Legal Question in Consumer Law in South Carolina

Re: Jurisdiction over small claims

I disagree with your first reason. The fact that telecommunications may be regulated by the federal government or an agency thereof, does not necessarily preempt state court jurisdiction. You would probably need to reveiw the South Carolina Statute regarding Magistrate's Court jurisdiction. If the statute allows South Carolina residents to file suit against non-residents, then the fact that one party lives out of state would not be relevant, provided that the nonresident has the necessary minimum contacts with South Carolina to justify a South Carolina Court having jurisdiction over the nonresident. There is a South Carolina statute that discusses minimum contacts. I believe a case came out which states that ordering merchandise by telephone satifies the minimum contacts test. Minimum contacts is a test to determine whether is would be fundamentally fair for a person to sue a person in a given state. Should the Defendant have expected to be sued in that state?What contacts has the Defendant had with that state? Do the contacts have anything to do with the suit? Was the Defendant personally served with service of process while in the state? Does the Defendant own property in the state where the suit is being brought? These are some of the questions that would need to be answered.

A New Jersey resident could very well bring a suit against a South Carolina resident in Magistrate's Court, if the New Jersey resident chose to come to South Carolina and file a suit against the South Carolina resident in the appropriate magistrate court.

Your second reason also has some flaws. The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution does not,in and of itself, preempt state court jurisdiction. In order to sue someone in Federal Court who is a nonresident, the amount in controversy must be in excess of $75,000.00 or the controversy must be based on a Federal claim, such as a Federal Statute (Truth in Lending, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, etc.) The Federal Truth In Lending Act and the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provide for concurrent state and federal court jurisdiction. The Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act is a Federal Law that regulates how debt collectors conduct their business. Often debt collectors have an office in one state and contact alleged debtors who live in another state by telephone and mail. If the Act is violated by the debt collector, then the debt collector may be sued in the state where the alleged debtor received the communication.

The answer to your last question, could be yes. It would depend on which state and some other information, but a state court could very well have jurisdiction over this type of case.