...lawsuit against the defendant in Superior Court for the County of Monterey in Salinas, California. The defendant claims that the California court has no personal jurisdiction over her, while the plaintiff claims that the state does have jurisdiction over her because she knowingly did business with a California company. ISSUE: What right does a court have to determine the rights of the parties involved in the action In other words, the question of whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a person involves the question as to whether it would be fair for the court to issue a judgment against that person. Does the court system of California have personal jurisdiction over the defendant? RULES: Personal jurisdiction gives a court the authority to determine the rights and liabilities of a person or entity, such as a corporation or partnership, involved in a lawsuit. A court must satisfy two elements to have personal jurisdiction: 1) the law that governs the court must give it authority to assert jurisdiction over the parties to the case; and 2) The jurisdiction, even where allowed by the law governing the court, must not violate the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The due process aspect is based on the examinations of the contact between the state in which the court has jurisdiction and the defendant, and the notice of the pending action in an adequate fashion. In regards to the...
Words: 704 - Pages: 3
...MEMORANDUM To: Reader From: Date: Re: Can A State Court Exercise Personal Jurisdiction Over A Non-resident Summary of Facts Plaintiff, Froogle's action is based upon the claim that Mary, violated a signed agreement with Froogle. Froogle is a California company that provides internet search services. Mary is a resident of Vermont and a proprietor of a small business in Vermont specializing in the manufacture and sale of ski equipment to Vermont ski resorts. Two months after the signing of the contract, Froogle filed a lawsuit against Mary claiming that she violated the signed agreement. The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Monterey in Salinas, California. Mary claims that the California court does not have personal jurisdiction over her, because all her business dealings with Froogle were done online or via the telephone. Froogle claims that the California court has personal jurisdiction over Mary, because she knowingly did business with a California company. Issue: Can the California state court exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident who advertised on the internet? Rules: Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10 (2014), "A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States." The court in Bancroft & Masters v. Augusta Nat'l, 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. Cal. 2000), found that because ANI's contacts did not qualify...
Words: 665 - Pages: 3
...BMGT 380 Final Examination Question and Answers Follow Below Link to Download Tutorial https://homeworklance.com/downloads/bmgt-380-final-examination-question-and-answers/ For More Information Visit Our Website ( https://homeworklance.com/ ) Email us At: Support@homeworklance.com or lancehomework@gmail.com 1. Sam orally agreed to sell Ramie some land for $500,000. Ramie paid Sam the $500,000; Sam gave Ramie the deed to the land. Ramie took possession of the land and began building a cabin on it. One month later, Sam tried to retake possession of the land by arguing that the contract for the sale was invalid because it was oral, not written. Sam sued Ramie to invalidate the contract and retake the land. The court will likely conclude that Sam will: a) Win; the sale exceeded $500 so the contract must be written to be valid. b) Win; all land sales contracts must be written. c) Lose; because the contract was fully executed Sam cannot rescind the contract. d) Lose; because Ramie had begun building a cabin on the property, Sam cannot rescind the contract. 2. On Tuesday, Sam offered to sell his CD collection to Sandy for $100. Sandy replied, "I’m interested. I’ll think it over and let you know Thursday whether I want to buy the CDs." On Wednesday, Sam agreed to sell the CDs to Jason, and Jason immediately gave Sam a letter that stated: "Sam, I will buy your CD collection for $100. As we agreed, I will pay you on Friday when I pick up the...
Words: 3996 - Pages: 16
...04AP-582 Decided April 26, 2005 LAZARUS, Judge. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, J. Griffin Ricker, appeals from a decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his complaint against defendant-appellee, Fraza/Forklifts of Detroit ("Fraza"), for lack of personal jurisdiction. {¶2} Ricker initiated this action with a complaint seeking damages for breach of an oral contract to provide insurance consulting services. The complaint alleges that Ricker is an insurance consultant with his principal place of business located in Hilliard, Ohio, and Fraza is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Roseville, Michigan. The complaint further alleges that, in 2002, Fraza hired Ricker to provide insurance consulting services, and agreed to pay Ricker $30,000 if business insurance was obtained through the efforts of Ricker. Such payments would apply to subsequent annual renewals of insurance. Ricker obtained insurance coverage for Frazer from Universal Underwriters Group for 2002. Fraza paid Ricker for his consulting services in 2002 but did not pay for the 2003 renewal. {¶3} Fraza responded to the complaint by moving for dismissal based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(2). The motion generally argued that Fraza's principal place of business, a construction equipment dealership, was located in Michigan, and that dealings between the parties, particularly in-person...
Words: 2359 - Pages: 10
...BMGT 380 Final Examination Question and Answers Follow Below Link to Download Tutorial https://homeworklance.com/downloads/bmgt-380-final-examination-question-and-answers/ For More Information Visit Our Website ( https://homeworklance.com/ ) Email us At: Support@homeworklance.com or lancehomework@gmail.com 1. Sam orally agreed to sell Ramie some land for $500,000. Ramie paid Sam the $500,000; Sam gave Ramie the deed to the land. Ramie took possession of the land and began building a cabin on it. One month later, Sam tried to retake possession of the land by arguing that the contract for the sale was invalid because it was oral, not written. Sam sued Ramie to invalidate the contract and retake the land. The court will likely conclude that Sam will: a) Win; the sale exceeded $500 so the contract must be written to be valid. b) Win; all land sales contracts must be written. c) Lose; because the contract was fully executed Sam cannot rescind the contract. d) Lose; because Ramie had begun building a cabin on the property, Sam cannot rescind the contract. 2. On Tuesday, Sam offered to sell his CD collection to Sandy for $100. Sandy replied, "I’m interested. I’ll think it over and let you know Thursday whether I want to buy the CDs." On Wednesday, Sam agreed to sell the CDs to Jason, and Jason immediately gave Sam a letter that stated: "Sam, I will buy your CD collection for $100. As we agreed, I will pay you on Friday when I pick up the...
Words: 3996 - Pages: 16
...OFFICIAL RULES FOR THE “New TOYOTA CAMRY GIVE-AWAY” NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING A PURCHASE WILL NOT SWEEPSTAKES PERIOD: The N EW TOYOTA C AM RY GIVE - AW AY Sweepstakes (“Sweepstakes”) begins on May 14th , 2012 at 12:01 am EDT and ends on July 31, 2012 at 11:59 pm EDT (the “Sweepstakes Period”). HOW TO ENTER: During the Sweepstakes Period, there are two (2) ways to enter: (1) Online: Visit http://www.theglen.com/Camry/Giveaway and follow the directions provided to complete the entry form and submit to receive one (1) entry into the Sweepstakes. All online entries must be submitted by July 31, 2012 at 11:59 pm EDT to be eligible. (2) Via Mail: Handprint your name, address, city, state, zip code, daytime and evening phone numbers (including area codes), and date of birth on a 3" x 5" card and mail the card, with proper postage affixed to: “New Toyota Camry Give-Away” c/o Watkins Glen International, Attn: Ryan Pedersen, 2790 County Route 16, Watkins Glen, NY 14891. All mail-in entries must be postmarked by July 19, 2012 at 11:59 pm EDT and received by Sponsor no later July 23, 2012 to be eligible. Entries generated by script, macro or other automated [or mechanical] means or by any means which subvert the entry process are void. Limit one (1) entry per person, per email address and per household, regardless of method of entry. Entries received from any person or email address or household in excess of the limitation...
Words: 1845 - Pages: 8
...MEMORANDUM Supervising Attorney 29 DEC 2015 Personal Jurisdiction Out of State Business Transactions FACTS Froogle a California based company, files a complaint against Mary, a client from Vermont. Mary argues that California does not have personal jurisdiction over her. All business is done over the internet; Mary has never been to California. ISSUE Does California have personal jurisdiction over Mary? RULE Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 1054, 1055 (Cal. 2005), outlines the rule When determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, courts consider the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice. In Shisler v. Sanfer, 146 Cal App 4th 1254 (2006), the defendant, whose principal place of business was in Florida, maintained a website that advertised cars for sale. Plaintiff, a California resident, saw defendant’s advertisement and bought a car. Plaintiff was not happy with car and filed suit in California. Defendant claims California lacked personal jurisdiction of him. The trial court agreed with defendant and plaintiff now appeals. In order to sue the...
Words: 416 - Pages: 2
... Froogle has filed a suit against Mary in the Superior Court for the county of Monterey, in Salinas California. ISSUE: Does the Superior Court of Salinas California have personal jurisdiction over Mary an out of state defendant who advertises on a California based search engine? RULE: In Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 262 (2002), the defendant contended that the court did not have jurisdiction over him solely on the posting of a source code on his website. The court found that having a website, like placing a product into the stream of commerce may be felt nationwide worldwide even, but without more it is not an act of purposefully directed toward the forum state. California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitutions of California and the United States. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.)In making this determination, courts have identified two ways to establish personal jurisdiction. “Personal jurisdiction may be either general [269] or specific. A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) “the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits” (2) “the ‘controversy is related to or “arises out of” [the] defendant's contacts with the forum’ ” and (3) “ ‘the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with “fair play and substantial justice” ' ". The purposeful availment...
Words: 1330 - Pages: 6
...Court Loop Them In? ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- GM520: Legal, Political, and Ethical Dimensions ------------------------------------------------- CASE BRIEF: CASE 3.1 Case Name: Lindgren v GDT, LLC Case Citation: Lindgren v GDT, LLC312 F.Supp.2d 1125 (S.D. Iowa 2004) Procedural History: Ms. Lindgren filed suit in federal district court in Iowa against GDT for infringement. Ms. Lindgren says that GDT has a Web site and is selling its jewels to residents in Iowa and must come to Iowa to defend a suit because it is doing business there. GDT filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of in personam jurisdiction. The application of [the minimum contacts] rule will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits...
Words: 1437 - Pages: 6
...Business Ethics Case BUS/415 December 5, 2011 University of Phoenix Business Ethics Case This paper will discuss the 1984 Supreme Court of the United States lawsuit between Calder v. Jones. The lawsuit was filed by actress Shirley Jones, from Partridge Family fame, in California against the president of the National Enquirer and the National Enquirer itself, both of which are residents of Florida, for alleged defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Cheeseman, H. 2010). The National Enquirer had alleged that Shirley Jones was an alcoholic. The National Enquirer The National Enquirer is a newspaper that is published weekly and distributed across the United States to more than five million people per week (Cheeseman, H. 2010). The National Enquirer paper is based out of Florida, housed at The National Enquirer, Inc. Of the five million copies per week that are circulated throughout the United States, 600,000 are primarily sold in California (Cheeseman, H. 2010). The National Enquirer, also known as a “tabloid gossip sheet” has spent the last 15 years being the main source for major news breaking stories that has worked to focus on celebrity scandals (Barry Levine, 2010). The Lawsuit ...
Words: 795 - Pages: 4
...violated the agreement between the parties and files suit in Superior Court for the county of Monterey in Salinas, California. Mary claims that the California court has no personal jurisdiction over her. Froogle claims California does have jurisdiction over her because she knowingly did business with a California Company. The issue in this case is whether Mary, resident of Vermont who sells ski equipmentin Vermont and maintains a website, is subject to the personal jurisdiction of a California court even though she has never been to California, and has no contacts there. In Gourmet Video, Inc. v. Alpha Blue Archives, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87645 (D.N.J. Oct. 29, 2008), The plaintiff in this case is a New Jersey copyright owner who sued the defendant for violating the copyright act by selling the material via their website based out of the Northern California district. The defendant argued that the venue was improper and moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found that the venue was proper. The Defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction of New Jersey because they had sufficient minimum contacts with New Jersey. The defendants knowingly sold and shipped their products to New Jersey residents who initiated the sale of those products from their website. A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a non resident defendant only if: 1. The...
Words: 1039 - Pages: 5
...Minimum contacts is a legal term used to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. In other words it is a requirement that must be satisfied before a defendant can be sued in a particular state (www.kentlaw.edu). The minimum contacts requirement means that a defendant must have enough connection to the state where a case has been filed for a judge to conclude that it's fair for the state to exercise power over the defendant. Jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant is referred to as extraterritorial in personam jurisdiction, also known as personal jurisdiction. It allows a court to exercise jurisdiction over the person, and is the fundamental requirement necessary for a court to hear the merits of a claim (www.legal-dictionary.com). In the past, a state could exercise jurisdiction only within its territorial boundaries, however the requirement of physical presence was changed in1945 after the state of Washington brought suit against a Delaware company - International Shoe Co. During the process, the Supreme Court has set the following criteria that were used in analyzing whether jurisdiction over a nonresident is proper: * the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of the benefits of the state so as to reasonably foresee being haled into court in that state; * that the forum state has sufficient interest in the dispute; * that haling the defendant into court...
Words: 967 - Pages: 4
...files suit in California. Mary claims California holds no jurisdiction over her, while Froogle believes that the company being based in California gives enough credence over personal jurisdiction. Issue The issue in this case is whether or not the California Court has personal jurisdiction over Mary. Rule Abbott Power Corp. v. Overhead Elec. Co., 131 Cal. Rptr. 508 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976), held that Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10, which states that a court may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the state or federal constitutions, allows for the broadest possible exercise of judicial jurisdiction. Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471 (1985), ruled that for a case concerning a foreign defendant to be heard, the defendant must have intentionally established minimum contacts in the forum state. Typically establishing minimum contacts means that the defendant must have taken actions deliberately directed toward the forum state. This does not require for the defendant to ever be present within the forum state; however, purposeful availment and minimum contact should not be found simply through incidental and fortuitous contact with a forum state. Bridgestone Corp. v. Superior Court, 99 Cal. App. 4th 767 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2002), stated that a nonresident defendant whose activities within the state are substantial, continuous, and systematic is subject to general jurisdiction in the state. If no such activities exist, a defendant is subject...
Words: 755 - Pages: 4
... Process: Basis for and methods of out-of-state service. (a) Basis for Out-of-State Service. (1) When proper. Appropriate basis exists for service of process outside of this state upon a person in any action in this state when: (A) the person is, at the time of the service of process, either a nonresident of this state or a resident of this state who is absent from the state, and; (B) the person has sufficient contacts with this state, as set forth in subdivision (a)(2) of this rule, so that the prosecution of the action against the person in this state is not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States, or, the person is sued in the capacity of executor, administrator, or other personal representative of an estate for the acts of omissions of a decedent or ward, and the person so sued does not otherwise have sufficient contacts with this state in that capacity, but the decedent or ward would have been deemed to have sufficient contacts with this state if the action could have been maintained against the decedent or ward. (2) Sufficient contacts. A person has sufficient contacts with the state when that person, acting directly or by agent, is or may be legally responsible as a consequence of that person’s: (A) transacting any business in this state; (B) contracting to supply services or goods in this state; (C) causing tortious injury or damage by an act or omission in this state including but not limited to...
Words: 1825 - Pages: 8
...rear-ended by another vehicle. When the accident occurred the Robinsons realized that the Audi had a defect, which caused the doors to jam with the impact and the fuel tank position of the fuel tank caused a fire at the time of the accident. The Robinsons claimed that the major injuries sustained were caused by the malfunction and lack of safety from the vehicle. Issue (Legal & Court): Whether Oklahoma had in personam jurisdiction, even though the automobile retailer and its wholesale distributor did not have a residency connection with the state. The Court has to determine if the Due Process Clause is violated because of lack in meeting the “minimum contact” requirement. Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling for Oklahoma to have jurisdiction, because the forum state did not have enough residency or a minimum contact with the defendant to meet the requirements to be considered a objective trial. Rationale section: (Why) The 14th Amendment limits a state’s power to judge a non-resident defendant without proper personal jurisdiction. This amendment provides protection against inconvenient litigation for the defendant located outside the state boundary. The Supreme Court used the principle of minimum contact to stablish whether the litigation would be fair and reasonable for the defendants. The court followed the case of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, to “not offend the tradition of fair play and substantial justice.” The court identified the facts...
Words: 621 - Pages: 3
