Legal Research Assign 4
Crystal Perry
PLG-108-1503
Assignment 4
Relevant Facts
Froogle, Inc. is a corporation with its principle place of business in California. Mary a proprietor of a small business in Vermont specializes in the manufacture and sale of ski equipment. She signs a contract with Froogle, Inc. that allows Mary’s business to advertise on Froogle’s internet search engine. Froogle Inc. complains that Mary has violated the agreement between the parties Froogle Inc. files a lawsuit against Mary in Superior Court for the County of Monterey in Salinas, California. Mary claims that California court has no jurisdiction over her, while Froogle Inc. claims the state does because she knowingly did business with a California company.
Issue Presented
The issue is whether under California State Law, Froogle Inc can exercise jurisdiction over a non resident (Mary) although she knowingly did business with Froogle Inc. in California.
Rules
A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of U.S pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.10. In the case of Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash. 326 U.S. 310 (U.S 1945) the court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant because the general rule is that a court may assume jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant where the defendants “minimum contracts” with the state are sufficient to make the action offensive to concepts of fair play and justice.
Application to Our Case
In the Int’l Shoe Co v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (U.S 1945), case the minimum continuous requirement, a state cannot have jurisdiction over an out of state resident in a civil proceeding. Mary an out of state resident who never been to California, has no business or advertises on the internet besides for Vermont ski resorts, Due Process Clause is satisfied with minimum contacts in California.
Conclusion
Based on the above court proceeding the State of California does not have jurisdiction over Mary because Froogle Inc.
PLG-108-1503
Assignment 4
Relevant Facts
Froogle, Inc. is a corporation with its principle place of business in California. Mary a proprietor of a small business in Vermont specializes in the manufacture and sale of ski equipment. She signs a contract with Froogle, Inc. that allows Mary’s business to advertise on Froogle’s internet search engine. Froogle Inc. complains that Mary has violated the agreement between the parties Froogle Inc. files a lawsuit against Mary in Superior Court for the County of Monterey in Salinas, California. Mary claims that California court has no jurisdiction over her, while Froogle Inc. claims the state does because she knowingly did business with a California company.
Issue Presented
The issue is whether under California State Law, Froogle Inc can exercise jurisdiction over a non resident (Mary) although she knowingly did business with Froogle Inc. in California.
Rules
A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of U.S pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.10. In the case of Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash. 326 U.S. 310 (U.S 1945) the court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant because the general rule is that a court may assume jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant where the defendants “minimum contracts” with the state are sufficient to make the action offensive to concepts of fair play and justice.
Application to Our Case
In the Int’l Shoe Co v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (U.S 1945), case the minimum continuous requirement, a state cannot have jurisdiction over an out of state resident in a civil proceeding. Mary an out of state resident who never been to California, has no business or advertises on the internet besides for Vermont ski resorts, Due Process Clause is satisfied with minimum contacts in California.
Conclusion
Based on the above court proceeding the State of California does not have jurisdiction over Mary because Froogle Inc.