civ pro motion hearing

8/8/2019 Civ Pro Motion Hearing

1/4

Motion Hearing #2

Parties

- Barry Kane, Alabama resident

- Tasty Foods, California resident

Martys Marketing, Mexico resident.

Place of Incident

New Orleans, Louisiana

Court Filed

Federal District Court Alabama

Team A: Motion to Dismiss

* As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state court may exercise personal

jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts"

between the defendant and the forum State.International Shoe Co.

*Tasty Foods, is located clear across the country in California.

*Its primary office and its only manufacturing plant exist in CA.

*Martys Marketing, is not even from the United States.

*Neither party purposely availed himself to Alabama. NOT ONE SALE WAS MADE.

* Merely causing an effect within the forum state without purposeful availment will not

support jurisdiction.

* The International Shoe courthas held that if a corporation had had in-state activities

that have been continuous and systematic, then that company has had presence in that


2/4

state and established a minimum contact. WE HAVE NEITHER A CONTINUOUS OR

SYSTEMATIC PATTERN IN ALABAMA.

* The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident

defendant cannot satisfy the requirements of contact with the forum State. It is essential

in each case 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

protection of its laws.Hanson v. Denckla

* A s conduct and connection with the forum state should be such that he reasonably

anticipates being haled into court. World Wide Volkswagen.

* Petitioners carry on no activity whatsoever in Alabama. They close no sales and

perform no services there. They avail themselves of none of the privileges and benefits of

Alabama law.

* Yet "foreseeability" alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal

jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. World Wide Volkswagen.

* Every seller of chattels would in effect appoint the chattel his agent for service of

process. His amenability to suit would travel with the chattel. World Wide Volkswagen.

* Minimum requirements inherent in the concept of fair play and substantial justice

may defeat the reasonableness of jurisdiction even if the has purposefully engaged in

forum activities.Burger King v. Rudzewiez.

* The placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without additional conduct, is

not an act on the purposefully directed toward the forum state and does not establish

minimum contact with the forum state. Asahi.

* The unique burdens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system

should have significant weight in assessing the reasonableness of stretching the long arm

of personal jurisdiction over national borders. And in the Asahi decision, every Supreme

Court was in agreement that this burden alone, presented a reason not to exercise

jurisdiction.

Concurring Justice:

*This finding alone requires reversal; this case fits within the rule that "minimum

requirements inherent in the concept of 'fair play and substantial justice' may defeat the


3/4

reasonableness of jurisdiction even if the defendant has purposefully engaged in forum

activities."Burger King, quotingInternational Shoe Co.

*The circumstances from which this suit arises from, took place in Louisiana. Even

Louisiana would be more appropriate in consideration of witnesses.

Team B: Opposing Motion to Dismiss

* As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state court may exercise personal

jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist "minimum contacts"

between the defendant and the forum State.International Shoe Co.

*The fact that many states near Alabama were distributed Cajun Spice in conjunction

with the fact that purposefully sought market in Alabama by distributing free samples,

is evidence that both companies had additional conduct necessary to establish a

substantial connection. Asahi v. Superior Court.

*The Cos took privilege in the state of Alabama by conducting marketing in the State.

With that privilege, comes obligations which require a to be subject to that states

jurisdiction. International Shoe.

*Both companies were able distribute their product for marketing purposes in Alabama

and therefore met the additional conduct necessary to move forward with inAsahi.

* To the extent that its business may be directly affected by transactions occurring here it

enjoys benefits from the laws of this State, and it has undoubtedly benefited, to a degree,

from the protection which our law has given to the marketing of its product. Grey.

* Smyth v. Twin State Improvement Corp.: continuous activity within the state is not

necessary as a prerequisite to jurisdiction.

* InNelson v. Miller, the commission of a single tort within this State was held sufficient

to sustain jurisdiction under the present statute.

*Alabama has a manifest interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents

when their insurers refuse to pay claims. McGee v International Life.

*Court looks to increase growth and nationalized commerce in the country and asserts

that there has developed a trend clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible


4/4

scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and other non residents. McGee v.

International Life.

* The limits imposed on state jurisdiction by the Due Process Clause, in its role as a

guarantor against inconvenient litigation, have been substantially relaxed over the years.

As we noted in McGee v.International Life Ins. Co., this trend is largely attributable to a

fundamental transformation in the American economy.

* The forum State does not exceed its powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts

personal jurisdiction over a corporation that delivers its products into the stream of

commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum

State. Cf. Gray v.American Radiator & Standard Sanitary

civ pro motion hearing

Documents