Pros And Cons Of Personal Jurisdiction

A court can exercise personal jurisdiction over any person or business that abides within a certain geographic area, or any out of area defendant as long as there was minimum contact with the area to justify jurisdiction. Each state has its own long arm statue in place that defines minimum contact. Personal jurisdiction for federal courts is broad, extending to any persons within the United States, whereas personal jurisdiction for state courts is much more narrow. Different courts have the authority to hear different kinds of cases. Subject matter jurisdiction for federal courts is relatively narrow. There must be an issue of federal law, or there must be a dispute between citizens or businesses of different states and the amount in question must at least $75,000. States have a much more broad subject matter jurisdiction; they can hear pretty much any matter, whether involving state or federal law.

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

In reference to the case study, subject matter jurisdiction could possibly apply. Since Margolin suit claims negligence on the parts of Novelty Now and Funny Faces for using PYR in their product the case could be heard in a federal claims court. The violation of FDA regulations makes the case a stronger candidate for this type of venue.

To illustrate, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled they had jurisdiction over Owens and Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac, Inc. (“Fitzner”). Lowry v. Owens, 621 So. 2d 1262, 1267 (Ala. 1993). Fitzner is a Mississippi corporation licensed to do business in Mississippi. Id. at 1263. A third party initiated contact with Owens who bought cars from Fitzner for resale in Alabama. Id. Lowry picked up the car with a third party, and a later inspection revealed the car had been wrecked and was not new as advertised. Id. Lowry sued Owens and Fitzner for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit from the original car sale. Id. at 1264. The Supreme Court of Alabama needed to determine if Fitzner had sufficient minimum contacts to justify the court asserting personal jurisdiction over Fitzner in Alabama. Id. Minimum contacts is made up of purposeful availment and foreseeability. Id. at 1265. Fitzner’s alleged fraud alone is not sufficient for purposeful

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

Jurisdiction is proper in the Circuit Court of Osceola County, Florida, because, at all relevant times and as described further herein, (1) Physician operated, conducted, engaged in, and carried on a business or business venture (specifically, the private practice of medicine) in Osceola County, Florida, (2) Physician had an office in Osceola County, Florida from which to conduct the private practice of medicine, and (3) Physician breached a contract with the Hospital relating to his practice of medicine in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to have been performed in Osceola County, Florida. §48.193, Florida Statutes.

The case could be appealed based on long arm statute since, Walker the Iowan resident had posted information in New York website. Long arm statute law gives a local state court jurisdiction oven an out of state company or individual whose action caused damaged locally (in this case New York) or to a local resident (Holte, 2009). Thus the legal test is whether the out of state defendant has contacts within the state which are satisfactorily

Judicial Independence is fundamental to democracy, it serves as a guarantor of the rule of law and separation of power . However, nothing is perfect. There is some defect regarding to the judicial independence and solution must be made to curb the weakness.

Jurisdiction refers to a courts power over property within its geographical boundaries. The court cannot use jurisdiction unless the defendant has minimum contacts within the state where the court is located. Minimum contacts is legal term for a defendant from one state that can be taken to court in another state for a civil case due to the defendant's unlawful actions, which was committed in the state where the court exist. Minimum contact requirements are associated with the Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. Most case are resolved on a case by case basis after a consideration of all the facts. A decision on jurisdiction may depend on one or more different factors not present on other cases.

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 court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.