Help me understand Court Jurisdiction.
This is grad school related, but it is not homework, nor is it it a test. I’m preparing for my midterm, and want to understand Jurisdiction better.
So, under General Jurisdiction, you can always bring a law suit against a company where the company is based, or where they conduct continuous and systematic business activity.
Under Specific Jurisdiction you need to pass the three variables of personal availment, relatedness, and reasonableness.
So help me put this in perspective: If a corporation is incorporated in Delaware, has its main office in New York, and does business in California, but its president lives in Connecticut, in which state(s) can it be sued?
I’d say: Connecticut not likely unless the president is specifically named in hte suit.
New York would be a Yes because that is where the company is based.
California would also be a yes because the company does business there.
Delaware? I would think it’s not likely (assuming they don’t do business there) as it wouldn’t pass the three pronged test mentioned above.
Haha, entire semesters in law school are spent discussing this issue. If you want the down & dirty I recommend “Civil Procedure” in the Crunchtime series. It contains easy-to-understand flowcharts and is available at any book store that serves a law school.
Without getting into it, you’re wrong about Delaware. You can always be sued where you are incorporated.
I’m not surprised! If there’s one thing I’ve learned is that ambiguity rules. Well, not so much ambiguity, as there are no definite black and white answers. Everything changes based on the individual circumstances it seems like.
I’d think Connecticut is out (speaking generally, barring state-specific rules otherwise) because you ask if the corporation can be sued in CT. Unless the residency of the president is somehow under their control or germane to the case (i.e., the harm took place there), where an employee lives is not relevant to jurisdiction. At the root of many jurisdiction questions is what did the party do to put themselves within the power of the court (also add in a bit of predictability) – in this case, nothing.
As for Delaware, it’s been too long to remember exactly, but incorporating in a state basically tells that state that you accept that state’s jurisdiction.
It’s been a while, but as I recall from law school, the state of Delaware has passed a number of laws that are very friendly to corporations, which has led to many corporations incorporating there. They’re a very popular “choice of law” state, by which I mean that corporations will typically have a clause in any contracts they enter into which state that the law of the state of Delaware shall apply in event of disputes, regardless of where the dispute occurs. As a result, Delaware judges hear loads of cases involving corporations and have therefore become very experienced with and very well versed in business law.
You’re right, though, that “where the president lives” has no bearing on jurisdiction whatsoever.
Not friendly as in “it’s ok to dump toxic waste”-friendly, but nice, relatively clear laws and a solid body of jurisprudence to back up the meaning of said laws. Again, leaning toward predictability…
This is a general answer, not specific to any particular nuance or hook that the pseudo-law professors here love so much.
Another question that must be asked is what activities the corporation has done in Connecticut that might subject to general or specific jurisdiction in that state.
For instance, if the president (or any other employee or agent), on corporate business in CT, causes personal injury in CT, there should be no question that jurisdiction there in the PI is proper. If the company sells and delivers something to a CT resident, the resident should be able to sue in CT over the sale.
If the corporation has extensive activities in CT, even though headquartered elsewhere, it may be found to be subject to general jurisdiction there. Further, the corporation may have filed with the CT state authorities an authorization to do business there or other similar documents which may subject it to general jurisdiction under state laws.
This is a thorny question that has few simple answers.