Asante Case
A
Question
of
Jurisdiction
Facts Background
Main IRAC Plaintiff’s arguments
Plaintiff: Asante Technologies Inc. Defendant: PMC‐Sierra, Inc.
Defendant’s authorized distributor: Unique
Technologies
Plaintiff’s complaint Plaintiff filed the action in the Superior Court Defendant removed the action to the District
Court Plaintiff now requests to remand the action back to the Superior Court
‐>the core issue: jurisdiction
FEDERAL QUESTION
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
PROCEDURE AFTER REMOVAL GENERALLY
“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446 (a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. ….”
Defendant (Federal Jurisdiction) VS. Plaintiff (lack of federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction) ‐> DOES FEDERAL COURT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE?
Issue: Does federal jurisdiction apply in this
case? Rule: US code, title 28, section 1331 Apply: Federal jurisdiction applies because CISG is a treaty which US has ratified. Conclusion: Yes, CISG does govern this case.
Issue: Does CISG govern this case? Rule: CISG only applies when a contract is
between parties whose places of business are in different states. Apply: Plaintiff‐ USA Defendant‐ also USA? Conclude: No, CISG does not govern this case as both parties are from the same state? ‐> REJECTED
Issue: Does CISG govern this case? Rule: Article 6 of the CISG
Apply: “Terms and Conditions” reflect the
parties’ intent to “opt
Facts Background
Main IRAC Plaintiff’s arguments
Plaintiff: Asante Technologies Inc. Defendant: PMC‐Sierra, Inc.
Defendant’s authorized distributor: Unique
Technologies
Plaintiff’s complaint Plaintiff filed the action in the Superior Court Defendant removed the action to the District
Court Plaintiff now requests to remand the action back to the Superior Court
‐>the core issue: jurisdiction
FEDERAL QUESTION
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
PROCEDURE AFTER REMOVAL GENERALLY
“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446 (a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. ….”
Defendant (Federal Jurisdiction) VS. Plaintiff (lack of federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction) ‐> DOES FEDERAL COURT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE?
Issue: Does federal jurisdiction apply in this
case? Rule: US code, title 28, section 1331 Apply: Federal jurisdiction applies because CISG is a treaty which US has ratified. Conclusion: Yes, CISG does govern this case.
Issue: Does CISG govern this case? Rule: CISG only applies when a contract is
between parties whose places of business are in different states. Apply: Plaintiff‐ USA Defendant‐ also USA? Conclude: No, CISG does not govern this case as both parties are from the same state? ‐> REJECTED
Issue: Does CISG govern this case? Rule: Article 6 of the CISG
Apply: “Terms and Conditions” reflect the
parties’ intent to “opt