The sign conveniently paralleled Knowles Avenue so that one might be able to catch a glimpse of it if looking to the right at the approximate second he or she drove by. Behind the sign was a large expanse of grass out of which grew sporadically placed pine and oak trees. Through the trees Abdul could see a square, one story concrete building. Creme pillars grew out of the ground into the building's brown eaves.

Upon closer inspection Abdul came to three pairs of doors. Because it was a weekday between the hours of 8:30am and 4:00pm, he could enter. As he passed through the doors on the far right, the Clerk's Office filled his view. Abdul stepped into the silent room which was only less white than a hospital. A glass wall on top of a counter faced him. Behind the glass sat three clerks. They waited to speak with him until he had been standing before them an adequate period of time. Abdul told the clerk that had acknowledged him that he wanted to file a case against the Petersons. The clerk gave him a paper to fill out and a couple of forms, including a summons, that would need to be served to the Petersons. Abdul checked with the clerk to make sure that he was filing at the correct court (proper venue), because Abdul knew that venue rules, in general, are complex. The clerk told Abdul that this was the correct court. Abdul finished filling out the papers, and gave the clerk the papers that were meant for the Petersons. He then paid $5 in addition to his other $20 filing fee so that the court would mail the papers to the Petersons in the correct manner. This is called "being served."

When the Petersons got the summons to appear in small claims court on Tuesday, December 5th at 1:00,they were surprised that Abdul had actually gone through with his plan. They knew, however, that this was no joke and decided to show up on the date specified by the summons. Abdul and the Petersons arrived at the court on the 5th as planned. They waited outside the courtroom until the bailiff told them it was time to begin. They walked through a dimly lit waiting room into the well lit white walled courtroom. Each party sat in the orange plastic chairs provided for those waiting to be heard by the judge. The room was comfortably cool. The fifty chair audience area was no more than one fourth full. From his seat Abdul studied the other half of the courtroom. It looked very much like to courtroom he had seen on TV. Light maple partitions, four feet tall, wove around each of the standard court room objects in a maze. To the far left, farthest from where he now sat, stood the judge's bench. Next to the bench, a large area was sectioned off, with a chair in the center for the witness stand. Behind the witness stand was a mosaic that stretched to the ceiling. The earth-tone tiles depicted two upraised hands just below the scales of justice. To the right of the witness stand, taking up half of the entire room, was a jury box with chairs that would never be filled. Small claims court never uses a jury. Lawyers are also excluded from the small claims process (unless one is sued or needs to sue in such a court). Facing the judge's bench stood a long oak table. On the right half stood a placard which read "Plaintiff," on the left was one which read, "Defendant." The audience was separated from this table by the four foot maple wall. On the left, close to the audience, was a box of maple which enclosed one chair; a seat for the bailiff. The only other piece of furniture was the courtroom clerk's oak desk which was lower than, and immediately before the judge's stand.

The judge was not in the room yet. The courtroom clerk, Betty, explained the proceedings. Betty called roll to see which of the many parties scheduled for the day were present. Cases in which only a plaintiff or a defendant had shown up would go first when the process began. When Betty called Abdul, and the Petersons, she asked them if they would publicly agree to be heard by a judge pro-tempore. Judge pro-tempore means "judge for the time being." These are experienced lawyers in good standing who are willing to do a bit of community service.

Abdul or the Petersons could have requested to be heard on another day by a Commissioner, but they decided not to be picky. A commissioner has more experience than a judge pro-tempore, and a slightly higher status, but he or she will probably make the same decisions as a judge pro-tempore. After checking with each participant, the courtroom clerk asked everyone to stand and raise his or her right hand. Abdul and the Petersons stood up in a bit of confusion and were sworn in with the rest of the mass. Betty then required everyone to step outside of the court room to try one last time to settle his or her case without the help of the judge. Each Plaintiff and Defendant pair came back in the courtroom once they have reached an agreement, or agreed that they in fact required the assistance of a judge to resolve the issue. This is where Abdul's adventure comes to an end. There are many possible outcomes to his case. I will use actual court cases I witnessed to illustrate the possibilities. They are: 1) a case with an absent defendant, 2) a case with an absent plaintiff, 3) a case that was resolved without the judges intervention, 4) an easy settlement, and 5) a hard settlement. All names in this paper have been changed to protect the innocentÑeven though court records are available to the public.

A Case With An Absent Defendant

In a case that the Plaintiff shows up, but the Defendant doesn't, the Plaintiff will probably win. I saw two examples of this option, which pretty much sum up the possible outcomes of such a situation. The plaintiff, Zaram, was the same for both cases. She was representing a credit agency which needed to collect some outstanding fines from customers. Zaram is not a lawyer, just a trained staff member. In the first of her two cases, the judge asked the courtroom clerk to check to make sure that the defendant was served his or her notice with enough time to respond and get to court. served." In this case, Zaram did not give the defendant enough advance time to get to court. The judge dismissed the case "without prejudice;" Zaram may repeat the filing process, this time giving the defendant ample advance notice (5 days minimum if in-county), and eventually have the case heard. In Zaram's second case, the defendant was also absent. However, this defendant was served with ample time to get to court. The judge read through Zaram's case, and asked pertinent questions to make sure the case was fair. Before I realized they had really started, they were done, and the judge was saying that he had decided in Zaram's company's favor. He dismissed the case "with prejudice." That means that the defendant cannot appeal the case, and will have to file the case again with himself or herself as the plaintiff to get the money he or she now owes back. Even then the plaintiff may not win, which will leave him with the same debts, plus another set of court fees. Overall, it's best to show up in court if you are summoned. If nothing else, you'll have a voice in the type of installments in which the fees will be paid.

A Case With An Absent Plaintiff

In one of the first cases I observed, the plaintiff did not show up. The judge laughed in shock at this prospect. This lead me to believe that such cases are rare; the plaintiff, after all, cared enough about the case to sue! The judge was about to dismiss the case "with prejudice" (the plaintiff would not be able to bring it up in court again), but the defendant was not the actual defendant. The young lady, Jane, standing in as the defendant, was representing her father. It is legal to do this, and Jane then offered to stand in for her sister as well, who just happened to be the absent plaintiff. (Jane's sister was suing her father, and neither one of them were there.) The judge considered allowing Jane to represent her sister and her father, but quickly decided against it. Because Jane was not the actual defendant, the judge dismissed the case "without prejudice" (it is possible for Jane's sister to file against her dad again).

A Case Resolved Without The Judge's Intervention

A third scenario I witnessed included a man and a woman both about the age of 28 who were able to reach an agreement without the judge. I didn't witness their compromise because it took place outside during the time set aside by the judge for one last attempt at compromise. Therefore, I don't know what the case was about. However, they seemed very familiar with each other while being distant and polite at the same time. I imagined that they had some sort of close interpersonal relationship, but had had some sort of falling out that included money. I concluded this because she owed him $300,which is not very much to go to court over, and, he settled for $220 ($200 plus paying the $20 court fee)Ña loss of a third of the money he was suing for! In cases such as this, the plaintiff and defendant compromise, they still need to report to the judge. This is so that the judge can record that the case was resolved, and that both parties agreed. These people decided that the lady would pay in installments of $50 starting that day, and every month by the 17th until the $220 was paid in full. The Judge thanked them for compromising without his intervention.

A Quick Settlement

Sometimes it is sad to watch small claims court cases. One of the first cases I observed was rather simple, but heart wrenching. The plaintiff, Mary, was representing an agency that had given the defendant a car loan. This Mary's second case of the day. She was tall, and stood straight in her pressed business suit. The defendant, Anne, decreased her stature by slouching. Though Anne had applied make-up and set her hair neatly, she was wearing a casual jacket and pants looked like they were intended to be used as exercise clothes. From the content of the trial I later deduced that this was probably her nicest set of clothes; She certainly cared about the way she looked. She was trying to stay composed and succeeded for the most part until the Judge asked where the second defendant, Sid, was. (The claim had been filed against the two people who had signed for the car loan.) Anne began to cry and said that the other defendant had left with the car for which they had received the loan. The Judge asked if she knew where he was. She did not. The judge asked, "Isn't he your husband?" The defendant replied with a very shaky "Yes," and then was unable to control her tears. Then out came the truth that the Defendant was scrapping by to make ends meet. The Plaintiff was shocked to hear all of this. She said, "She didn't tell me any of this outside! Why didn't you tell me this outside?" The Plaintiff then offered to accept very low monthly payments. The agreement was as follows: the defendant would pay back the $1,700 in monthly installments of $100. And in a final attempt to ease the defendant's burden, the plaintiff said with the tone of a protective older sister, "And when Sid shows up, I'll take care of him."

A Full Length Settlement

Some cases involve more discussion. In the basic format, the plaintiff presents his or her case, the defendant presents his or her case, and then the plaintiff is allowed a rebuttal. The judge asks questions intermittently throughout the trial. I have watched a few drawn out cases. These become difficult to judge because both sides believe they are right. One of the complicated cases I witnessed involved a husband, Steve, and wife, Donna, suing a San Jose veterinary hospital. Donna and Steve, felt that their two and a half year old boxer, Honey, died because of complications from a spay she had received from the company of the defendant two years previous to the death. The plaintiffs noted that the spay had been a bit ragged. Before Honey died, she had two emergency surgeries on her intestine. The plaintiff's wanted $5,000 of the total sum they spent on the latter surgeries. They felt the surgeries were necessary only because of the bad spay. They felt that during the spay, the intestine had been nicked causing later infection.

The defendant, Rose, pointed out that the boxer had been fine for two years after the spay; that if it truly was the fault of the first surgeon, the dog would not have been okay for so long. Rose also kindly stated that the second doctor had taken x-rays and found bone and tin foil in the boxer's intestine. She pointed out that these are not healthy items for dogs, and probably caused an intestinal infection.

The Judge told Donna and Steve that they had the burden of proof. This means that Donna and Steve needed to show that Rose's arguments were flawed in order to win. He stated that they needed to have hard evidence, not just feelings. During the rebuttal Donna approached the bench and gave the judge a note by the second doctor which stated that the spay could have caused the intestinal infection. Steve again expressed his feelings that it was the fault of the spay. Donna also included as evidence a phone call she had received from the second doctor. He had asked if the boxer had had any previous surgeries, because the intestinal problem did not seem to be a naturally occurring phenomena. Donna had told the doctor that Honey hadn't had any surgeries. Then she remembered the spay. Donna asked if a spay counted as a surgery. The doctor replied that it did. Steve stated that it followed that the spy surgery caused the nick in Honey's intestine, and the following disease, emergency surgeries, and death.

The judge said that he would need to review the papers he had received during the hearing before coming to a decision. He told Rose and the couple that they would receive the judgment in the mailÑincluding how and what to collect if Donna and Steve won. They were dismissed.

This was the last case of the session. After everyone had left the room except for the judge and the clerk, I addressed the judge. I explained that I am a student doing a report, and that I wanted to include the case we had just witnessed in my paper. I asked, " If you're going to review that case right now, may I wait and hear the final verdict?" The judge kindly consented. I was asked to wait outside in the lobby because the bailiff had already left. (The bailiff figured I was harmless because he had been in court the other days I had observed; that's why he had already left.)

When I was invited back in, the judge had me stand behind the plaintiff/defendant table. I felt like a bug under a microscope, and it wasn't even my trial. The judge preceded his remarks with an explanation that these are hard cases to accept judgment on because they involve emotion. I guess he wanted to break the news to me gently. He also told me that unlike other cases where the case needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, these cases need to be proven "beyond a preponderance." This means the judge just goes with what seems more likely. If the judge is 49% on the side of person A, and 51% on the side of person B, person B wins. In this case, the defendant, Rose, won. The judge then gave the specific reasons for his decision: Donna and Steve did not overcome the burden of proof. They needed an expert (i.e. a veterinarian) to come in as a witness and say that he or she is sure that a spay caused the intestinal atrophy. The judge also said that because the dog was healthy for two years, the intestinal problems were probably not the fault of the surgery. In addition, the bone and tin foil Honey had eaten could have caused the intestine to twist. The judge cited all of his reasons with incredible clarity and sensitivity. It was as if I was Honey's owner and had to deal with the bad news. He spoke as if the case was about the life of the dog, and not money.

In an interview with another judge I learned that if the plaintiff wins, the defendant receives, via mail, a notice to pay the debt. If he or she does not pay it is reported on his or her credit history, and the amount incurs interest. The judge said that though this prospect is usually enough of an incentive to pay, if the defendant doesn't, he or she may be taken to court again. His or her wages may be attached. In dramatic cases, when people say they have no money, they have to appear in court for an Order of Examination Hearing. The courtroom clerk advised me with a smile, "If you're ever called in for an O.E.H., don't bring very much money with you." At an O.E.H. people have items of value taken from them; this may include cash on hand, extra cars, and boats (they examine the person's keys to see exactly what he or she owns). The judge spoke as if she was speaking to one of these debtors, "So, you don't have any money . . .What's this key to?" Then with a laugh the judge recalled a time that a divorced couple had come to court. The ex-wife/plaintiff pointed to the watch on her husband's arm and said, "I want that." "She got it!" said the Judge.

Finally, what are the alternatives to going to small claims court? There are two alternatives besides working it out on your own. The first is to see a mediator. This is a free service offered through the county. It is a third party that tries to get two people to compromise. I learned from the horse's mouth that it is best to see a mediator if the plaintiff and defendant want more time than fifteen minutes before the judge to talk things out. The second alternative, to quote a Judge, is "a person beating the tar out of somebody [else]." The Judge continued that for a little bit of tax money we get a lot of civilization. I never thought of it that way, but it's true.

Small Claims Court has three main objectives that make it an appealing court process: To handle cases quickly, cheaply, and efficiently. Small claims court is so effective that the judge, courtroom clerk, and advisor I spoke with said that they would use the court if a case came up in their personal lives. I would also use this tool. And, if I am ever served, I will know what to expect when driving down Knowles Avenue to a building that is hidden behind pine trees.

Return to Projects