Complaint Against West Corporation And Wtc ( A Subsidiary Of West Corp

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

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

The rule in question is whether Globe Communication Corp. violated libel tort law that is governed by the State of California.

2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great

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).

Plaintiff, Kaycee Land and Livestock, opened a case to hold Defendant, Roger Flahive, personally liable for (contamination) damages after an agreement made by Flahive’s LLC, Flahive Oil & Gas. The District Court of Johnson County presented the case to the Supreme Court of Wyoming to determine if Flahive could be held personally liable. Kaycee Land and Livestock contracted with Flahive Oil & Gas in order to use the surface of the land to raise the Plaintiff’s livestock. Kaycee Land and Livestock claims that Flahive Oil & Gas contaminated the surface area, leaving it useless for Kaycee Land and Livestock’s needs. Flahive Oil & Gas does not have any assets. Therefore, Kaycee Land and Livestock wants to use general corporate veil-piercing principles

Jacquelyn Young hired the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff to represent her in her federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer. The firm associate that filed the action made a mistake by attaching the wrong U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) right-to-sue letter. The court dismissed the claims. The law firm did not try to re-file using the correct attachment, or try to dismiss the motion. Thirteen months later, the law firm informed Young that the claims had been dismissed, and that the firm was withdrawing from representing her further with the case.

This case shows that Shaffer filed a shareholder’s derivative suit in Delaware state court against Heitner and 28 corporate officers for violating their duties while in Oregon resulting in corporate liability for lots of damages in an antitrust suit, plus a fine in criminal actions. In demand, he filed motion for possession of Delaware property of the defendants. Heither didn’t sign residency in Delaware and owned one share of Greyhound stock. Heither filed for motion legal possession of Greyhound’s stock owned by 21 of the corporate officers in order to keep quasi-in-rem jurisdiction. Delaware’s statute allowed assets in the state to be seized by the court to keep personal ownership. Shaffer challenged the court’s jurisdiction on obtaining

Personal Jurisdiction “also known as “jurisdiction in personam” is the power of a court to require that a party or a witness come before the court; extends to the states boarders in the state court system and across the courts geographic district in the federal system”(pg. 42). In this case, there are three states involved; first is a Internet Company called Funny Face which is based in California, second state involved is Novelty Now Inc. in Florida who manufactures and distributes the product, the third state is New York which is where the customer lived that received the faulty product. This product was a aftershave lotion which had an harmful side effect due to a ingredient that is not FDA approved. According to the contract between Funny Face and Novelty Now all conflicts must go through the state of Florida, therefore this case would be under the state of Florida jurisdiction. “Subject matter jurisdiction is a courts power to hear certain kinds of cases” (pg44). It determines which court system will hear a particular case; state jurisdiction, exclusive federal jurisdiction, or concurrent jurisdiction. The federal court system has exclusive jurisdiction over very few cases including bankruptcy cases, lawsuits in which one state sues another, and claims against the United States. State court systems have a bigger range of jurisdiction including all cases not falling under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Concurrent federal jurisdiction means that both state and federal

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.

See also, e.g., Martinez, 764 F.3d at 1070 (“The Court in Daimler rejected the plaintiffs’ argument, also pressed by plaintiffs here, that general jurisdiction is appropriate whenever a corporation engages in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business in a state.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Allen v. IM Solutions, LLC, 2015 WL 71468, at *5 (E.D. Okla. Jan. 6, 2015) (“Daimler rejects the concept that a business organization is ‘at home’ in a given state merely because it does significant business there.”); U.S. ex rel. Imco Gen. Constr., Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 2014 WL 4364854, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 3, 2014) (concluding that the court lacked general jurisdiction over the defendant even though: “(1) defendant is

     The legal system is an essential element in the successful operation of this country. It is a system that is utilized every day, by every type of person, from the average blue-collar worker to the average Wall Street broker. There is a multitude of ways that the legal system is put to use. One such way is the class action lawsuit. A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr, uses the account of a single case, Anne Anderson, et al., v. W.R. Grace & Co., et al, to illustrate the power and importance of class action lawsuits in the civil justice system.

Laurier Company had purchases Western company; they had agreed upon to terminate twenty employees. As part of the investments, they had agreed to give a severance package to former Western’s employees who were terminated in the past year would receive an equivalent severance package as Laurier's former employees. Bill Smith worked at Western Company for ten years who were one of the twenty that were laid off. Bill complain that his five weeks’ severance package was less than that offered to Laurier’s employees. By determine if Bill’s statement was true, a statistician was brought in to settle the dispute. The analyst determined the severance by the number of weeks of severance pay on the number of years with the company. The analyst will collect

We can get the interest paid schedule from the BW/IP’s projected operating performance, which means there is a pre-determined interest paid to debt holders.