Does the statute of limitations apply if the company to be sued wasn&#39;t operating in the U.S.? A civil statute of limitations applies to a non-criminal legal action, including a tort or contract case.[5] If the statute of limitations expires before a lawsuit is filed, the defendant may raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense to seek dismissal of the charge. The exact time period depends on both the state and the type of claim (contract claim, personal injury, fraud etc.). Most fall in the range of one to ten years, with two to three years being most common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations Does the statute of limitations apply if the company to be sued wasn't operating in the U.S.? Let's say that a company in China wasn't located in the U.S. for 12 years and 12 years before it created a headquarters in the U.S., the plaintiff was victim of a contract breach from that company, can the the plaintiff still sue the company because the company could not be sued before that even if the statute of limitation would suggest the company cannot be sued anymore? Assume the plaintiff is in the United States in California.
Does the statute of limitations apply if the company to be sued wasn't operating in the U.S.? If the company is not operating in the USA then, of course, US law does not apply to it. There may be statutes of limitations where it is operating but the US ones are irrelevant. However, the company you describe which is entering into a contract with a California resident to provide goods or services in California is most definitely operating in California. The fact that it doesn't have a physical presence in California doesn't mean it's not operating there. If you wish to bring an action in California, the Californian statute of limitations will most definitely apply and time will run from when the breach of contract occurred. You are suffering under the misapprehension that you can't sue a foreign company in a US court You can. It's technically more complicated and there can be disputes over jurisdiction, the appropriate venue and which law applies but assuming all of that can be managed and a Californian court has jurisdiction and considers itself the most appropriate venue (it may be that a Chinese court is more appropriate) then there's no reason why you can't sue a foreign company with no physical presence in California.
The offences found in the Computer Misuse Act 1990 are criminal offences. The Limitations Act 1980 deals with civil offences and is thus not relevant. Apparently, there is no general statute of limitations for criminal offences in the UK (though for summary proceedings, the limit is in general 6 months).
The law regarding proof of service allows service of summons by publication in case a defendant "is not a resident of the state, but has property therein and the court has jurisdiction of the subject of the action". Plaintiff must file an affidavit saying that he believes that you are not a resident, and he either mailed the summons to you or states that your residence is unknown. Knowing how to contact a person is not exactly the same as knowing their residence, so the statement in the affidavit might be true. There is a one year limit on your right to defend and reopen if not served personally. The statute of limitations tolls after the cause of action has accrued (which I suppose would be defective service of the summons, viz. perjury in the affadavit). For recovery of real property, the time would be ten years. The court rules allow that "At any time in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, the court may allow any process or proof of service thereof to be amended, unless it clearly appears that material prejudice would result to the substantial rights of the party against whom the process issued". (This is clearly a matter that your attorney needs to address).
When the matter is final (no more appeals), the winner in the suit will request a writ of execution to collect whatever is owed. This may involve seizing a person's cash, car and so on. There are limits to what can be seized (some things are exempt by law), for example they can't outright seize a person's home. However, they can put a lien on it, meaning that when the house is sold, the proceeds go to the winner. There are various limits on what can be taken, for example Social Security benefits, welfare, child support – the details are largely determined by state law. There is also a process where the loser's wages can be garnished (there are federal and state limits on how much can be taken). Ultimately, it may not be possible to collect everything. However, today's lack of funds does not necessarily mean permanent lack of funds. A judgment will be valid for a long time and may be renewed. The reason for liability for damages comes down to basic justice. If you harm a person to some extent, you should compensate them accordingly for the wrong that you have done to them. The job of the jury is to determine two factual questions: (1) did the defendant wrongfully harm the plaintiff, and (2) what is the extent of harm. The ability of a defendant to pay such an amount does not affect the answer to those two questions, so inability to pay is legally irrelevant. how much harm was done
Suing them and winning may not be that difficult, and you can generally sue a business even if it ceases to operate as a going concern. Collecting the judgment you win, however, is likely to be very difficult. Still if you are going to sue, the sooner the better, because outside of bankruptcy, the general rule is that the person who is first in time to actually seize the available assets of a company with more debts than assets is first in right to those assets. Also a squeaky wheel is often the one that gets the grease. "Shaming" companies on social media often works for going concerns, but is rarely effective when a company is actually going out of business soon. There are special remedies available against recipients of improperly diverted funds when funds are deliberately sucked out of the organization without receiving anything in exchange for its money (this is called a "fraudulent transfer"), but those cases are expensive to bring and hard to prove. Often in the case of a legitimately failing business, operating losses and not improper diversion of funds from the company, is the reason that it doesn't have enough money to pay all of its debts in full, so this remedy is not available. Winning a lawsuit simply gives you a piece of paper stating that the defendant owes you money which you can then use to seize money and property from the defendant and/or people who owe the defendant money, if you can find either of those things. But, you can't get blood out of a turnip, and the alternative formal collection mechanism (forcing an involuntary bankruptcy) requires the coordination of multiple significant creditors and may not provide much better results if the company has genuinely run out of money, although unpaid wages are often entitled to priority in bankruptcy up to a certain dollar amount which is a preference that is not generally available outside of bankruptcy court. There are sometimes laws that can be invoked to hold people affiliated with the management of a defunct business personally responsible for unpaid wages (sometimes the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and sometimes state wage claim acts). And, very rarely in egregious cases that affect lots of people where there was an intent to stiff you before you finished earning new wages at the company, a local or state prosecutor will prosecute a company or its officers for "wage theft". Finally, "freelancers" often have far fewer rights in efforts to collect wages than true employees, so a mere independent contractor is in a weaker position and should consider that fact when deciding whether or not to settle. Bottom line: consider seriously accepting a settlement because the cost of collection and the unavailability of assets to collect from once it goes out of business may make a bird in the hand worth more than two in the bush.
There are a few main factors that limit law enforcement liability in a civil lawsuit: 1. Governmental Immunity Statutes. Usually, a state has a governmental immunity act that bars tort liability of state or local governments and of governmental officials acting in their official capacity, except for some narrow exceptions, the most common of which are for negligence in situations that are very similar to cases in which non-governmental agencies are operating (e.g. car accidents, slip and falls at government facilities, medical malpractice by doctors at government owned hospitals, etc.). Usually there is not an exception for intentional torts by law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity. Usually, damages are limited and punitive damages are not allowed at all. In New Hampshire, this is found at Revised Statutes Annotated Chapter 507-B. See e.g. here. 2. Statutes of Limitations Usually, the kind of state law torts that could give rise to police liability have short statutes of limitations that are often further curtailed by special shorter deadlines that apply to suits against governments and government officials. New Hampshire is relatively liberal in this regard with a three year statute of limitations for most civil actions that could conceivably give rise to law enforcement action related liability. (In Colorado, in contrast, the statute of limitations to file a notice of claim against a governmental entity is six months and the statute of limitations for intentional torts in the event that a court finds that an police officer's conduct was outside the scope of his or her official duties is one year.) 3. Federal Liability Claims The main kinds of liability that the U.S. Constitution prevents state governmental liability statutes from providing immunity from are suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (i.e. civil rights lawsuits), and suits arising under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment as incorporated through the 14th Amendment and under the 14th Amendment directly (i.e. inverse condemnation actions alleging a taking without due process or compensation). A. § 1983 Lawsuits There are several barriers to recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 a.k.a. the Third Enforcement Act (see generally, e.g., Allison L. Patton, &quot;The endless cycle of abuse: why 42 USC 1983 is ineffective in deterring police brutality&quot; Hastings LJ (1992)). Note also that the limitations below apply primarily to retrospective suits for money damages. Not all of these limitations apply to prospective relief in the form of an injunction prohibiting certain kinds of conduct in the future. i. There is no vicarious liability. See, e.g., here. So, a government is not responsible unless it as an entity, and not just an agent or employee, has an intent to violate someone's civil rights. This factor is somewhat less important than it seems in practice, because a law enforcement officer's employer or union will usually advance the costs of defense of a civil rights action (something not normally available for intentional tort lawsuits in the private sector) and will often agree to indemnify a law enforcement officer defendant in a settlement or after an award against a law enforcement officer defendant. The absence of vicarious liability also means that you can only prevail if you can determine that a particular named individual violated your rights. It is not sufficient to know, for example, that some unnamed police officer in a particular city's police department violated your rights. In contrast, if you are harmed by an unnamed employee or agent of a private business corporation, because of the much maligned doctrine of corporate personhood, the corporation can be held liable for that unnamed employee's acts anyway, which is usually better than proving liability on the part of the employee because usually the employer has a greater ability to pay a judgment than an employee. ii. There is only liability for intentional violations of civil rights. If mere negligence, § 1983 does not provide a remedy. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). If poorly designed systems cause someone's civil rights to be violated, it is usually impossible to identify someone whose more culpable than negligent conflict is responsible for this violation. iii. Police officers have qualified immunity from liability under § 1983 (a doctrine created surprisingly recently). This means that the police officer must have allegedly intentionally violated a well established right, which basically means that there must be controlling case law governing the fact pattern in question. If there is no prior controlling case law, the police officer does not have liability even if the court finds on the merits that the victim's civil rights were indeed violated. It is basically a &quot;one free bite&quot; rule. iv. Unlike most other legal issues in civil lawsuits (the main other issue treated similarly is jurisdiction), issues of qualified immunity can be raised at the motion to dismiss stage, before any other response to the lawsuit is required, even if it requires a judge to consider disputed evidence to resolve it, and if the judge rules against the police on the issue of qualified immunity, they can immediately appeal the ruling, rather than waiting until the case is resolved on the merits at the end of the case. Appellate case law on qualified immunity frequently analyzes facts in an unreasonable manner that a jury could disagree with, even though it is not suppose to do that. v. While local governments and state and local government officials can be sued in federal court pursuant to § 1983, the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution bars lawsuits against state governments in the federal courts in most circumstances, unless the state governments have expressly waived their immunity from suit. (N.B. I have linked to Wikipedia rather than just the text of the Amendment because the Courts, shortly after it was adopted and forever after that time, have interpreted the 11th Amendment to have a meaning contrary to its plain language and impossible to infer from its text alone.) For reasons that are doctrinally complex and obscure, the 11th Amendment generally bars § 1983 actions entirely against state governments although not against state government officials (in what is called a Bivens action), and not suits against local governments. B. Inverse Condemnation Actions There are barriers to inverse condemnation actions as well: i. Inverse condemnation actions can be asserted against entities (which have vicarious liability for acts of their agents) but not against officers of government agencies. Usually, holding an entity strictly liable for actions of the entity's subordinates is a good thing for a plaintiff harmed by the government, but this doesn't provide a civil lawsuit mechanism for holding particular bad actors responsible for their conduct so it can be a poor incentive for individual governmental employees to act properly. ii. Inverse condemnation actions apply only to property interests, not harms in the nature of lost of life, harm in the form of personal injuries, lost services or time, pain and suffering, emotional distress, or loss of dignity or other legally recognized rights. Punitive damages are also not generally available in an inverse condemnation action. See, e.g., here (&quot;It is important to note at the outset that, under inverse condemnation, only damages to real and personal property are recoverable. The claim does not allow recovery of other damages.&quot;) (arguably intellectual or intangible property that is totally taken may also give rise to an inverse condemnation claim). iii. Inverse condemnation actions are available only in the event of a &quot;total taking&quot;. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). Government action that reduces the value of property is not enough. For government action to be a &quot;total taking&quot; it must destroy all more than nominal economic value of the property in question. 4. Why Does A Federal v. State Forum Actually Matter? Vogelman files the suits in federal court because he says it’s “almost impossible” to sue a police officer in state court, given statutes that insulate them from litigation. This is either a misquotation or an erroneous statement. It is &quot;almost impossible&quot; to sue a police officer under state law, given the statutes that limit them from litigation such as RSA Chapter 507-B. But, it is not materially more difficult to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court than it is in federal court from the perspective of statutory law or civil procedure rules, since state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over such actions. There are still good reasons to bring suit in federal court rather than state court under § 1983, and for these reasons this is how it is usually done. But, the reasons aren't statutory. Instead, they mostly pertain to the personnel involved. A. Jury Shopping Jury pool differences between state courts and federal courts are important. But, this factor varies from case to case and doesn't fully explain the strong pro-federal court choice of forum decisions made by Plaintiffs that we observe. i. Federal court provides a larger jury pool, which is desirable when the violation of rights takes place in a jurisdiction less favorable to civil rights plaintiffs vis-a-vis law enforcement defendants. ii. Further, the federal jury pool will typically include many jurors from outside the jurisdiction in which the law enforcement defendant are employed, while state courts will typically have jury pools that are drawn from the jurisdiction that employs the law enforcement defendants who will be among the people who may face increased tax liability for damages awarded for law enforcement misconduct. Like Congressmen, even if people are not favorably inclined towards law enforcement, in general, they are often more favorably inclined towards the law enforcement officials in their own jurisdiction who are protecting them (in theory) from crime. B. Implicit Judicial Bias. More importantly, in practice, state court judges presiding over § 1983 cases are usually more favorably inclined towards law enforcement defendants than federal court judges, and judges are unusually powerful in these kinds of cases. This, in turn, is a product of four main factors: i. Regulatory capture (state court judges have had law enforcement defendants testify before them in criminal cases on a routine basis and found them to be credible again and again, while routinely finding that criminal defendants, who are often demographically similar to or overlap with criminal defendants, to be not credible). ii. Most state court judges are biased in favor of law enforcement, in part, because a large share of them are state and local government criminal prosecutors. This is also true of federal court judges (about 40% were prosecutors before becoming judges) but to a lesser extent. Evidence of this bias at the appellate court level can be found here. See also here and here. iii. State court judges are part of a network of state and local government officials and politicians to whom they are favorably inclined who tend to strongly back the law enforcement officials who are also part of that network, while federal court judges, while still politically connected and not necessarily positively inclined towards civil rights defendants, have a much more attenuated connection to those networks of state and local government officials and politicians. iv. State court trial judges are typically more responsive to public opinion and civil rights plaintiffs are often unpopular individuals. Footnote Re Sources In addition to the sources linked, my first &quot;real job&quot; out of law school including defending county governments and county officials from government liability claims. The matters for which there are no links to sources largely reflect the conventional wisdom of myself and my colleagues in that context.
The statute of limitations in Oregon appears to be six years (per the link provided by Nate Eldgredge in the comments). This would be extended if there was a partial payment or written affirmation of the debt by the debtor.
Stogner v. California, a criminal case, held that &quot;A law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution&quot;. In 1798, in Calder v. Bull, SCOTUS long ago decided that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to civil cases. In that case, Calder had been entitled to property under a will, and the Connecticut legislature changed the law. The Supreme Court held that the legislative act was not an Ex Post Facto law. Chase's reasoning, which relies on the distinction between ex post facto law and retrospective law, is this: In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws and retrospective laws. Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective, but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law. The former only are prohibited. Every law that takes away or impairs rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective, and is generally unjust and may be oppressive, and it is a good general rule that a law should have no retrospect; but there are cases in which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community and also of individuals, relate to a time antecedent to their commencement, as statutes of oblivion or of pardon. They are certainly retrospective, and literally both concerning and after the facts committed. But I do not consider any law ex post facto within the prohibition that mollifies the rigor of the criminal law, but only those that create or aggravate the crime or increase the punishment or change the rules of evidence for the purpose of conviction. Every law that is to have an operation before the making thereof, as to commence at an antecedent time or to save time from the statute of limitations or to excuse acts which were unlawful, and before committed, and the like, is retrospective. But such laws may be proper or necessary, as the case may be. There is a great and apparent difference between making an unlawful act lawful and the making an innocent action criminal and punishing it as a crime. The expressions &quot;ex post facto laws&quot; are technical; they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by legislators, lawyers, and authors. So, yes it can.