An article appeared April 10, 2003 in the Seattle Times about legislation that had been passed by the Washington State legislature. The legislation confirmed that Washington State District Courts have jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants for action under RCW 19.190. However, the new legislation did not clarify whether small claims courts have jurisidiction over small out-of-state defendants for actions under RCW 19.190. In the article an assistant AG, Dave Horn, is quoted:

Dave Horn, assistant state attorney general, called passage of the legislation "very significant" but acknowledged its effect would be hard to measure. "I hope that the rate at which (spam) cases are thrown out of district courts will decline," Horn said.

To my knowledge, we don't have exact figures related to rates of dismissal etc.

Those of us who have gone to the small claims departments of district court have had plenty of our lawsuits thrown out because the judges said the court has no jurisdiction over out--of-state defendants. I know of just one that was dismissed from regular district court and it was because of a defect in service of process, not because the defendant was out-of-state.

So, the problem of dismissal of lawsuits because of out-of-state defendants really is in the small claims department of district courts, not regular district court. And, nearly all the judges said we could bring the action in regular district court.

Yet, the legislation does not address the source of the problem. But, the AG's office, which pushed for this new legislation, comes off looking good for having sponsored legislation to fix a problem that most people don't know doesn't exist.

Regular district court is much more complex and risky. And because lawyers are allowed in regular district court, lawyers fees apply, even if you don't have one. One anti-spammer found this out when Judge Eileen Kato dismissed the case and awarded the defendant nearly $7,000 in attorneys fees. (This is the same Judge Kato I heard tell a plaintiff that small claims court was not a part of district court, even though by statute small claims court is a department of district court.)

The average spam victim -- you and me and a few million other folks in Washington State -- is still left to be a victim without a method of affordable recourse that is within reach without attorneys.

It would appear that the AG's fix insures there is a profit center for the lawyers of spam victims and of spammers.

When is the AG going to stand up for the spam victims of this State and get behind real legislation -- similar to the anti-junk fax law that requires opt-in -- that addresses a real, not imaginary, problem?

-- Bruce Miller, April 16, 2003