ID: Name: Exam Name: Instructor: Grade

:

4623? Civ_Pro_I_MID-TERM_01C_(Martin)FA09 Martin ____________

Total Number of Words in this Exam = 1,061 Total Number of Characters in this Exam = 6,233 Total Number of Characters in this Exam (No Spaces, No Returns) = 5,084

1)
QUESTION PRESENTED Can personal jurisdiction be asserted in CA over Dripps (D), whose business in CA is unrelated to the cause of action? RULE Specific Jurisdiction over D - To assert specific J, the cause of action must arise out of D's contacts with the forum state. RULE EXPLANATION & ANALYSIS Authorization The first step in determining whether J exists over D is seeing if it is authorized. Since P is suing in fedral court, he will use FRCP Rule 4(k)(1)(A), which allows him to borrow and apply CA's LAS. CA's LAS authorizes J when a non-resident does business in the state. Since D operates 4 mines and 20 jewelry stores in CA, this will constitute business, and J will be authorized Constitutional Even if it is authorized to submit D to SJ, this is only half the battle. It must

Traditional forms of jurisdiction do not apply in this case since D is an out of state defendant who has not been tagged in CA. is not domiciled in CA. ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ RULE General Jurisdiction . These contacts are completely unrelated to the cause of action and will be disregarded by the court when considering SJ. it is not even necessary to consider the fairness/reasonableness of bringing D into court in CA (WW VW). a state may assert J over a D even for casues of action arising outside the forum and unrelated to the contacts within it RULE EXPLANATION & ANALYSIS Authorization . and has not consented to jurisdiction there. that those contacts gave rise to the cause of action (Shoe). P may argue that D purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of CA by operating a jewelry business in CA (Hanson). Without minimum contacts with CA. The stolen goods were then allegedly used by D to promote stereo sales on the east coast.where D's continuous and systemic contacts with the forum are substantial. CONCLUSION P will be unable to assert SJ over D since he has no contacts with the forum that relate to the cause of action. since P is seeking specific jurisdiction. This is bogus. Any benefits or protections will be due to D's jewelry business and unrelated to the theft. The theft was stereo-related and all of D's CA contacts are jewelry-related. P will have a very difficult time proving that D's contacts with CA are even related to the cause of action. So it must be shown that D has sufficient minimum contacts in CA and. The suit arises from a property theft in North Dakota.also be constitutional to do so under the DPC of the 5th Amendment.

D likely employees a significant workforce of CA residents between the mines and stores. Furthermore. it would not be fair to be tried in CA. In light of these 5 factors. It is likely that P can do this. over which the Court asserted GJ (Benguet). D will undoubtedly argue that. if not each month. . D conducts significant business in CA that far exceeds the activities of the defendant in Helicopteros.For the reasons cited above. I assume) residents of the state. systematic and extensive contacts. D operates 4 gold mines and 20 jewelry stores in CA. business correspondence. D's stores are not of the 99 cent variety. all done in Ohio. accepting checks drawn on a Houston bank. payment of salaries. Dripps has permanent presence in CA. which BK and subsequent Courts (Asahi) have applied. it has a "home away from home" in CA (Benguet). and sending personnel for traning. Although D is incorporated in DE and has HQ in VA. the defendant's only had sporadic contacts: sending of CEO to TX for negotiation. these are quite monster contacts. stock transfers. More than simply buying products from the state. There. banking. jurisdiction will be authorized over D. equipment and training. Constitutional For GJ to be asserted over D. That Court cited Benguet's director's meetings. P must prove a much higher level of contacts between D and the forum. It is highly likely that D advertises in CA as well. Here. Conversely. D's 40 jewelry stores likely do many tens of thousands of dollars worth of business each year. They are continuous. even with these contacts. similiar to the conduct of Benguet. D must show it is unreasonable to be haled into CA. The 9th District Court found GJ over a cigarette company in WA where it had only one office and a workforce of 45 (Reynolds). These were come-and-go contacts which the court concluded would not justify GJ. D actually diggs up the forum state and then sells to (mostly. Shoe established the notion of "fair play and substantial justice" and WW VW expressly itemized fairness factors to consider. This amounts to a significant economic impact on the state. purchasing helicopters. and purchasing of machinery.

burden on D (low) . the witnesses and evidence will probably not be in CA 5. 3. Also. The several states interest in furthering substative social policies (mild) all states have an interest in fair business practices and crushing dishonesty These factors will be weighed.The burden on D will likely be low since it does significant business operations in CA. That was because Asahi was a foreign defendant subject to the "unique burdens" of litigating in a foreign country and language.CA may have an interest in protects its companies (like P) from the unethical business practices of out-of-state corporations. P's interest (decent) . so it would be much easier for it to litigate in CA 4. -------------------------------------------------Question #1 Final Character Count = 6233 . and maybe even get in 9 holes at lunch. Efficiency (low) . They can easily take their privates jets to CA for trial. The court will likely find it fair to subject D to suit in CA given its contacts and lack of burden to defend there. Such barriers are not present here.since the theft was perpetrated in ND and the list taken back east.P's has its headquarters and principle place of business in San Diego.1. Only in Asahi did the court render jurisdiction unfair when there were sufficient contacts. its high ranking officers (who will be subject to the suit) come to the state once a month for leisure. forum state's interest (mild) . We can successfully sue in California federal court. 2. CONCLUSION P will be able to assert GJ over D in CA.

No Returns) = 5084 END OF EXAM .Question #1 Final Character Count (No Spaces.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.