Venue Cases Flashcards
Arkansas corporation not authorized to do business in Missouri brought suit to collect an account for having sprayed insecticide on Barton cotton crop in Missouri. Barton sought damages from P for negligence and putting on the market of chemical unsuited to spray cotton.
May the Arkansas court entertain a suit for injuries to real property situated in another state ?
Yes, the rule comes from English cases that were decided before America was discovered. Without allowing jurisdiction over this case in Arkansas Court, Barton would have no redress for his claimed injuries. Hill could never enter Missouri and not get served with complaint. the basic principles of Justice mandate that Barton should be able to have his case.
- when cases arose from somewhere else, it was impossible to get a jury who knew all the facts—> courts made a distinction transitory arose elsewhere, case that involved a particular piece of land was local
In Arkansas court may suit for injuries to real property that is located in another state
Reasor-Hill Corp. v. Harrison (1952)
He moved to New York, but incurred debt in Pennsylvania. He alleged violations of fair debt collection practices act, and demand his statutory damages. D sent collection notice to PA, Postal Service forwarded to P’s New York address.
Does venue exist in a district where the debtor resides into which bill collectors demand for payment was forwarded ?
Yes, under 1391 if a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred in a particular jurisdictional district, venue is proper. Receiving the letter was a substantial part of the events underlying peas FCP claim —> venue proper in New York. It was irrelevant that the initially sent the letter to the Pennsylvania address and it was forwarded to the New York by the Postal Service. If D wanted to limit the judicial districts venue, it should’ve indicated on the letters envelope that it was not to be forwarded.
If a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in a particular judicial district, then he was proper in that district (here, federal court).
IL resident sues Dallas resident of a Texas corporation with primary place of business in Dallas. suit is for patent infringement—all activities took place in Dallas. D files motion to transfer to US District Court of northern District of Illinois.
Can a district court where the civil action was brought transfer the action by D to a district where P does not have a right to bring it ?
No. A district court may not transfer an action “in the interest of justice” if the action could not have been brought in the transfer district initially.
- Because D has waiver power over venue, if D’s were permitted to transfer cases in this manner, it would “inject gross discrimination” because it would empower district court to transfer to any district desired by D
Power of District Court under 1404 a to transfer an action to another district is made to depend on the wishes of D, but whether the transferee district was one in which the action “might have been brought”
Dissenting: legitimate objection by P to proceeding in the transferee forum will be reflected in a decision that the interest of justice does not require the transfer and so becomes irrelevant that the proposed transfer is deemed one where “the action may be brought”
Hoffman v. Blaski (1960)
Small commercial aircraft crashed in Scotland killing the pilot in five passengers. The deceased = all Scottish citizens and residents. The plane was manufactured in PA by D and the propellers were manufactured in Ohio by Hartzel, other D.
- Filed wrongful death in California state court
- P admitted to filing the action in the US because laws are more favorable than Scotland
- D’s Piper and Hartsell moved to federal District Court in California, and then wanted to transfer to the district of Pennsylvania
- After both cases were moved, D’s sought to dismiss the case on forum non conveniens
Does an administrative of the five decedent estates have had jurisdiction to file claims in the US on grounds of Noncon by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff than that of the present forum?
No. The possibility of an unfavorable change in substantive law due to transfer should not be a substantial consideration in a forum non-convenience inquiry— only if the remedy available in the alternative forum is so clearly an adequate that is effectively no remedy at all
- Choice of law analysis is only one weighing factor
- In the US would disallow D’s to implead third-party D’s
-public interests:
- all decedents were Scottish
- all potential Ps and D’s are either Scottish or English
- US interests to deter manufacturers to produce defective products is low compared to resources/judicial time for trying case in US
A plaintiff cannot defeat motion to dismiss on ground for forum no conviene by showing the law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable than that of the present forum
For non-convenins is about convenience
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981)
Affirmed dismissal on for non-conveniens, even though no alternative forum was available given Iran political situation under regime
No proof is required to establish an alternative forum is adequate because it “would place an undue burden on your courts, forcing them to accept foreign-based actions unrelated to the state merely because of more appropriate form is unwilling or unable to accept jurisdiction”
Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi (1984)
The ninth circuit proceeded on forum nonconveniens and rejected P’s contention that the Philippines judicial system would be inadequate because of the a State Department County Report revealing corruption, delay and political influence by wealthy corporate D’s in the Philippines
Political statements, criticizing fairness of forum is not enough to wipe out an alternative forum
Tuazon v. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
DC circuit held that there should not be forum non-convenience when the alternative forum was a claims commission designed to resolve war related suits involving Ethiopia and Eritrea and P “is certain to be awarded full relief if she wins on the merits of her claims—in favor of a forum in which she has no certainty of getting relief for a meritorious claim”
If P cannot recover if she wins, then then there is no alternative forum
Nemariam v. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Affirmed dismissal of an action for forum non conveniens even though district court had not ascertain whether subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction was present
Court can dismiss an action, “denying audience to a case on the merits… and dispose of action… bypassing questions of subject matter and personal jurisdiction” when the court has no intention of hearing a case (almost certain will dismiss)—procedural decision
- courts will only establish jurisdiction when they are fairly certain there is a potential to take the case. I.e., why waste time determining jurisdiction when they know they’re going to forum non conveniens a case?
Sinochem International Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia international Shipping Corp
