I’ll spare everyone the back-story. My question is if a person in Ohio sues a person in California for say, $25000, where would the depositions and trial take place?
We try not to give out this valuable information for free, particularly to a person who probably doesn’t even bother to vote.
But seriously, you need to ask an Ohio lawyer. You and find them in your phonebook.
>> I’ll spare everyone the back-story. My question is if a person in Ohio sues a person in California for say, $25000, where would the depositions and trial take place?
I am not a lawyer and I don’t need to be one to tell you the right answer: it depends of the spared story.
The depositions take place in either Hawaii or Las Vegas, at the client’s expense (including those for court reporters, travel, food, gambling losses and hookers). 
IANAL and I don’t live in either of the mentioned states, but where discovery would occur is going to depend on the court in which the suit was filed. Is it state or federal? Under Wisconsin statute, anyone other than a defendant may be compelled to appear for deposition at any place within 100 miles from the place where the person resides, is employed or transacts business in person, or at such other convenient place as is fixed by an order of the circuit court. A defendant may be compelled to appear any place within 100 miles from the place where the defendant is served. I don’t know the rules for a federal lawsuit. Your state probably has similar statutory rules. The trial would take place in a court of competent jurisdiction, which would also be determined by statute.
Anywhere you and the other side want, assuming you don’t complain. If somebody complains, then you’ve got all kinds of fact-intensive inquiries.
IAAL.
95%+ of the time the trial will be in Ohio. If so, some (but likely not all) of the depositions will be in Ohio. Here’s why:
Plaintiff picks the court. Plaintiff, an Ohio resident, is almost certain to start in OH. Defendant has two ways to get the trial moved:
-
Challenge jurisdiction, i.e. prove that it’s fundamentally unfair to have to defend the case in OH. For instance, it may be a car wreck that took place in CA while the OH resident was on vacation. If the CA resident has never been to OH, doesn’t own any property in OH, etc., may be able to FORCE the case to be dismissed on lack of personal jurisdiction, without prejudice to it being refiled in CA.
-
Challenge venue, i.e. show that it’s more efficient or fair to have the case tried in CA. Let’s say the Defendant driver was at the time of the wreck making a delivery for a business that has a lot of sales to OH. No real luck on jurisdicition – if the company makes money off of OH residents it’s hardly unfair to expect them to appear in court there. Better chance on venue – if all of the witnesses live in CA and the plaintiff’s medical treatment was mostly in CA, the OH judge might be convinced to dismiss the case (without prejudice to refiling) and tell the plaintiff to go to CA. This is really a shade of “forum non conveniens” which is roughly translated from the latin to “inconvenient forum”.
Now, there is a side thought to this. Most state courts are extremely reluctant to tell a “local” that the door to the local courthouse is closed and they have to endure the expense and inconvenience of suing in CA. In federal court you would have a better chance but federal court is not available unless one of two things exists: over $75,000 in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs; or, a federal law is involved. Because the question states that the suit is for only $25,000, the case can’t start (or be moved to) federal court.
If the suit sticks in OH then of course the trial will be there. Witness depositions will take place wherever the witness is, because the OH court can’t compel some independent witness to travel to OH to give their deposition. Of course the Defendant (or its employees, if a corporation) is subject to subpoena and there it’s a judgment call as to whether the judge will require them to come to where the case is or require the lawyers to go to where the witness is.
This is of course just a basic outline. Entire books are written on the subject.
I am a 2nd year law student Having taken civil procedure 2 semesters ago, as well as having worked at a law firm this past summer, I can say the following:
JohnW77707 summed it up very well
If you don’t like the forum, just keep saying “this does not comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” over and over again until they transfer it to a place more to your liking. heh
Thanks everyone. I really had no idea it was this complicated.
Here’s the story in a nutshell: A client in Ohio has been stalling in paying her $7,000 invoice and recently sent a letter saying that unless we stop asking for payment, she’ll sue us for $25,000 claiming that her web site was incompatible with certain browsers, therefore causing her sales. (It is our position that no e-commerce site is compatible with all browsers due to the secure socket layer, and she knew this).
We would be willing to defend the case here in California, but not in Ohio. It really sounds from the responses so far that it’s more trouble than it’s worth to persue the matter.
It really doesn’t seem fair that if we take her to small claims for the money she owes, we’ll have to go to Ohio, and if she sues us there’s a “95%+” chance that it will be in Ohio.
Stick with me, bud. And remember, I’m not giving you legal advice, here, although I suspect that many lawyers in CA that you talk to will agree that this comment is correct:
Note in my previous discussion that it is the plaintiff’s choice of forum. You said “if a person in OH sues a person in CA” – that’s where the 95% OH came from. Theoretically, if the CA company were to sue the OH defendant in CA court first, there is a good chance of the case just staying in CA as long as the OH resident is subject to jurisdiction in OH. (Just take the previous discussion and substitute CA for OH and vice-versa). If, as expected, OH (now Defendant) files his own case in OH, then you’ve got a question of whether one judge will “stay” the case so that the other goes forward. Some factors here: 1) Who filed first? 2) In which system do cases get to trial faster? 3) Is there some judge who either wants to move cases off of his docket – and will defer – or is going to be difficult – and will not? In theory, the first case to be filed will be the winner but it’s never that easy when you’ve got two different states’ judges involved.
A long story, all backdropped by the truism that if the stakes are this small it’s in both parties’ best interest to settle the dispute without one or more lawsuits. I can see each side running up $50K in bills just fighting over where the case will be litigated . . .
Just some theoretical musings, and of course not legal advice.
No offense, but JohnW77707 had best finish law school and do some work as an attorney before answering more jurisdiction questions.
As succinctly stated before by others, the proper forum will depend on the reason for the suit. Thus, for instance, an Ohioan driving in California and hit by a Californian isn’t going to sue in Ohio’s state courts. The Ohioan might try a suit in federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship of the parties, but frankly, most lawyers avoid federal courts when they can (state courts are SOOOOOOOO much less picky about how to run your suit). So it really depends on the suit.
As with ALL cases where you want some reasonably decent advice about legal issues pertinent to a specific instance, you should pony up the money to obtain advice worth the cost. Free legal advice is usually worth exactly what you paid for it… 
DSYoungEsq:
I do, in fact take offense. Just in case you are curious, after gradutating from law school I clerked for a Federal Judge. For the last six years I have been in private practice and am Board-Certified in my home state in Personal Injury Trial Law. This requires trying in excess of ten trials to jury verdict as first chair and also passing a fairly exhaustive written exam.
The OP as stated involved a suit for $25,000. Therefore, federal diversity jurisdiction is impossible and the suit must be filed in State Court (unless the plaintiff has some other means of reaching the $75,000 jurisdictional threshhold, or is willing to fib in his Original Complaint, or has a federal cause of action).
I agree with you entirely that the OP should go talk to an attorney if they are seeking specific legal advice. But to the extent that my prior posts addressed the theoretical question(s) posed, I stand by them entirely. If you have any other critiques of my analysis other than your prior post, go ahead. But you’re off to a bad start.