred.

So? You will have corporation seek legal relief through the civil courts. And the shoplifter will also be responsible for paying opposing counsel's legal fees. It is a civil DEMAND - not a request.

[targetbuster]

i havent got the civil demand yet.. and also my friend isnt really a knuckle head. hes studied law and shit like that

[cbg]

Then he needs to go back to school and study some more.

[Mr. Knowitall]

hes studied law and shit like that

If you study "shit", such that all the "shit" gets into your head, what does that make you?

[aaron]

In most states, stores are probably better served through criminal restitution than by filing lawsuits over civil demands. They may not recover as much money, but they're likely to recover something.

It is certainly feasible to do a mass filing of civil demands, end up with a huge stack of default judgments, a much smaller stack of consent judgments (from the few who appear in court), and a decision of whether to pursue or dismiss the tiny fraction that appear headed to trial - that would largely be a forms-based practice that scales to significant volume and should keep attorney fees to a minimum. But to be worth the cost of the filing fees, you would have to have some degree of confidence that you would recover money. I doubt that many people who aren't particularly concerned about what's on their criminal records are going to lose sleep over what's on their credit reports.

I am aware of civil demands resulting in lawsuits. I make no claim to know how often it happens, let alone whether it's likely or unlikely in any specific case.

[chuckycheese]

Aaron...are you aware of any major chain store (Wal-mart, Target, REI, Sears, etc.) ever retaining a civil demand company that ever sued anyone, ever? If so, in which court did it take place? I don't think it has ever happened.

Most certainly, if you steal a candy bar from a local mini-mart, they might feel they have the time to sue you. It's not likely but it might, on rare occassion, happen. But.......A major chain, such as those discussed? It's probably never happened.

If you're in doubt, talk to your local court clerk and ask when any representative of any of these major retail chains ever filed a claim against anybody. Let us know the particulars.

If I'm wrong, I'd be more interested than most!!

[blau]

I don't know about other states, but if it is similiar to california I don't know why people are worry at all about the civil demand. Here are the two articles I attached.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc...enal-code-4905

http://sfcriminallawyer.blogspot.com...d-letters.html

If you read the article. My view is that there is no logical reason to pay unless it is out of guilt, fear. Or you want to make attonment if you are guilty, which I incourage people to do (I am trying pratice good buddism). But not for the hundred of dollars they are asking for.

For California only not sure about other states. If the merchandis is not damage and can be resold, what did they really lost. If they take you to court there would be a $100 court cost and if they cannot proof damages then they would award the minimum $50, that is if proof they their case. And in California it would be maxed out at $500. According to penal code 490.5. All this is explained in the article.