In Starlight Int’l, LTD. v. Lifeguard Health, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58927 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2008), California resident and plaintiff filed a complaint against Pennsylvania resident and defendant, claiming trademark infringement and unfair competition. Starlight is a limited partnership that markets and sells dietary supplements and Lifeguard also markets and sells dietary supplements and maintains an interactive website where it displays its product. Starlight alleges it owns the registered trademarks of Lifeguard, Lifeguard Junior, and Lifeguard Joint Formula. Defendant moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, or, alternatively, to transfer venue to Pennsylvania. Defendant states that there is no basis for which …show more content…
Therefore, “if a defendant is amenable to general jurisdiction in a state, the state may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant based on any claim, including claims unrelated to the defendant’s contacts with the state.” Id. at 6 (quoting Coremetrics, Inc. v. AtomicPark.com, LLC, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2005). The Ninth Circuit Court considers the following factors when determining if general jurisdiction exists: whether the defendant makes sales, solicits or engages in business in the state, serves the state’s markets, designates an agent for service of process, holds a license, or is incorporated there. With all factors presented, whether considered independently or together, the court determined that these contacts are not so “substantial, continuous, and systematic” that defendant can be viewed as present in California for all …show more content…
Starlight asserts that Lifeguard purposefully directed its business at California through four contacts: (1) internet and direct sales to California consumers; (2) participation in the San Francisco trade show; (3) a retail partnership with MPower Solutions in California; and (4) an e-commerce relationship with Yahoo. The court established that defendant’s direct and internet sales to California consumers are sufficient evidence of purposeful availment of this forum, and thereby fulfills the first requirement of specific jurisdiction. By availing oneself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state through such actions, defendant invoked the benefits and protections of the forum’s laws. Accordingly, in return for these benefits and protections, the defendant must submit to the burdens of litigation in that forum. Additionally, the court affirmed that acompany’s useof an interactive website may constitute purposeful availment of a forum. Id. at 14 (Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F. 3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997). To fulfill thesecond requirement, the“contactsconstituting purposeful availment must be the ones that give rise to the current dispute,” as measured by the“but for” causation
One type of subject matter jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction which is the courts ability to hear federal claims. The only claim in this case is breach of contract which is a state claim, not a federal claim. Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
A dentist fits several children with braces. The children are regular patients of the dentist. The results for some of the patients turn out to be unacceptable and damaging. There are children who have developed gum infections due to improperly tightened braces. Some mistakenly had their permanent teeth removed, while others have misaligned bites. A local attorney becomes aware of these incidences, looks further into it, and realizes the dentist has not been properly trained and holds no legal license to practice dentistry or orthodontics. The attorney decides to act on behalf of the displeased patients and files a class action lawsuit. The attorney plans to prove the dentist negligent and guilty of dental malpractice by providing proof using the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages.
"Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. .
Mark A. Kornfeld, (2014), Tracking New Developments in Securities Litigation, Aspatore, WL 1245076. Retrieved from: https://1-next-westlaw-com.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/
The suit was ref the board of directors and key officers, alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross management, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information. The plaintiffs had met their rule 23.1 burden to plead with particularity their claims of demand futility. (Case: 1:04-cv-00041 Document #: 142 Filed: 02/28/07 Page 2.) The conclusion of this case is the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s verified shareholders amended derivative compliant (122) with prejudice is granted. The case was hereby terminated. Case: 1:04-cv-00041 Document #: 142 Filed: 02/28/07 Page
It is unfortunate that accidents that result in injuries are a part of life. Further more it is also unfortunate that often the party responsible for said accident do not feel compelled to offer compensation to the party affected. However in spite of this, there is still hope for the injured party thanks to personal injury lawyers. They are tasked with representing their clients who suffered from these events while making sure that their clients receive the compensation that they deserve. Ultimately personal injury lawyers play a big role with regards to safety initiatives by helping those injured, which is something that we all should aspire to do.
He explains that when a conflict arises, we are less capable to take on the situation and are more likely to hand it off to authorities. He then comes to the conclusion of how they are overlooked, in terms of importance, and that individuals own their conflicts as one would own property. Furthermore, he justifies that these properties are stolen by law, therefore, no longer owned by individuals. Christie urges the need to eliminate ‘professionals’ from the sphere of conflict resolution in order to prevent the theft of conflicts. He explains his perspective of “conflict as property” as not relating to material compensation but rather to the ownership of conflict itself. He then recognizes the effects of victim losing the “property” originally, and puts forth a fix for this process. He introduces a way to remodel the justice system for dealing with conflicts in which the court is victim
The similarities between Federal and California Trial Courts are that they both take care of civil and criminal cases. However, the U.S. District Courts are required to handle these two special cases which are the cases from the Court of International Trade and U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In addition, every district with Federal district courts also has one U.S. bankruptcy court. California Superior Courts, in contract, take care of "appeals of small claims cases and other civil cases worth $25,000 or less and appeals of misdemeanor cases" (Superior Court of
Trademark, Property, and Restitution." Harvard University. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 2010. Web. 26 Feb 2014. .
Mayer D., Warner D.M., Siedel G. J., and Lieberman J. K. Business law and the legal environment. (Vol. 1.0.1). flatworldknowledge.com. Retrieved from
In conclusion, the case of Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985) addressed the issue of personal jurisdiction. The District Court of Florida ruled that the defendant was under the jurisdiction of the District Court. Rudzewicz appealed to the Court of Appeals and it found that the due process clause was violated. The case made its way to the Supreme Court where it ultimately ruled that the contacts was enough to extend personal jurisdiction and that there was no violation of the Due Process Clause. This case was essential in determining whether states have the authority over individual during legal matters without violating personal liberties.
In matters of jurisdiction, it is set trite that jurisdiction is everything and without it, no Court
Tanielian, M. (April 15, 2013). Comments of the Coalition for Patent Fairness. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 1-22. Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/ip/global/patents/comments/753609930-1_cpf_-_letter_to_uspto.pdf
Zippo manufacturing’s basis of claims was Dot Com ‘s use of the world “Zippo” I in the domain names in numerous locations in its websites and in the title of the internet newsgroup message that were posted by the Zippo dot com subscribers . Dot Com moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Zippo manufacturing filed a complaint in opposition to Dot com for trademark dilution, false designation, and under the Federal Trademark Act and state law trademark . The Court established a three-prong test for determining whether a court has jurisdiction over a website. Under the test, the probability that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly balanced to the nature and quality of the marketable or commercial activity that an entity conducts over the internet.
While issuing the ruling, Lord Atkins, one of the judges, established that manufacturers had an obligation to consumers or third parties who may consume the product, and not just the individual with the contractual agreement (the purchaser). Ratio Decidendi, defined as the primary statement of law or the rationale for judicial decision (Enright 2002) in this case was: