Joinder of Claims

While victorious, the plaintiff’s believed that the district court had erred in their decision not to award punitive damages. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the court had erred in denying their motion for summary judgment.

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 paper discusses these differences as well as an important concern for Nevadans, the value of an intermediate court of appeals. In the latter we will note the attempts to establish a court of appeals as well where the issue stands now.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

A federal court's power to hear any case where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction is one of the two main types of subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court.

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

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

The subject matter jurisdiction is the courts authority to judge particular lawsuits in federal or state courts. As discussed in the textbook, “Subject-matter jurisdiction determines which court system may hear a particular case” (Kubasek, pg.44, 2009). Novelty One’s website states that all complaints must be settled with the state of Florida when filed against Funny Face or Novelty One. Therefore, the lawsuit against Novelty One will need to be filed with the state of Florida courts.

Feedback: Questions of federal law and diversity between different states and citizens of different states are within the jurisdiction of Federal courts. State tort cases between citizens of the SAME state are restricted to state court.

The court decided to overthrow the defendant Mark Steverson's motion to quash stating that California is allowed to have personal authority over this case since an out-of-state law firm who hired an attorney licensed only in the State of California worked for its citizens under its government and jurisdiction. The defendant was unsuccessful in proving any compulsory action that would overthrow the power of personal jurisdiction for California and instead ruled in favor for Shawn Simons.

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.

I think that a federal court can exercise jurisdiction over the parties based on diversity of citizenship. According to the textbook, "when parties to a lawsuit are from different states, a federal court can exercise diversity jurisdiction if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Total diversity of citizenship must exist, however.” In this case, because Joe and Kay were not from the same state, it is a diversity suit. Moreover, “The statute does not mention the citizenship of partnerships, LLCs, and other unincorporated associations, but the courts have tended to regard these entities as citizens of every state of which their members are citizens.” If Café Ole was a corporation, the state citizenship of the owner would be unimportant.

What is historical basis for the inherent jurisdiction of the court in such a case?

Case 25-2: Armco Inc.: Midwestern Steel Division* Note: This case is unchanged from the Twelfth Edition.

The Federal Court may subject to section 87 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 hears and determines appeals against decisions of the Court of Appeal relating to any criminal matter decided by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.