Civil Memo Outline Facts about the Client and Defendant o The client lives in New York, and

nd is domiciled in New York. She works in NY and daughter attends school in NY. When she booked she was in NY at work Her credit card was not charged however until she picked the car up in California She has a NY licens0065 o D is Cheap and Easy Rental Car Company, Inc. The client saw the advertisement in the New Yorker magazine. She also saw and advertisement in New York when driving one day. The sign was in a local storefront and advertised for the company and its car rentals. On the website there was more than one state listed, including California where the client booked her car rental She googled the website and found it that way Client also stated that a friend from NY recommended the company (NY Resident) saying she had heard of the company The client was not aware of any travel restrictions on the car when she rented in California. Bringing Suit in State Court o Minimum Contacts International Shoe Co. v. Washington Due process requires only that in order to subject a D to in personam jurisdiction you need minimum contacts that do not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice o In the instant case there is minimum contacts. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. Due process over a nonresident D requires only that the suit is based on a contract that has substantial connection to the forum. o In the instant case the contract has substantial connection to the NY forum o The contract was made on the website while the client was in NY the website was available for the client even though she is a NY resident Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. International Shoe minimum contracts requirement is satisfied even when a corp. conducts no business in the state, as long as the act has given rise to a substantial connection to the state World Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson A corporation purposefully avails itself of a forum in order to be subject to jurisdiction there regardless of fairness and convenience o Foreseeability is relevant > can the D by reason of conduct and connection with the forum state reasonably anticipate being sued there?

o Unilateral activity of a third party is not enough Fair Play and substantial Justice o (1) Burden on D (2) States interest (3) Ps interest (4) Interstate judicial systems interest (5) shared interest of several states The company has purposefully availed itself to the forum in NY o the company solicited business in NY via the New Yorker Magazine even though the magazine is apparently a world magazine, the company that client works for has subscribed to the magazine since the company has placed there advertisement in a widely circulated magazine they have created a substantial connection to that forum Foreseeability > o Since the company has solicited business in NY(via the magazine, website and storefront sign) o The solicitation of business and the fact that a NY resident can book via the website, it is foreseeable for the D to be sued in NY forum Fair Play and Substantial justice o (1) burden on the D > it is a company working in several state o (2) States interest > Client is a citizen of the state o (3) Ps Interest > she is a NY resident o (4) Interstate Judicial System interest >???? o (5) Shared Interest of several states>???? Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court D must purposefully avail himself of the forum by more than just putting a product into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it will reach the forum state however such conduct is enough to satisfy the minimum contacts requirements o This is more than just the stream of commerce because the rental car company has to anticipate that a renter can take the car out of the state (no limitations placed on the person) o Also they are renting to all different states (including NY) So there is an expectation that they will be sued in NY Calder v. Jones A state could assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident D when there is intentional conduct in that state other than the forum state, calculated to cause injury to P in the forum state o Intentional Conduct >solicitation of business o HOWEVER no proof that they intended to cause injury so not a good case? Burger King After minimum contacts is established it is up to the D to prove that being required to defend a suit there would be fundamentally unfair

o More discovery is needed to find out if it would unfair for D to be sued in NY o Brining Suit in Federal Court o Diversity jurisdiction 1332 (Two part > diversity and amount in controversy) Diversity of citizenship determined at the time of the commencement of the action No complete diversity at commencement of action if nondiverse party dismissed, jurisdictional defect cured and federal court can keep case No complete diversity at commencement of action if nondiverse party changes domicile for complete diversity, defect not cured and court must dismiss Determining Citizenship Individuals = domicile = Place of fixed residence o The place where individual has the intention of returning/remaining Corporations o State of incorporation, and Principle place of business Unincorporated associations - Citizenship determined by citizenship of each member Strawbridge v. Curtiss Complete diversity > there is no diversity if any P is a citizen of the same state as any D o Purports to construe only the words of the act of congress and not the constitution o Article III poses no obstacle to the legislative extension of diversity so long as any two adverse parties are not co-citizens There is no evidence provided by the client regarding complete diversity. As of the facts at the time, we are unaware of the Ds principal place of business, and have no information regarding the citizenship of the Company o Amount in Controversy The second thing to look at with diversity citizenship is that the amount in controversy must be greater than $75,000 If the sum is less than that the court can deny the costs of the P and impose costs? The amount in controversy is met since the client wants to recover $150,000 Defendants Motions o Motion to Quash One of the first motions the defendant can possibly make is that the state court has no jurisdiction This would not work since minium contacts has been established o Motion to Remove to federal court After the motion to quash would be denied, then the Car Company could move to bring the case in federal court.

This however hinges on whether there is complete diversity o That would mean that the company cannot be a citizen of NY and that they cannot have their PPB in NY or be incorporated in NY

Ointernational shoe Holding: A state court will have in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident D if the D has minimum contacts with the state such that it does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Mcgee Rule: Due process requires only that in order to subject a nonresident D to the personal jurisdiction of the ct, the suit is based on a contract that has substantial connection to the forum.

Gray Hanson Holding: For there to be minimal contacts sufficient to support in personam jurisdiction, it is essential that there be some act by which the D purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its law. Wolrd wide Holding: Forseeability is not enough. Under the Due Process Clause, the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over a defendant is not constitutional unless he has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Holding: There must be a substantial connection between the defendant and the state. Finding minimum contacts must come about by an act on the behalf of the defendant towards the foreign state. Holding: The use of a companys product in a state constitutes a sufficient contact with the state to justify personal jurisdiction.

Ashia

Clader

 Holding: Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident D is proper where their intentional conduct, in a state other than the forum state, calculated to cause injury to P in the forum state.