Milestone 1
Julia Cummings
BUS 206
September 24, 2017
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.
Alternative dispute resolution may be an option to resolve this case. ADR is a method of resolving cases through methods other than court. These can be negotiation, mediation, arbitration, mini trials, private trials, etc. (Kubasek). In this case, negotiation outside of trial would be a good option for Funny Face. ADR is often cheaper than a traditional trial as well. This way they would not have to face bad publicity for this incident. This might also be a good idea for Mr. Margolin because the case will go much faster, meaning he could get restitution much faster, and would cut his legal costs as well.
Language on the Funny Face website appears to limit any claim filed to arbitration as a means of resolving the dispute. Arbitration is a method of resolution to a case by choosing a neutral third party outside a judicial setting (Kubasek). Arbitration would be a good solution for both Mr. Margolin and Funny Face in this case. Mr. Margolin would be able to explain his condition and provide medical evidence stating that Funny Face was indeed the cause of his condition. However, a neutral third party may believe that there was enough stated by Funny Face for Mr. Margolin to have
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.
How would the Metzgars’ attorney likely have served process (the summons and complaint) on Playskool Inc.?
be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at
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
Minimum contact establishes an appropriateness for one state to assert its jurisdiction on a person or business in another state. When evaluating the facts of the case presented, it
A forum applies its own choice of law approach. So here North Montana will apply the Second Restatement of Conflicts of Laws as the state follows that approach. Under the Second Restatement, three main steps need to be considered: 1) whether the conflict is procedural or substantive, 2) whether a choice of law provision in a contract should be applied, and 3) the application of a choice of law rule. Here, it appears that the choice of law provision selecting Old York should be applied because none of the exceptions to the general rule apply.
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
The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal
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).
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 district court had jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this issue involves a federal question. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on March, 2018. Petitioner’s filed their notice of appeal within the 30-day limit allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which provides for review of all final decisions of district courts.
In the first case, personal jurisdiction is one of the two forms of jurisdictions that a court must consider before hearing a case.
The Internet world that e-commerce ventures have multiplied tremendously bringing forth cross-border Internet disputes. Such cases require us to consider the scope of the federal court’s power of jurisdiction in a new context. CompuServe, a computer network giant, appealed the dismissal to the federal court, for lack of personal jurisdiction, of its complaint in which it judgement that it had not infringed on the defendant’s common law copyrights and engaged in unfair competition. The district court held that the electronic links between the defendant, who lived in Texas, and Ohio, where CompuServe is located, were not enough to support personal jurisdiction. The district court also denied CompuServe’s motion for reconsideration. Because The Court of Appeals believed, that CompuServe made a display of prima facie that the defendants contacts were substantial enough to support the exercise pf personal jurisdiction, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remand that the case for further proceedings.