Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Yes in situation number one, Jim is correct in arguing that the case should be thrown out because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Since Jim lives in Nevada, and Mike lives in Utah, then they type of subject matter jurisdiction that would apply here is diversity jurisdiction. The reason is that the lawsuit is for less than $75,000 and they are both from different states under diversity jurisdiction from 28 U.S. Code § 1332 (Cornell, 2015). For situation number two, I would say that Bob is incorrect in arguing that there is no subject matter jurisdiction. The reason I say this is because the subject of the case is copyright infringement, which falls under federal law. “The United States federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a very small percentage of cases (e.g., copyright and patent disputes) (Civil Procedure, 2015).”
Since there is no diversity in citizenship in situation number two, then diversity jurisdiction is not possible. However, due to the reason for the suit copyright infringement, it could have subject matter jurisdiction under federal question jurisdiction since the matter is a copyright disputes. There are additional conditions that must be met in order for this to happen, “For federal question jurisdiction to exist, the requirements of 28 USC 1331 must also be met. This statute gives federal courts jurisdiction only to those cases which "aris[e] under" federal law. 28 USC 1331 (Cornell, 2015).”
For situation number three, I would say that no the corporation is not right to say that Washington lacks personal jurisdiction over the corporation. The reason for this is because “if the persons involved in the litigation are present in the state or are legal residents of the state in which the lawsuit has been filed, or if the transaction in question has a substantial connection to the state, personal jurisdiction is said to be present (Civil Procedure, 2015).” The company does business in Washington, advertises in Washington, and has substantial connection to the state, which would be enough for personal jurisdiction. The standard that would be used for this case would be “before a court can exercise power over a party, the constitution requires that the party have certain minimum contacts with the forum in which the court sits. International Shoe v Washington, 326 US 310 (1945) (Cornell, 2015).”
For situation number four, no the Orange Corporation can not have the case removed to federal court because the situation was a lawsuit for breach of contract which was described as a a state law cause of action. That would signal to me, that the law suit was a case that fell under state law and should be tried under a state court, and a federal court wouldn’t be possible because federal courts can’t try cases that arise under state laws. Or in other words, “a federal trial court may not hear cases based on state law where the parties are citizens of the same state. Even if the court would have personal jurisdiction over the parties, if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the entire case, the entire case will be dismissed from federal court. See FRCP 12(b)(1). See Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (National Paralegal, 2015).”

Reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subject_matter_jurisdiction http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/jurisdiction/subject-matter-jurisdiction/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/personal_jurisdiction http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/researchLitigation/Jurisdiction/SubMatJurisdiction.asp