{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Farrow wns should ds motion to dismiss be granted

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: rance, outside forum State of Texas. outside – Fifteen years of regularly shipping products to regularly Texas (and suing in Texas) qualifies as “continuous and systematic” contacts. – Texas court has personal jurisdiction. Texas has WNS v. Farrow WNS Should Ds’ motion to dismiss be granted? – “Specific” jjurisdiction case. Cause of action (fraud) urisdiction arose out of Ds’ intentional acts in forum State of Ds’ Texas (contract negotiations in Houston). Texas – Ds purposefully traveled to Texas, conducting Ds purposefully negotiations and partially performing agreement there. Reasonable to sue D in Texas based on State’s Reasonable significant interest in remedying injuries occurring within its borders. within – Ds’ motion should be denied. Ds’ denied Burnham v. Superior Court Burnham Should husband’s motion to dismiss be Should granted? granted? – No. Although no long arm jurisdiction here, No. remember that service of process on husband service while in forum State is valid method of while obtaining personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal court’s long arm jurisdiction if: – Claim arises under federal law – D beyond jurisdictional reach of any State’s beyond courts, and courts, – D has sufficient contacts with U.S. as a whole has U.S. Internet & Long Arm Jurisdiction Internet Evolving Area: 2 Approaches Approach # 1: Three-Tier Analysis ii. Knowing & Repeated Transmission of Files . Knowing Long Arm Jurisdiction Exists (iinteractive nteractive communication) ii. Limited to Advertisements Advertisements No Long Arm Jurisdiction (passive communication) No Internet & Long Arm Jurisdiction Internet Evolving Area: 2 Approaches Approach # 1: Three-Tier Analysis iiii. Able to Exchange Info with Host Computer ii. Exchange Case-by-Case Decision (look at interactivity & Case-by-Case interactivity commercial nature of info exchange) commercial Internet & Long Arm Jurisdiction Internet Approach # 2: Aimed Effects Analysis i. D purposefully aimed actions at purposefully forum State * Mere foreseeability of impact not foreseeability not enough to qualify as purposeful and ii. Harmful effect of D’s actions in Harmful forum State Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Schwarzenegger Assigned to the following students to brief and present in class on Wednesday, September 7: present (1) Andrew Cooley (2) Pedro Lourenco (3) Kathryn Schaubhut (4) Bianca Wugofski Deutsche v. Montana Board Deutsche Yes. By text message, Montana Yes. text Montana “knowingly projected itself into N.Y. to take advantage of its capital markets.” N.Y. court has personal jurisdiction over personal Montana....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online