The Appropriate Court For This Lawsuit

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

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.

Issues: In what courts may Elle sue FDC? (What courts would have jurisdiction over this lawsuit)?

M international (M) and W Inc (W) decided to enter a long term litigation, due to a patent rights violation. M being the demandant and W the respondent. Not enough information was provided in relation to the charges or the patent.

in which this decision is made. In some jurisdictions, the cases may be decided upon

the main ingredient for a no-FDA approved ingredient. This case would be an intentional tort. Intentional torts are defined as a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act committed by the person, property, or economic interest of another. Intentional torts include assault, battery, conversion, false

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.

65: Appellate jurisdiction, which means that it may try (if the judges so decide) all cases tat re rightfully appealed to it; for example, cases dealing with such subjects as:

Under what limited circumstances may the U.S. Supreme Court exercise original jurisdiction? When it accepts a suit if it feels a compelling

Jurisdiction inquiries rely on issue of whether matters in the suit had sufficient involvement with navigable waters – the maritime nexus.

Personal Jurisdiction “also known as “jurisdiction in personam” is the power of a court to require that a party or a witness come before the court; extends to the states boarders in the state court system and across the courts geographic district in the federal system”(pg. 42). In this case, there are three states involved; first is a Internet Company called Funny Face which is based in California, second state involved is Novelty Now Inc. in Florida who manufactures and distributes the product, the third state is New York which is where the customer lived that received the faulty product. This product was a aftershave lotion which had an harmful side effect due to a ingredient that is not FDA approved. According to the contract between Funny Face and Novelty Now all conflicts must go through the state of Florida, therefore this case would be under the state of Florida jurisdiction. “Subject matter jurisdiction is a courts power to hear certain kinds of cases” (pg44). It determines which court system will hear a particular case; state jurisdiction, exclusive federal jurisdiction, or concurrent jurisdiction. The federal court system has exclusive jurisdiction over very few cases including bankruptcy cases, lawsuits in which one state sues another, and claims against the United States. State court systems have a bigger range of jurisdiction including all cases not falling under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Concurrent federal jurisdiction means that both state and federal

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.

Because the defendant, Novelty Now, has taken necessary action to exercise jurisdiction, it would be unreasonable and a violation of due process. However the state courts could, by asserting a long arm jurisdiction, have personal jurisdiction in New York. Since Chris, Matt, and Ian did not reside or do business in New York, Novelty Now is not incorporated in New York, and Funny Face is not manufactured in New York, they could argue that the State of New York does not have jurisdiction. However, the court could argue that because Funny Face is advertised by radio, Facebook, newspapers and internet that they had in fact done business in New York. This is an example of minimum contacts and would provide New York with authority over the parties and this case.

There are three cases highlighted in this snippet of a long and drawn out court battle. (Does the group agree that there are 3 separate cases?)

After my review of Section 2, I believe the overarching learning objectives of Section 2 is to help the reader understand the following: (1) is that before a case is heard in court “jurisdiction” must happen which means that the court must have “the power to speak the law” over a person or property involved as to meeting minimum requirements; (2) as the minimum requirements that must be meet for a court to have “jurisdiction” as to where dispute or where the people or business is located as in the state or out of state of them having any relation or connection; (3) “jurisdiction” by the courts can be limited by whether or not the case that is being brought upon involves cases only that state courts can solve such as a “probate court” that deals with a person’s assets or the cases that involves “federal question” or “diversity of citizenship “that the federal courts that can only solve such as “bankruptcy”; (4) the “jurisdiction” of courts on the internet of websites domestically and internationally has been difficult to figure out as to some things have been done to resolve this such as “the sliding-scale standard” and by “minimum contacts.”