Quarter 2 - Civ. Pro - Class 2 - 2-06-07
Fact Pattern 1 - Jurisdiction
Facts: You are a lawyer working for a law firm in the state of Fraser. One of the firm's partners asks you to do some research on a personal injury action. Pam Pedestrian is a local resident who was involved in an accident in the state of Elliott while on summer vacation there. A truck driven by a servant of D Corporation collided with a car driven by David Driver, causing Driver's car to swerve onto the sidewalk and strike Pedestrian. The partner wants to sue both D Corporation and David Driver, and asks you to identify states where the action can be brought without being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue. Pedestrian's claim will be based on negligence, and therefore arises under state law.
The partner hands you the file in Pedestrian's case. It yields the following information.
Pedestrian is a doctor who practices in Fraser. She owns a home in Fraser, where she was born and reared and plans to live out her days. She was injured in the accident, and if liability can be established, Pedestrian could realistically hope to recover about $250,000.
David Driver is a law student who lived at his parent's home in Fraser throughout high school. He next lived on campus while attending college at Fraser State University, and then moved to a small apartment in Coffman when he became a student at Coffman Law School. Driver's parents support him while he attends law school, and he has frequently returned to his parent's home during vacation periods. Driver is a third-year law student. Between his second and third years of law school, Driver was a summer associate for a law firm in Coffman. During the summer, he moved from the apartment he had rented for two years into the much larger apartment he now occupies.
Two months ago, Driver recently accepted a full-time job with a law firm in the state of Northrop. He obtained the job through interviews at Coffman Law School, and he has not visited Northrop since accepting the job. He says he plans to remain in Coffman only until his graduation five months hence. Just recently, Driver inherited a $120,000 house in Northrop from a cousin. He has never occupied or even seen the house, and it is being rented to tenants on a lease that expires in six months. Driver told the law firm in Northrop that if he got an offer he would move to Northrop and live there permanently.
D Corporation is a shoe manufacturer incorporated in the state of Coffman. Its home office and manufacturing plant are located in the state of Northrop. Consequently, its corporate officers and all of its employees are located in Northrop, although a few of its sales representatives occasionally travel in neighboring states to take orders for shoes. D Corporation sells most of its shoes in Northrop, but it sells a substantial number of shoes on a regular basis to wholesalers in both Coffman and Fraser. D Corporation has not sold any shoes or conducted any other business activities, directly or indirectly, in Elliott. The truck involved in the accident was passing through Elliott while transporting a shoe display to an industrial fair in another state. With the exception of property specifically described above, neither defendant owns any attachable property in any states.
Fact Patter 2 - Joinder
Fact Pattern 2 - Joinder - Class 2 - 2nd Quarter - 2-06-07
FACTS:
This is the story of the building of Notrump Gardens, a mausoleum and baseball stadium complex being built on a river bank in New Jersey, facing the New York City skyline. The owner of Notrump Gardens is Dorchester Notrump, a wealthy promoter of various projects (and himself). Mr. Notrump, who lives in New York City, wants Notrump Gardens to serve as a memorial to his family and to provide a safe place for his remains -- a place from which he cannot be evicted and which will not go condo. He also hopes to attract a major league baseball team to be called ThreeNotrump. (Notrump is a bridge player, not a baseball fan.)
Notrump hired Bumbling Builders as the general contractor for the project. (Bumbling is a Delaware corporation, principally located in Connecticut.) Bumbling in turn hired Paola, a well- known designer from Fresno, California, to design the mausoleum and stadium, and Rockinghorse Corporation (a New Jersey corporation principally located in Bayonne, New Jersey) as the subcontractor in charge of the concrete work for the mausoleum. Rockinghorse arranged to purchase the needed concrete from Lackluster Industries, a New York corporation, principally located in New York.
The contract between Rockinghorse and Lackluster provided that Lackluster would supply prestressed concrete to Rockinghorse on a particular schedule. Unfortunately for all concerned, the project did not go well. There was a lot of rain in the spring, there were changes in the project ordered by Notrump (principally a large concrete sculpture of himself to be mounted on the mausoleum), and the concrete cracked. Rockinghorse ended up being fired before the job was completed. Before that, it had paid $250,000 to Lackluster for concrete.
Lackluster had sent a batch of concrete for which it was never paid. This batch was worth $40,000. When Rockinghorse was fired, its president, Susan Diamond, told Lackluster that it (Rockinghorse) considered its debt to Lackluster paid in full. Lackluster, not very respectfully, disagreed.
Lackluster decided to sue Rockinghorse in the United States District Court in New Jersey for the value of the concrete for which Lackluster had not been paid.
Fact Pattern 3 -
Fact Pattern 3 - Jurisdiction over the Person - 2nd QAuarter - 2-06-07
cali exercise on jurisdiction - http://cali.org//lessons/web/civ19/index.php
The first part of this exercise (Questions 1 through 9) is based on variations of a fact pattern roughly based on the landmark case of International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), which first set forth the "minimum contacts" test as a measure of the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment in regard to personal jurisdiction. These questions probe your understanding of the holding in International Shoe and some of the other important court decisions regarding personal jurisdiction over (primarily) corporate defendants. You should be mindful of the fact that the existence of valid personal jurisdiction may also depend on the existence of an appropriate long-arm statute, so the exercise has an element of "drill" in the application and interpretation of these statutes. Another purpose of this part is to help you better understand the distinction between "general" and "specific" jurisdiction, a distinction which was originally made by the Supreme Court (though not in so many words) in the International Shoe case itself, and which has continued to be a limitation on the extent to which states can exercise jurisdictions over corporations.
The problems in this part are based on the four "situations" listed in the toolbar buttons. These situations are variations of a basic fact pattern involving a plaintiff who has bought a pair of expensive custom made boots from International Shoe through one of its salesmen. These boots quickly "self-destructed" and the plaintiff wants to bring a breach of warranty claim against International Shoe. You are asked to make four different assumptions about where the boots were purchased and where they fell apart.
The problems in this part assume that International Shoe Company is the defendant. In each situation in this part, unless the problem tells you otherwise, assume that the Company is carrying on the same amount of activities in the state as described in the leading case of International Shoe.
In the problems that follow, you will be asked whether a state court would have jurisdiction
(a) under a "long-arm statute" similar to that of the Rhode Island jurisdictional statute, which extends jurisdiction to the full reach of due process (California and a number of other states have similar statutes) , or
(b) the Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act which is accessible at various points during this exercise and is also reproduced on pp. 39-40 of Park and McFarland, Computer-Aided Exercises on Civil Procedure (4th ed. West, 1995).
For most of the problems in this exercise you are to assume that one of these two statutes is in effect in the state in question.
Rhode Island Statute: - Rhode Island General Laws Annotated Sec. 9-5-33(a)
"Every foreign corporation, every individual not a resident of this state or his executor or administrator, and every partnership or association, composed of any person or persons, not such residents, that shall have the necessary minimum contacts with the state of Rhode Island, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the state of Rhode Island, and the courts of this state shall hold such foreign corporations and such nonresident individuals or their executors or administrators, and such partnerships or associations amenable to suit in Rhode Island in every case not contrary to the provisions of the constitution or laws of the United States."
Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act
§ 1.02: A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person domiciled in, organized under the laws of, or maintaining his or its principal place of business in, this state as to any claim for relief.
§ 1.03:
(a) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person's
(1) transacting any business in this state;
(2) contracting to supply services or things in this state;
(3) causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this state;
(4) causing tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside this state if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods or services used or consumed or services rendered in this state;
(5) having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in this state; or
(6) contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting.
(b) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a claim for relief arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.