Chapter 2 Cases Bombliss v Cornelsen Facts o Bombliss from Illinois o Cornelsen from Oklahoma o Bombliss s and Cornelsen s bred the same type of dog o Cornelsen called Bombliss and said she was ready to sell two litters Bombliss expressed interest in purchasing 2 females o Cornelsen got the mother dog Mulan of the litter from Eichhorn o Eichhorn and Cornelsen had a written guarantee that Mulan was free of genetic defects Eichhorn gets odd numbered pups from Mulan s first two litters however if there is a genetic defect then Eichhorn gets zero dogs o Bombliss s visit dogs before buying the dogs appear sick Bombliss s selected 2 healthy females and paid the price with the understanding that the Cornelsen s guaranteed the dogs as breeding stock for 3 years o Cornelsen took other pups to the vet they were sick Cornelsen posted messages that puppies from this litter should not be used for breeding o However Cornelsen completed registration papers for a dog in the same litter as the sick dog she completed registration papers for a dog that had been sold to Bombliss s this paperwork was mailed to Bombliss s and it said that the dog was for breeding o Bombliss s got their dog tested and it had no genetic disorders o Bomblisses sued the Cornelsens on tortious interference with prospective business advantage Bomblisses said that the Cornelsens knowingly published false statements about the dog s genetic line in order to retaliate against Eichhorn o Bomblisses also said that bc of what Cornelsen said about the genetic defeat many potential puppy customers had fallen through Cornelsen asked the Illinois trial court to dismiss the complaint on grounds of in personam jurisdiction trial court granted the request so the Bomblisses appealed Rule long Arm statute you can have jurisdiction if there is minimal contact minimum contacts personal jurisdiction Bombliss argue that the Cornelsens intentionally directed tortious activities at them and that the due process clause is satisfied Issue does Illinois long arm statute permit Illinois courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Oklahoma defendants o The long arm statute said that any person who does any of a list of acts is subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state o On this list the commission of a tortious act within this state o Also the long arm statute stands if contacts between the defendant and Illinois are sufficient to satisfy due process under the state and federal constitutions To satisfy the due process the defendant Cornelsen must have sufficient minimum contacts with the other state Court must consider whether the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts whether the cause of action arises out of these contacts and whether it is reasonable to require the defendant to litigate in the other state Defendant Cornelsen called the Bomblisses and mailed the registration papers interactive chat rooms forms of contact Bomblisses also argue that there was more contact on the Cornelsen s website and the fact that the Cornelsen s went on a chat room What jurisdiction is Internet activity 3 different things o Jurisdiction may be asserted if the nonresident defendant transacts business in the other state via an interactive website where contracts are completed online o Jurisdiction does not attach where the nonresident maintains a passive website that merely provides information about the products o Combine the first two an interactive website that allows customers to communicate about the products can assert personam jurisdiction depending on the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of the information exchanged The website in this case falls under this category o The contract negotiations follow up registration commercial interactive website chat rooms meet minimum contact standards in Illinois under federal due process analysis o The defendants contacts with Illinois gave rise to plaintiffs cause of o Is it reasonable to require defendants to litigate in Illinois action If the plaintiff established that the defendant purposely directed his activities at the state it is the defendant s burden to show that litigating the dispute in that state would be unreasonable defendant could not do this Most of the evidence witnesses are in Illinois Illinois has a strong interest in providing its residents with a convenient forum any damages sustained by plaintiffs would have affected their interest sin Illinois no evidence that trying the cause in Oklahoma would serve the interstate judicial system or shared interested of both states Trial court s original dismissal for lack of in personam jurisdiction reversed findings Illinois has in personam jurisdiction Hertz Corp v Friend Issue in applying federal law for determining corporate citizenship what is the appropriate standard for determining principal place of business A defendant has the ability to have a case removed from state court to federal court in an instance of concurrent jurisdiction Friend sued Hertz over Cali wage and hour laws in state court Hertz filed to remove the case to federal courts on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction Rule federal statute plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds 75 000 and a corporation is a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and where it has its principal place of business Hertz argued they were citizens of different states and more than 75 000 was at stake o Hertz said their principal place of business was in NJ that it was a national operation in 44 states cali was only 20 of Hert z rental locations employees revenue headquarters in NJ Friend argued that Hertz was a cali citizen so it should remain in state court US District Court of Cali applied 9th Circuit Court of Appeals precedent which said to identify a corporation s principal place of business by determining the amount of a corporation s business activity state by state if amount of activity is significantly larger in one state then that state would be considered the corporation s principal place of business Federal district court said Cali was Hert z principal place of business diversity jurisdiction did not exist 1928 a corporation was treated as a citizen of the state in which it was incorporated 1958 Congress amended the statute a corporation is a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business o Congress did this
View Full Document
Unlocking...