Legal Counsel For Arrows Should File A Pre Answer Motion

The plaintiff (Southern Prestige Industries, Inc.) initiated an action against the defendant (Independence Plating Corp.) in a North Carolina state court for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that defects in the defendant’s anodizing process caused the plaintiff’s machine parts to be rejected by Kidde Aerospace. The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its personnel situated in the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements

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.

Reviewing the dispositions, the court denies plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on both its first and second causes of action….

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

Because the Contractor Defendants either could not be located or have ceased doing business, plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims against those defendants with prejudice.   Accordingly, plaintiffs now seek damages only from the Liberty Defendants.

Diversity of citizenship is one of the factors that will allow a federal district court to exercise its authority to hear a lawsuit. This authority is called diversity jurisdiction. It means that a case involving questions that must be answered according to state laws may be heard in federal court if the parties on the two sides of the case are from different states. No matter how many parties are involved in a lawsuit, there must be complete diversity in order for the federal court to exercise this type of authority. If a single plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant, there is no diversity and the case must be pursued in a state court (Diversity, n.d.).

Procedural History: Appellants filed suit in U.S. District Court which ruled that the Appellants Constitutional rights were violated. Officials from both Burlington and Essex County Appealed

The Plaintiffs, Garetsons, own a well in Haskell County, which they use for irrigation pursuant to a vested water right. The Defendant, American Warrior Inc. (AWI), owns two nearby wells with junior water appropriation rights. Garetsons sued AWI requesting an injunction to prevent AWI from pumping groundwater. The District Court found that AWI’s wells were causing significant impairment and drawdown of the Garetsons’ water rights. As a result, tThe District Court granted an

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.

First, the alleged unlawful employment practice was not committed in Oklahoma. BNSF made the decision not to hire Doolittle in Fort Worth, Texas. Kowalkowski Decl. ¶ _____. Second, BNSF maintains the employment records relevant to Doolittle’s allegations—both medical and nonmedical—in Fort Worth, Texas. Kowalkowski Decl. ¶ _____; Obermiller Decl. ¶ _____. Third, the position at issue is a Mandan, North Dakota position, not an Oklahoma position. ________ Decl. ¶ _____. Finally, the fourth venue option does not apply because there are other applicable districts where venue is proper, but if it did apply venue under it would exist only in Fort Worth, Texas. Obermiller Decl. ¶ _____.

Ms. Petrillo was so traumatized by her pastoral counselor’s conduct that she relocated to Madison, Wisconsin, where she established a new domicile and from where she has no intent to depart in any definite measure of time. The Court should deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss Ms. Petrillo’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Ms. Petrillo has her domicile in Wisconsin and each defendant has its domicile in Alabama. When there is complete diversity among the parties, a federal court may hear their case. 28 U.S.C.A § 1332(a) (West 2011). “Diversity” refers to the parties’ domiciles; if opposing parties are domiciled in different states, there is complete diversity among the parties. Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th

&his would not apply as the plainti' lives in New (ork. $owever" the long)arm statute could be enacted to gain jurisdiction over Funny Face who originates out of California *+ubasek" p. ,-./ubject matter jurisdiction refers to the nature of the claim or controversy. /ubject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear particular types of cases. Federal courts deal with admiralty" bankruptcy" disputes of state against state" disputes against the 0./." disputes of federal law" etc. None of these categories apply. 1 diversity)of)citi2enship case must meet both re#uirements that the plainti' does not livein the same state as the defendant" and the case controversy issues cannot e!ceed 345"666. &his could apply as both parties reside in di'erent states" and if there is a product safety concern" medical costs and damages could easily e!ceed 345"666 *+ubasek" p. ,,.7inimum contacts is the contact re#uired between a party and a state in order for the courts of that state to constitutionally assert power

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 Defendants, Reverend Linwood Rooks, Reverend Harriet Yun, and Bald Mountain Community Church, move to dismiss the Complaint on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of lack of diversity of citizenship. This Complaint arises out of a dispute regarding the Plaintiff’s, Ernestine Petrillo, investment in one of the defendant’s business ventures. Reverend Rooks and Reverend Yun are pastors at the Bald Mountain Community Church in Bald Mountain, Alabama. The Plaintiff, Ernestine Petrillo, has resided in Alabama all of her life until June of 2015 when she moved to Wisconsin to further her education by attending graduate school. For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy is undisputed, however, Plaintiff has

Background of the case: The issue of the case was that Ogden sued Gibbons when he started operating a ferry service. The defendant said that his ferry was licensed and that he had the right to operate his ferry in that location as well.