Assignment 4 Legal Research Writing and Civil Litigation

Mr. Potbelly holds a garage sale at his home. Mr. Slim Jim stops by the sale and upon noticing a rare piece of art pottery offers a price of $100 for the art that is marked $250. Mr. Potbelly accepts Mr. Slim Jim’s offer. Mr. Potbelly informs Mr. Slim Jim he is selling his home because he is moving up north because he has lost his job. Mr. Slim Jim asks how much he is selling it for and Mr. Potbelly informs him he is thinking $75,000. Mr. Slim Jim offers him $70,000 cash for the property which Mr. Potbelly immediately accepts the offer. Mr. Slim Jim informs Mr. Potbelly that he will be back in one hour with a cashiers’ check made payable to Mr. Potbelly. Mr. Potbelly says “Great!” and that while Mr. Slim Jim

This letter is to inform you, that your tax appeal hearing has been scheduled for March 6, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. The hearing will be held at the County Office building located at 211 Race Road. The court room is located on the 5th floor.

As Privy Council held in the case of "Wagon Mound (No 1)" that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant should not be responsible for losses that are ‘too remote’ from the breach. It is obviously that the university could foresee that Brad have to quit his job to finish the degree and also need to pay for the fees.

Jurisdiction played a key role in the outcome of the lawsuit in A Civil Action. The plaintiff’s lawyer, Jan Schlichtmann, filed the original complaint against W. R. Grace and Beatrice Foods in state court. Schlichtmann, a personal injury attorney, spends most of his time there; personal injury is heard much less frequently in federal court. William Cheeseman, the attorney for W. R. Grace, almost immediately removes the case to federal court since W. R. Grace’s headquarters is in New York and the amount in question is clearly over

This letter is to advise you that your tax appeal hearing is coming up on March 6, 2005 at 10:35 a.m. at the Office of the Tax Assessors of Lackawanna County. The office is located on the 5th floor of the County Office Building; 211 Ace Road, Clark, Pennsylvania 18111. Attorney Smith would like to remind you to arrive at the County Office Building at 10:25 a.m. with all of the pictures you have of the comparable houses in your area.

Minimum contact establishes an appropriateness for one state to assert its jurisdiction on a person or business in another state. When evaluating the facts of the case presented, it

Which of the following statements concerning the severance of parties charged with a criminal offense is incorrect?

“This purposeful availment requirement assures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction as a result of ‘the unilateral activity of another person or a third person.’” Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985). Additionally, the activities also need to be foreseeable such that, “the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2183 (1985).

Issues: In what courts may Elle sue FDC? (What courts would have jurisdiction over this lawsuit)?

Personal jurisdiction isn’t the only thing that the courts will look at it. They will also look at minimum contacts. Minimum contact is a nonresident defendant with the forum state that is sufficient for jurisdiction over the defendant to be proper. A lack of minimum contacts violates the nonresident defendant’s constitutional right to due process and “offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (Inm, 1992) (Min, 2001-2016).

When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).

In West Corp. v. Superior Court, 116 Cal. App. 4th 1167 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004), a California resident, Patricia Sanford, filed a class action complaint against West Corporation and WTC (a subsidiary of West Corp.), telemarketing firms organized in Delaware and headquartered in Nebraska, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the consumers legal remedies act; (2) unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair business practices; (3) untrue and/or dishonest advertising; (4) conversion; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraud and deceit; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. Essentially, one of West’s telemarketers had misrepresented a product during a sales pitch in which the caller (Sanford) had purchased the product over the phone. West claims that the California court could not assert personal jurisdiction over them because they did not maintain any offices or employees in California, was not licensed to do business in California, nor did they own any property located in California. Moreover, West motioned the court to quash the service of summons; however, the court denied the request and ruled that the court was authorized to assert personal jurisdiction over their corporation.

In the case of Margolin v. Novelty Now the appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. In personal jurisdiction the book states that the courts are given the power to provide a decision in affecting the rights of individuals (Kubasek). In this case, the court will give a decision giving rights to Mr. Margolin, and taking rights from Novelty Now. For subject matter jurisdiction, a certain specified court will be able to hear the case This means, that it must be decided which court hears the case, whether state or federal jurisdiction. Since this case contains three different states, the federal court system must be the one to hear the case. In this case, minimum contacts must be determined to decide if a certain state will have power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state (Kubasek). In this case, it must be decided if New York will take personal jurisdiction of the defendants residing in California, or Novelty Now residing in Florida.

The 14th Amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The issues are with the data within those types of equipment. Client confidential information cannot be available to anyone outside the representing legal team. Using outside equipment creates a potential for data leak.