Funny Face Case Study
This is the case of Plaintiff Donald Margolin and his company, Donald Margolin Empire, Inc., both of New York, versus Defendants Chris, Matt, and Ian, of California, and Novelty Now, Inc., of Florida — the creators and distributing company, respectfully— of the Funny Face aftershave lotion, brought before the court in the state of New York.
Plaintiff Margolin states that following a single use of Funny Face aftershave lotion, his face turned a permanent shade of blue. It has been brought before the court’s attention that this is due to the use of the chemical emulsifier PYR— which is not FDA approved— within the Funny Face formula. He is seeking damages for his face as well as his business reputation, as he is no longer able to conduct business …show more content…
Generally, this power only covers a specific geographic region. For example in the state court system, a court's in personam jurisdiction usually extends to the state's borders, whereas a federal court exerts power over a greater area (Kubasek, Browne, Giampetro-Meyer, Barkacs, Herron, Williamson, & Dhooge, 2011). Because this case involves multiple parties from multiple geographic areas, the statutes regarding in personam jurisdiction must be scrutinized for all three states involved (New York, California, and Florida) before a venue may be decided upon.
A second jurisdictional factor that must be taken into account is that of subject matter. Subject matter jurisdiction is defined as “the power of a court over the type of case presented to it” (Kubasek, et al., 2011, p. 44). It must be decided if any of the above mentioned states even possesses the power to decide this particular case. It is also important to note that the concept of a federal court venue may not be entirely ruled out in this case, as the Funny Face product is marketed and sold nationally on the radio, in print, and through the Internet and social media (Southern New Hampshire University, …show more content…
As Chief Justice Berger states in Dynamic Law, regarding the precedent of the United States v. Dotterweich, in which the CEOs of a corporation put the public at risk with his decisions to ‘cut corners’ in production of pharmaceuticals “the accused, if he does not will the violation, usually is in a position to prevent it” (Berger, as cited in Kubasek et al., 2011, p. 161), and the same can be said both for Defendant Matt as well as Defendant Ian in this
Plaintiff Margolin states that following a single use of Funny Face aftershave lotion, his face turned a permanent shade of blue. It has been brought before the court’s attention that this is due to the use of the chemical emulsifier PYR— which is not FDA approved— within the Funny Face formula. He is seeking damages for his face as well as his business reputation, as he is no longer able to conduct business …show more content…
Generally, this power only covers a specific geographic region. For example in the state court system, a court's in personam jurisdiction usually extends to the state's borders, whereas a federal court exerts power over a greater area (Kubasek, Browne, Giampetro-Meyer, Barkacs, Herron, Williamson, & Dhooge, 2011). Because this case involves multiple parties from multiple geographic areas, the statutes regarding in personam jurisdiction must be scrutinized for all three states involved (New York, California, and Florida) before a venue may be decided upon.
A second jurisdictional factor that must be taken into account is that of subject matter. Subject matter jurisdiction is defined as “the power of a court over the type of case presented to it” (Kubasek, et al., 2011, p. 44). It must be decided if any of the above mentioned states even possesses the power to decide this particular case. It is also important to note that the concept of a federal court venue may not be entirely ruled out in this case, as the Funny Face product is marketed and sold nationally on the radio, in print, and through the Internet and social media (Southern New Hampshire University, …show more content…
As Chief Justice Berger states in Dynamic Law, regarding the precedent of the United States v. Dotterweich, in which the CEOs of a corporation put the public at risk with his decisions to ‘cut corners’ in production of pharmaceuticals “the accused, if he does not will the violation, usually is in a position to prevent it” (Berger, as cited in Kubasek et al., 2011, p. 161), and the same can be said both for Defendant Matt as well as Defendant Ian in this