CIVPRO92210

CIVPRO92210 - CIVPRO92210 Las and libel forum shopping NYs...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CIVPRO92210 Las and libel forum shopping NYs LA is underinclusive as shown in Rachel Ehrenfeld case: she wanted to preclude Arab terror guy from bringing UK libel judgment to NY His activities weren’t judged as tortuous yet LA (308 (a)(1)) didn’t reach his conduct. She wanted a long enough draw on action so that 302 (e) would come into effect, which was written specifically about this situation and protected ∆’s in overseas terror libel suits from enforcing judgment in NY Objections to Jur, effects of default, forum selection #1 Insurance Co. of Ireland v. Guineue Bauxite Corp. Π buys insurance, ∆ wont pay on claim. ∆ says not under jur. Options for arguing no jur: Default and go collateral (risky when enforce action comes) Object on limited appearance (risky cuz if you say too much you’ll be conceding action) This isn’t allowed in fed crt (4) Consent to Jurisdiction – General appearance before the court constitutes consent. D may also expressly or impliedly consent to jurisdiction. Ex In Insurance Co. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites D moved for summary judgment for lack of PJ, but answering a discovery order amounts to implicit consent Rule 12(h) If D wants to challenge PJ, he must do so in the first contact with the court (pre- answer motion or the answer). Not objected in the first contact
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 3

CIVPRO92210 - CIVPRO92210 Las and libel forum shopping NYs...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online