Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp Lecture Notes

Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. -Serves agent of Titan (agent = identify person to be served on company’s behalf) -1st case we have seen where it originated cuz Shoemaker states you don’t have to file in forum where it occurred -G v. T (AR) -They distributed their product one step further -One ∆ admitted to jurisdiction, other didn’t -She doesn’t want to learn ∆ she has is judgment-proof (can’t write check = bankrupt), risk jury stating it was other ∆ who was guilty, -Drawing out case is good for defendant, not plaintiff (who is paying only by winning) -A.R. asserts cross-claim (against other ∆ aka titan) -Gray’s objective is to show one of the ∆’s is liable (A.R. is doing this by blaming Titan -Problem is result of their actions/product, not ours *Joint tort feeser -Titan specially appears, not actually here to be served, but to complain about jurisdiction -Consequence of proceeding in TC = gray could appeal -Expediting principle = go straight to SC instead of seeing intermediate court -Solve statutory problem as well 2 Questions (and order) to ask when analyzing personal jurisdiction? (1) Statutory Q:  Does Long-arm reach ∆? (can vary state to state) IF YES TO FIRST….. Then proceed to second (2) Constitution Q:  Consistent w/ due process clause? -Ask in that order cuz….. courts shouldn’t ask constitutional questions unless they are concrete w/ statutory question answered -Exceptions**** D. D. OR L. L. -Titan’s argument = if tortious act, it didn’t happen in Ohio (L.A. statute doesn’t extend to -In order to have a tortious act, there has to be an injury (tortious act happened in IL) - -Tort involves duty, breach of duty, causation, & injury -Tortious act = breach of duty (Titan’s argument) -In gray case = L.A. statute and D.P clause are in process together court says -Why would state choose to say “as long as it’s constitutional, our courts have jurisdiction over something that happens”? -Want to make it easier for their residents to get remedy (easier to maintain lawsuit at home) -If complete diversity, could go to federal court -She could go to Ohio, but less convenient for her attorney -Could sue Titan in one and AR in another, but too expensive of a process Other Notes: (1) What is the ∆’s contacts? (2) What is relation of π’s claim? ----------------------------------------(3) Isolated contacts? Single or occasional (specific jurisdiction = hardest category) McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. -I’m beneficiary, guy died, and I didn’t get proceeds -Why didn’t insurance company pay? -He committed suicide -She contested, bringing action in CA court -Could have sued in AZ (original insurance co. was in) -International life based in TX so could have sued there -CA never had jurisdiction over us -π went to default judgement when ∆ fails to show -Preclusion act = one state rules a case, another state can’t ignore it/refuse to enforce it -∆ can attack ruling if default judgement and arguing jurisdiction is wrong -States don’t have to follow another state’s ruling when based on jurisdiction questions -Default judgement concerns = can’t win argument on merits, or they find original judgment is valid since court did have personal jurisdiction (binding parties on merits) -Gamble didn’t pay off at supreme court cuz they say there was jurisdiction (McGee wins then) -Mr. Franklin was their only CA client (1) contacts = contract itself was delivered to Franklin in CA (2) state interest = providing convenient forum to residents to sue (3) π’s interest = have a convenient place to sue (4) Convenience to 3rd parties -----------------------------------------------------(5) Burden on ∆ Hanson v. Denckla -Trust = means of holding/transferring ownership of property/money to other, -Settler  trustee  beneficiary -Dora Donner opens trust, leaves will to first 2 daughters, makes 3 rd daughters children beneficiaries of trust, & makes 3 rd daughter distribute $$ for everyone that she won’t receive -Will is whatever left excluded from the trust A1 W (2 daughters getÝng will) v. T (trustee) FL -If we aren’t a party in lawsuit, aren’t under jurisdiction to court (bank in Delaware w/ FL court) (1) no personal jurisdiction over bank in FL (bank is trustee) (2) bank is an indispensable party (we can’t litigate unless both parties involved are there) -The bank is the one that needs to be ordered what to do, but no personal jurisdiction in FL A2 T v. W (DE) -While FL court is deciding, 3rd daughter makes claim in DE where bank is -Daughters rush to DE stating FL already resolved it so bound (preclusion act) -SC rules FL court lacked personal jurisdiction and therefore bank was an indispensable party -She didn’t live in Florida when she agreed with bank to create trust -If was known bank was liable to court/sued from anywhere Donner moves, bank may have not agreed to participate Handout 2 Solution -Can’t count unilateral actions of 3rd parties -Doesn’t subject Daniels to jurisdiction in CA -He will argue it should be in NY -Peterson will argue she has contacts in CA = bought plane ticket for daughter to CA, facilitated trip, benefited from her going to CA (wasn’t getÝng child support b4, not bearing financial burden) -3 of 4 principles live in CA, state interest in making sure minors are not unprovided for, state has to pay through benefits if mom can’t take care of her -Dad buying ticket wasn’t enough, not a purposeful activity to benefit Volkswagen & material 7 activities