No specific jurisdiction over web payment service operator, as the harm doesn't arise out of conduct expressly aimed at the state; the company is a broadly accessible web platform indifferent to the location of its customers and the consumers affected.
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Personal Jurisdiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Personal Jurisdiction. Show all posts
Sixth Circuit: Laura Canaday v. The Anthem Companies, Inc.
As the statute makes no provision for nationwide service of process, Due Process requires that the statutory joinder of out of state parties to a statutory collective action prove sufficient minimum contacts of the original deft within each forum state of the out of state parties.
DISSENT
The addition of new plaintiffs doesn't change the singularity of the lawsuit, within which the court has already acquired its specific jurisdiction. Alternatively, the deft's conduct towards the out of state plaintiffs relates to its conduct within the original forum state.
As it's a national statute, interests of particular states aren't implicated in the same way.
The statute's designation of added plaintiffs as parties is merely to distinguish their status from that of representatives without a personal interest.
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0186p-06.pdf
Fourth Circuit: US v. Daniel Harris
Physical presence in the courtroom is sufficient to give a criminal court jurisdiction over a deft.
Habeas grounds not raised at trial or on direct appeal and then raised for the first time on a collateral challenge are subject to de novo review on matters of law if the government doesn't argue the procedural default at the District Court.
If the conduct relative to the statute's focus, the object of the statute's solicitude, occurred in the US, it is a permissible domestic application of the statute, even if related conduct occurred abroad. Since the protected victim was in the US while being coerced into the activity by means of the Internet, the present case is a permissible domestic application of the statute, even though the deft was abroad.
Sixth Circuit: Kevin Malone v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc
Pleading that alleged tortfeasor conducted business, formed contracts, and caused injury within the state suffices to state a claim involving sufficient purposeful availment for personal jurisdiction within the forum; further discovery is warranted where such a claim is made against a supplier who sells their product through a national retail chain.
Seventh Circuit: John Crane, Incorporated v. Shein Law Center, Ltd.
Insufficient personal jurisdiction over out of state counsel under state long-arm statute where all contacts with forum state were incidental to the litigation.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-04/C:17-1926:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2165287:S:0
Tenth Circuit: American Fidelity Assurance v. Bank of New York Mellon
FRCP, General Jurisdiction
Party waived general jurisdiction challenge, as it didn't raise it initially, and the recent S. Ct. holding in Daimler restated the already-prevailing standards for general jurisdiction.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-6009.pdf
Party waived general jurisdiction challenge, as it didn't raise it initially, and the recent S. Ct. holding in Daimler restated the already-prevailing standards for general jurisdiction.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-6009.pdf
First Circuit: Copia Communications, LLC v. AMResorts, LP
Personal Jurisdiction
Insufficient purposeful availment of things Massachusetts to hale a Jamaica-based company into Massachusetts court, as it merely received shipments from Massachusetts and signed a contract identifying the counterparty as a Massachusetts corporation with a Massachusetts address.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1330P-01A.pdf
Insufficient purposeful availment of things Massachusetts to hale a Jamaica-based company into Massachusetts court, as it merely received shipments from Massachusetts and signed a contract identifying the counterparty as a Massachusetts corporation with a Massachusetts address.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1330P-01A.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)