LGST 219 - Class 9 Notes

LGST 219 - Class 9 Notes - Lecture 9 Long arm jurisdiction...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Lecture 9 Long arm jurisdiction Examples: -Person outside of US commits act in US and harms someone in US -OR, person from Pennsylvania commits act outside US, but harm is in US Paris jewelry (PJ) company sells a defective necklace to a shop (BBB) in Pennsylvania. Prof Meyer from Phila goes to Paris to consult for Paris jewelers and they do not pay her. Specific jurisdiction -PJ has one business relationship in Pennsylvania -Does BBB have jurisdiction over PJ using long arm? o Yes, because of the direct harm and relation to BBB (specific jurisdiction – one contact) o E.g. of the long arm of the Pennsylvanian court to force PJ to submit to Pennsylvanian courts because the defendant does have minimum contacts (making exercise of jurisdiction fair) -Can AEM sue PJ in Phila too? o Tied to activity in Paris o Nothing to do with what PJ has done in Phila o Cannot piggy back on previous BBB case (that contact is irrelevant) o Lacks minimum contact with Pennsylvania (doesn’t matter that AEM is domiciled in Pennsylvania) KEY QUESTION: -Is PJ doing business for the purposes of BBB suit? YES. -Is PJ doing business for the purposes of AEM’s suit? NO. In US, not so clear, because judges are arbiters of whether the court can use long arm to force defendant to submit. -Long arm fairness due process in 5 th and 14 th amendment of the Constitution Supreme Court Worldwide Volkswagon Case - WWVW in NY is (according to plaintiff) is responsible for selling a defective car - Plaintiffs bought the car in NY, drove to Oklahoma and met into a tragic accident (forum/ place of accident: OK) - Plaintiff wants to sue the defendant with the long arm, proving that WWVW “does business” in Oklahoma (has minimum contacts) - Defendant says they sold a car to New Yorkers in NY. Business is in NY. So, not subject to OK law. Unfair exercise of jurisdiction of OK courts. o Unlike in PJ hypo case, the defendants did not do anything purposeful in OK o This case is purely fortuitous matter of chance
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
o VVWV did not ‘control’ the Robinsons to go to OK (so being subject to OK law is surprising) - Supreme court was divided on this case, but agreed that long arm of OK was reaching out too far - Even though it is superficially a long arm case - But… o Nature of defendant’s product means that they should anticipate being hailed into a court with a distant jurisdiction - Need to think about reasonableness of the forum (is OK the most reasonable forum? Yes. Scene of accident and evidence. Not an alien and unreachable forum.) o Need to bear in mind that plaintiff had chosen a fair forum… - ULTIMATELY, o Forseeability and purposefulness of conduct in OK is necessary in this case o Both are absent Japanese Asahi Case - Japanese company Asahi sells tire parts to Cheng Shin Taiwan - Cheng Shin puts together tires and sells large volume of products in CA - There’s an accident in CA – tire blows up and kills one CA and seriously injures another - #1: CA sues Cheng shin
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 6

LGST 219 - Class 9 Notes - Lecture 9 Long arm jurisdiction...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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