Forum Selection Paper

Many complaints are resolved through informal processes; in other instances, a formal administrative hearing is held

The Securities and Exchange Commission has the mission of protecting investors by maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets. The SEC does this in a number of ways, and firms need to pay attention to these ways in order to ensure SEC compliance. The SEC has enforcement authority over a number of areas related to the nation's capital markets, including insider trading, accounting fraud, and providing false information. The SEC's jurisdiction extends to all securities that are traded publicly. Privately-held companies do not need to register with the SEC (SEC.gov, 2012).

assistance of council, and procedural bars, venue, and jury selection, as well as potential racism by jurors. According to ( Tabak, 1999) “these reasons apply in cases in which the death penalty may be sought.” When illustrating the use of prosecutorial discretion two crime types that can be

In the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder case, the Court stated “a judicial or quasi-judicial act determines the rules of law applicable, and the rights affected by them, in relation to past transactions. On the other hand, a quasi-legislative or administrative order prescribes what the rule or requirement of administratively determined duty shall be with respect to transactions to be executed in the future, in

“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).

The California judicial system and the United States federal system are different but comparable. Consequently, both the California and the United States federal judicial system handle different types of cases. Essentially, California handles cases that deal with 1) state courts 2) civil cases and 3) criminal cases. On the other hand, the United States federal system handle cases that deal with 1) the Constitution, 2) laws that are passed through congress and 3) cases in which the United States is a party. In spite of the fact that the California system and the United States federal system are different yet comparable, this paper will address both court systems concluding with the United States federal system being superior to the California system.

There is such a thing as limited jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. There are reasons courts

Reasoning: Determining jurisdiction is critical because jurisdiction not only allows the party to know whether that court is entitled to adjudicate a dispute, but it can also help determine which laws are applicable, which can make a difference in a party's recovery. For example, Georgia and Delaware might have different laws regarding damages so that Elle may have an advantage in one court as compared to another court. In order for a court to be able to exercise jurisdiction, the court must have some connection to either the parties or to the event in question. Therefore, the possibilities for jurisdiction include: the district court for the state of Georgia, the district court for the state of Delaware, or one of the state courts for either Georgia or Delaware. In order for federal jurisdiction to apply, the circumstances of the case must meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction refers to that federal court jurisdiction involved when the parties involved are from two

Consider Exhibit 10 on page 22 of the case; does it include the factors you consider most important in the selection process? Which factors would you be inclined to weight most heavily?

On May 26, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in SEC v. Graham, No. 14-13562 (11th Cir. May 26, 2016), reached an important decision. The court extended the reach of 28 U.S.C. § 2462, the five-year statute of limitations for “any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture” applicable to enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The court held that SEC enforcement actions for declaratory relief and disgorgement were subject to the five-year statute of limitations. The Eleventh Circuit built its ruling on top of a decision by the Supreme Court, Gabelli v. SEC, 133 S. Ct. 1216 (2013), which held that 28 U.S.C. § 2462 applied to SEC civil penalty actions.

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.

Adjudication is the administrative equivalent of a judicial trial. Under adjudication, individual cases are heard by law judges within agencies and a body of rules is developed (Kettl, 2015). Adjudication differs from rulemaking in that it applies only to a specific, limited number of parties involved in an individual case before the agency (Vago, 2015). The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) separates adjudication from rulemaking by stating that adjudication is an agency process for the formulation of an order and an order is a final disposition in a matter other than rulemaking. There is formal and informal adjudication. Formal adjudication involves some kind of hearing, whereas informal adjudication takes place in settings that are non-confrontational and often not even face-to-face and is undertaken by non-hearing deciders (Cane, 2009). Adjudications can take many forms, but generally can be grouped into law enforcement adjudications (such as those conducted by the Federal Trade Commission) benefits adjudications (such as those conducted by the Social Security Administration) and licensing and permit adjudications (such as those conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency) (Forte and Spalding,

Consider Exhibit 10 on page 22 of the case; does it include the factors you consider most important in the selection process? Which factors would you be inclined to weight most heavily?

The purpose of this provision is to establish, as quickly as possible and without regard to the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, standards with which industries are generally familiar, and on whose adoption interested and affected persons have already had an opportunity to express their views. Such standards are either (1) national consensus standards on whose adoption affected persons have reached substantial agreement, or (2) Federal standards already established by Federal statutes or regulations.

The Supreme Court has held that choice of law rules are substantive for the purpose of the Erie doctrine. Klaxon v. Stentor Manuf. Co. Therefore, federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply the choice of law approach of the forum state.