Metzgars Vs. Playskol Inc.

On October 29th, 2015, I made the trip to small claims court at the Superior Court North County Division in Vista, California. The case I observed was a contract dispute between Michael Mendell and Ediga Narashima. The plaintiff (Mendell) was sueing the defendant (Narashima) for $4,000 over a breach of contract. Narashima had given Mendell the opportunity to build theatre system and a bookshelf for his home. They both came to an agreement that the total cost of this procedure would be $4,100. Mr. Mendell is a professor at APT College where he teaches telecommunications. Mendell claims that the full $4,100 was never paid to him. During the whole process of the build there was many setbacks and problems that arose. Mendell claimed that while he was working on this home theatre project, he missed out on work and money he could have obtained from his other job as a professor. That is the reason why he is sueing Narashima as well as the fact that Mendell claims Narashima did not pay him his final installment of $300 for the job. Ediga Narashima claims that the final installment was paid through a friend or third party named Mario Diaz. Mario was a friend of both the plaintiff and defendant. He had referred Mendell to Narashima for the job. Mendell counterclaims that he had never received the final installment from Mario. The big question is to whether Mario had payed the final installment to Mendell as they agreed in

Repyneck recalls in 2011 she was going through a divorce from her husband Michael Ziegler. Repyneck was having financial problem and she was advised to seek a bankruptcy lawyer. Repyneck was scheduled for a hearing in Hellertown on Wednesday and her divorce attorney recommended David Tidd from Hellertown. She called Tidd, she thought it was either Sunday or Monday, and he told her to bring a payment to retain him to his office on Tuesday and he would make the hearing on Wednesday go away. After she went to his office, Tidd told her she wouldn’t have to appear in court on Wednesday, that he would take care of it.

(the defendant). Cruz’s parents sent an email to Fagor on the date of the occurrence detailing said incident, and the defendant responded by denying liability. Cruz filed a complaint against Fagor alleging causes of action for negligence and product liability. Through his attorney, Cruz mailed the summons and complaint addressed to the company’s Chairman of the Board through certified mail requesting a return receipt. The receipt indicated that the envelope was accepted and signed for by an individual at the company headquarters, but Fagor failed to file an answer or make any appearance until after the plaintiff had entered a motion for a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion to set aside the entry of default and the default judgment, which the court granted on the grounds that there was no proof that the summons and complaint:

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.

the attorney had learned this information in the course of representing a client in an

Wasserstrom also considers the fact that in many situations lawyers have the optional ability to remove themselves form issues that may contradict their individual ethics. "Having once agreed to represent the client, the lawyer in under an obligation to do his or her best to defend that person at trial." With in the process of contracting a lawyer, the lawyer has the option of acceptance or refusal of representing the client. Therefore the lawyer can asses the case and decide if it violates any of their own individual ethics.

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).

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.

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 appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. Three important considerations include the following: Personal jurisdiction which allows courts to have jurisdiction over both the plaintiff and defendant in a case. Specific to corporations, personal jurisdiction only applies in the state in which the company does business, is incorporated and has it principle office. In Margolin’s suit, personal jurisdiction would not apply because although the company does business in the state of New York, both Novelty Now and Funny Faces are not incorporated or have principle offices in this state.

State Auto must identify its “bad faith” attorney. Pursuant to conversation between counsel for the parties, it was revealed that State Auto had retained the services of an attorney who practices bad faith litigation. Plaintiff attempted to confer with Defendant regarding the nature of the representation, but State Auto was characteristically evasive and refused to identify the individual(s). In its Request for Production of Documents, PCE requested that State Auto “produce any and all in-house attorney or counsel files generated as a result of the above-referenced claim and lawsuit.” See Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents at 12. This request demanded disclosure

One of the solutions to this ethical dilemma could be to sign a retainer. If White and Blazevich attorneys want money, why wait? Let Mattiece sign a retainer, pay them, and wait for Court’s decision. Nathaniel Jones (also known as Einstein), Jarreld Schwabe, Marty Velmano, and F. Sims Wakefield are all relying on being paid for their services after the decision on the case. They could save a lot of money and avoid jail if they would follow standard Model Rules. Just because F. Sims Wakefield “…was very close to Victor Mattiece and often visited him in the Bahamas,” it is not an exception to conflict-of-interest situations. Even if Victor Mattiece is a friend of F. Sims Wakefield, he should pay for services rendered, or the attorney could

“Decisions concerning the award of counsel fees rest solely in the discretion of the trial judge. The proper exercise of such discretion is determined by evaluating the judge 's application of the statutory criteria set forth above as well as the consideration of the facts of the particular case. Consideration of the statutory criteria is mandatory in making the award and failure to do so constitutes legal