Hello,

Likely, the email correspondence constituted the contract (offer, acceptance, consideration). She is just trying to make her best argument to have your judgment overturned. You should have the situation reviewed by an attorney, but, honestly, since this is a small claims matter you need to make sure you don't spend more money than it is worth. If it is not worth having an attorney review the situation then just hold your ground and you may be able to prevail. If she made her claim under oath then she may have committed perjury (it is hard to tell without seeing the documents).

Since there was no signed document, then she technically purjured herself if she said a contract was signed in LA. Don't count on it getting you anywhere, though. Minor purjury like that isn't going to get anyone's attention, esepcially if she argues she meant that the contract was entered into in LA. If all she said was that the contract was entered into in LA, or she argues that, you are delving into an area of the law that consumes many hours of Civil Procedure class in law schools, and trips up many an aspiring attorney on the bar exam. The law in this area goes back to contracts entered into by telegraph messages and the question of when and where the contract was formed that way. You don't want to mess with it.

The solution to your problem is to take the position that her argument about where the contract was formed is irrelevant. Venue is proper in the county in which a contract for services is to be performed. If your emails do in fact say you will do the work in the county in which you obtained the judgment, it should stand.

If she had appeared for trial, then she waived the venue argument. Additionally, since she had been served with the original suit, the appropriate place to raise that argument should have been with the trial court. However, a defendant may appeal a decision, in which case the matter gets re-tried in the same court with a different judge, unless that different judge agrees with her. You probably stand a better than 50:50 chance of keeping the matter in the N. California courthouse since the contract was performed up here, which is a permissible reason to venue it here.