Situation 1
Jim could be right in his argument that the Nevada Federal District Court does not have the subject matter jurisdiction over his case. According to Glannon (2010), subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to hear cases of a specific kind, which means that while some courts could be having the ability to listen to some cases, others could be lacking such powers. Further, the subject matter jurisdiction, under the diversity of civil cases, when suing a citizen of a different state in a federal court, applies only when the amount being asked by the complainant is more than $75, 000. In this case, the amount being asked is $60, 000 which is less than the minimum standard amount; hence, Jim is right in his defense.
Situation 2
Bob is wrong in asserting that the California Federal District Court does not have the subject matter jurisdiction over his case. As it is the case with situation 1, it is needful for the court to establish the constitutional standing, which is described in Bob’s case. Precisely, the case study suggests that copyright infringement is a cause of action arising under federal law, which sets the standard for admission of cases of this type to the federal court (Jordan, 2011). On such ground, Bob is wrong in his argument. As it was the case with situation 1, the court will have an easy time establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant since he is a California resident.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Situation 3
The Orange Corporation is wrong in its argument that the Washington State court lacks personal jurisdiction over its case. The type of jurisdiction, in this case, is referred to as in rem jurisdiction, which allows the court the power over property and not persons per se as it is the case with personal jurisdiction (Glannon, 2010). However, since corporations can be sued in the same way individuals could be sued, in rem jurisdiction is related directly to personal jurisdiction. In determining whether the court has jurisdiction over Orange Corporation, the court will apply the place of business standard, which directs that while persons could be living in a different state, them having a place of business in another state makes the court in the other state to have personal jurisdiction over them (Jordan, 2011). In this case, the fact that Orange Corporation has an office in Seattle and conducts its advertising activities in Seattle implies that the state court in Washington has personal jurisdiction over the company. To determine whether the Washington State court has the subject matter jurisdiction over the case would be a simple task considering that state courts have general personal jurisdiction—they are not limited to the specific subject matter that they could handle—and that the subject matter is a cause of action under state law as indicated in the case study.
Situation 4
Orange Corporation cannot have the case transferred to a federal court. Under 28 U.S.C § 1631, a court can only transfer a case for "want of jurisdiction." ( Jordan, 2013 ). This implies that the statute authorizes transfer just in a situation that the subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, which cannot be applied in this case, since the personal jurisdiction is at stake. Further, situation 3 reveals that the issue at hand is a cause of action under the state law, thereby preventing federal courts from settling such a problem. The cooperation will thus not be able to succeed in transferring the case to a federal court unless it is proved that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
References
Glannon, J. W. (2013). Civil procedure: Examples and explanations . New York: Aspen Publishers.
Jordan, P. D. (2011). Paralegal studies: An introduction . Albany, NY: West Thomson Learning.
