Blog

DISINFECTED ITEMS CAN BE STORED IN THE SAME CONTAINER AS USED/ CONTAMINATED ITEMS. 

A homeowner from State A hired a contractor from State B to build a vacation home for her in State C. The parties signed the contract in State A. The contractor breached the contract, and the homeowner sued the contractor in a court of State A, seeking damages of $100,000. The contractor removed the case to the federal court for State A. The homeowner promptly moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that venue was improper.Which of the following facts is most relevant to the court’s decision on the homeowner’s motion?

A homeowner, domiciled in State A, hired a contractor, domiciled in State B, to build an addition to his residence. Dissatisfied with the contractor’s work, the homeowner refused to pay the contractor. The contractor promptly commenced a contract action against the homeowner by filing a complaint in the federal court for State B, seeking damages in excess of $75,000. The contractor’s lawyer went the homeowner’s residence in State A and attempted to hand the summons and complaint to a man who was painting the front porch of the residence. The lawyer told the man that he was serving legal papers. When the man refused to accept the papers, the lawyer touched the papers to the man’s arm and placed them on a nearby bench on the porch. The lawyer assumed that the man was the homeowner. In fact, he was the homeowner’s neighbor, whom the homeowner had hired to paint the porch while he was vacationing. What is the homeowner’s best argument that service was improper?

When he turned 21, a young man who lived in State A decided to move to a city in State B. He loaded all his possessions in his truck and trailer and set out for State B. While en route, he was involved in a serious accident in State C with a woman driving an SUV, injuring both parties. Because of his injuries, the man has remained in State C for several months. However, he still intends to relocate to the city in State B as soon as he has recuperated and is able to travel. The woman, a citizen and resident of State D, is preparing to file a negligence action in federal district court against the man for the injuries she suffered in the State C accident. If the woman files the action before the man proceeds to State B, in what federal district or districts is venue proper?

The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of State A after they were involved in a car accident in State B. The defendant filed a motion objecting to venue. The plaintiff is a citizen of State A. The defendant owns a home in State C, where he lives most of the year. The defendant also owns a beach house in State A. He spends about a month and a half each year at the beach house, but never more than a week at a time. Is venue proper in the District of State A?

A used car dealer in State A is profiled in an article in a newspaper with national circulation. The article states that the dealer never sells a car without rolling the odometer back at least 25,000 miles. In fact, the dealer is an honest businessperson who never changes odometers, so he sued the newspaper for libel in State A state court. The newspaper’s entire operation is conducted from its offices in State B, but it sells 5,000 copies in State A on an average day. In its initial pleading, the newspaper argues for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction over the newspaper because of insufficient contacts. What is the likely ruling of the court on this issue?

A motorist was involved in a car accident with the vice president of a large corporation while on vacation in another state. Upon return to his home state, the motorist decided to sue the vice president. The vice president has had absolutely no personal contacts with the motorist’s home state, although the company for which she works does extensive business in the state. The motorist read in a newspaper that the vice president was served with a subpoena to testify at a grand jury proceeding in the state regarding some of her company’s activities in that state, so he arranged for process to be served on the vice president when she attended the hearing. Does the state court have jurisdiction over the vice president?

Conducting a department meeting.

The plaintiff corporation is incorporated in State A and has its principal place of business in State B. The defendant corporation is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State C. It also has branch offices and does substantial business in all 50 states. The cause of action is based on a breach of contract that was to be performed in State D, which has a long arm statute authorizing jurisdiction in such cases. In which of these states may the plaintiff corporation bring its action?

Plaintiff #1 (citizen of California) and Plaintiff #2 (citizen of California) bring suit together against Defendant Train Company (Nevada corporation with offices only in Las Vegas, Nevada) in a federal district court in San Francisco, California. Both Plaintiffs claim that they were injured by undercooked chicken that Defendant Train Company served on a train ride from Las Vegas, Nevada to San Francisco, California. The chicken was served and consumed as lunch while the train was just departing Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiffs assert negligence claims based upon California common law against Defendant Train Company.  Plaintiff #1 claims minor injuries valued at $10,000. Plaintiff #2 claims more substantial injuries and related damages valued at $70,000. Plaintiffs state in their complaint that they anticipate that Defendant Train Company will assert a defense based upon a federal statute regarding train travel, as has been explained in prelitigation discussions with Defendant Train Company’s attorney. Subquestion #1: Please fully analyze whether the federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Subquestion #2: Assuming proper subject matter jurisdiction for this subquestion only, Defendant Train Company files a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) (improper venue). Please fully analyze what action the federal district court in San Francisco, California should take regarding Defendant Train Company’s motion.