“ On what basis might the federal district court in Illinois exercise jurisdiction in this case?”
In lawsuits, jurisdiction refers to the authority to hear a given case which in this case will refer to the federal court of Illinois where Mr. Garner filed this case. In the legal framework of U.S, if a person, for instance, commits a certain infraction or a misdemeanor in a specified judicial district, then the court in that district can exercise jurisdiction over that case (Federal court Jurisdiction, 2017). The case involving Stan Garner, the Foreman and his manager is also an inter-state case since the defendants and the plaintiff belong to different state citizenship. In this case, also, the offer which Mr. Garner gave to his clients was done in a different state of Nevada. Therefore, according to U.S law, the Federal district court has limited jurisdiction in the type of cases which it can handle. Thus this court has an exception of hearing this case under concurrent jurisdiction where not only this court which can hear the case but it can also be heard in a state court as well (Trevor, 2017). In this particular case, the court will exercise diversity jurisdiction since the two parties involved in the suit are different citizenship that is Texas and Illinois. Since this case involves breached contract between the parties, then the particular federal district court will be at liberty to exercise jurisdiction is also the claim will exceed about $ 75,000 (. However, the case is likely to take longer to be resolved than in a state court where it would be cheaper and easier.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
“ Does the federal district court have original or appellate jurisdiction?”
Since it is the first this federal district court at Illinois will be hearing this case, it will be exercising original jurisdiction rather than appellate jurisdiction. However, federal courts can have either original or appellate jurisdiction whereas others have both. All federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction meaning that they are confined to hear those cases which are only authorized by the U.S while other cases are handled by the necessary system of state court. In exercising original jurisdiction, federal courts exercise jurisdiction rightly hears the case from the beginning. In the U.S court system, it is in order for federal courts to hear all cases which involve the federal law (Slorach & Ellis, 2017). Additionally and for the purpose of the present case which is involving diversity jurisdiction due to different citizenships, the federal court in question at Illinois can exercise full original jurisdiction over the case. Mr. Garner reported this case at Illinois federal district court where state law may also be used to decide over the case.
In appellate jurisdiction, the court hears a case under an appeal from a given court of original jurisdiction. Thus in this case, since this case is not an appeal, the federal district court will exercise original jurisdiction rather than an appellate jurisdiction to decide a case from a lower court. The appellate court, however, does not hear the entire case but only reviews the rules under a disputed issue just to identify if in any case, the lower case could have acted in error in deciding about the case. The federal district court at Illinois can only exercise appellate jurisdiction to hear any appeal from the state supreme courts only when such appeals carry the sense of constitutional questions (Slorach & Ellis, 2017).
“ Suppose that Garner had filed his action in an Illinois state court, could an Illinois state court exercise personal jurisdiction over Foreman or his manager? Why or why not?”
Personal jurisdiction refers to the power of a given court to decide on a party that is being sued in a particular case. The U.S constitution determines that there is minimum contact which a given party must have with the forum in which the court sits before that court can exercise power over that party. Therefore a defendant can object a suit if a plaintiff sues him or her by arguing the powerlessness of the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them.
State courts are presumed to have the power to hear virtually any claim arising under federal or state law, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Personal jurisdiction in a state court will be governed by the state law of the individual being sued in regard to the service of process. Service of process in lawsuits entails giving an individual a summon or a given notification so that they may appear before court (Personal Jurisdiction, 2017). Therefore in this particular case, if Mr. Garner had filed this case in a state court in Illinois, the state court can still exercise personal jurisdiction on the foreman and his manager from the state of Texas on the basis of the defendants a minimum number of contacts with the forum at Illinois state court. However, personal jurisdiction can be waved by the defendants. Additionally, the long-arm statute still allows service of process for the Foreman and his manager (defendants) outside the state of Illinois. The concept for the state court at Illinois to determine personal jurisdiction over defendants, in this case, would be to evaluate if this court has any vested interest on them to prompt any binding decisions over the defendants.
“ Assume that Garner had filed his action in a Nevada state court. Would that court have had personal jurisdiction over Foreman or his manager? Explain.”
Before any state court can exercise jurisdiction over individuals, it must by law have personal jurisdiction over that individual. All state courts only have personal jurisdiction over the residents of their states. However in order to establish a personal jurisdiction against citizens of another state requires a more close analysis (Chen, 2000). This is the present case of Mr. Garner of Illinois and the two defendants from Texas whereby the case is now filed in the state of Nevada.
In this case, the state of Nevada can only exercise personal jurisdiction against the foreman and his manager from Texas only depending on the dictates of Nevada Law. The contractual offer among the parties was done in Nevada although the parties come from different states. The Nevada courts adhere to federal due process rules in the establishment of personal jurisdiction fo0r out-of-state defendants. The Nevada law determines that service of process must first be conducted in order to provide the defendants with the necessary summons. In case of individuals who hide behind locked gates, the state of Nevada decides a service process through the mail system to deliver summon to the defendants. To this regard, Nevada for the Nevada state court to establish personal jurisdiction over the Foreman and his manager in Texas, then three things will need to be true: First, the out-of-state defendants must have purposefully transacted business with a Nevada resident or otherwise or availed themselves for a business transaction in Nevada to invoke benefits and Nevada law protection (Nevada, 2018). This is true since the deal arrived at Nevada between Mr. Garner and his clients. Secondly, the claims of the plaintiff (Mr. Garner) must be arising from defendants actions (breach of contract) related to Nevada. This is also in agreement with the current transaction. Finally, the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with the fairness of play and substantial justice in Nevada.
Since the case of Mr. Garner and his client meet the threshold of personal jurisdiction being exercised in Nevada state court, this case can definitely proceed with the court exercising personal jurisdiction over the Foreman and his manager.
References
Business Law: Text and Cases - Legal, Ethical, Global, and Corporate Environment, 14th ed. ISBN-10: 1305967259
Business Law. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://books.google.co.ke/books/about/Business_Law.html?id=RojCCwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
Chen v. Nevada State Gaming Control Board. (2000). Gaming Law Review , 4 (4), 354-355. doi:10.1089/glr.2000.4.354a
Federal Court Jurisdiction. (2017). doi:10.4135/9781506369273
Federal Courts. Jurisdiction: Diversity of Citizenship. Appointment of Administrator from Defendant's State to Defeat Diversity Jurisdiction. (1932). Harvard Law Review , 45 (4), 743. doi:10.2307/1331396
Lawsuits Against Out-of-State Defendants in Nevada. (2018, February 23). Retrieved from https://ggrmlawfirm.com/blog/nonresident-defendants/
Personal Jurisdiction. (2017, July 3). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/personal_jurisdiction
Slorach, J. S., & Ellis, J. (2017). Business Law 2017-2018. Law Trove . doi:10.1093/he/9780198787686.001.0001
Trevor C, H. (2017). Part IV Procedural and Systemic Issues, 21 Concurrent Proceedings. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments in Europe . doi:10.1093/law/9780198729006.003.0021
