8/10/2019 Review Set 2 (1)

1/6

Review Set 2PJ, SMJ, and Venue Combined

1. Barnum, a citizen of Maine, sues Ringling Brothers, Inc. for injuries suffered when Kelly, aRingling Brothers clown, fails to secure the door on a lion cage while the train is refueling inBangor, Maine, and Leo, a trained lion, escapes. Ringling Brothers is incorporated in Wisconsin

with its principal place of business in Manhattan, in the Southern District of New York. Thecircus has winter quarters in Florida, has permanent facilities for training performers in theNorthern District of Ohio, and performs for two or three weeks each year in ebery state on the

eastern seaboard.

a. Could the suit be brought in the federal district court for Maine? (Maine has only one

district)

b. Could the suit be brought in the Northern District of New York?

c. Could the suit be brought in any federal district court in Ohio?

d. Could the suit be brought in any federal district court in New Jersey?

8/10/2019 Review Set 2 (1)

2/6

2. Barnum sues Ringling Brothers and Kelly, the clown who let the lion escape from the train.

Kelly is domiciled in Florida.

a. May Barnum sue in federal district court in Maine?

a. Ringling Bros.

i. Personal jurisdiction1.

Yes, because there were minimum contacts (lion attack in

Maine.)

a. Purposeful availment because they are running theirbusiness in that state.

ii. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

1. Complete diversity as long as its over $75,000iii. Venue

1. Residential

a. Doesnt work because all defendants have to be fromthe same state.

2. Transactional

a.

Yes, because a substantial part of the accident tookplace in main.

b. May he sue in a Florida federal district court? (Yes, because you have all three)a. Kelly

i. Personal jurisdiction

1. Yes, over Kelly because he lives in FLii. SMJ

1. Yes, because it doesnt change depending on court.iii. Venue

1. No transactional venue2. Residential

a.

Because Kelly is domiciled in FLb. Ringling Bros

i. Personal Jurisdiction

1. Yes, but Im not sure why.2. Because of systematic or continuous contacts

ii. SMJ

1. Yes, because it doesnt change depending on court.iii. Venue

1. Residential

a. Because they are subjected to personal jurisdiction

8/10/2019 Review Set 2 (1)

3/6

c. May he sue in the Southern District of New York? (No, because of second

defendant, (Kelly))

a. Kelly

iv.

Personal jurisdiction1. General

a. No, because hes not domiciled there.b. No consent

2. Minimum Contactsa. Specific

b. Even though he performs a couple times there

throughout the year, the contacts are NOT RELATED.

v. SMJ1. Yes, because it doesnt change depending on court.

vi. Venue

1.

No transactional venue2. No, Residential

a. Because Kelly is domiciled in FLb. Ringling Bros

vii. Personal Jurisdiction1. Yes, under general

a. No, minimum contacts

viii. SMJ

1. Yes, because it doesnt change depending on court.ix. Venue

1. Residential

a.

Because they are subjected to personal jurisdiction

3. Barnum sues Ringling Brothers and Kelly in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the

injuries Barnum suffered in Maine. Barnum serves the summons and complaint on Kelly and on

T. Thumb, General Manager of Ringling Brothers, while the circus train is stopped just west of

Philadelphia to feed the animals. Is this suit proper? (No.)

a.

Kelly

x. Personal jurisdiction

1.

xi. SMJ

1.

xii. Venue

1.

c. Ringling Bros.i. Personal Jurisdiction

1. Not going to work because corporations are not subject to

gotcha jurisdiction2. General

8/10/2019 Review Set 2 (1)

4/6

a. Could have systematic or continuous contracts

i. Argue that its far from the case here. Not athome in PA.

ii. No transient jurisdiction because it is a

corporation.

3.

Only way it will work is if it consents to PA (but wont workbecause of Venue)ii. SMJ

1. Yes, because it doesnt change depending on court.iii. Venue

1. Residential

a. No

2. Transactional

a. No.3. Fallback

a. No.

4. Suppose the circus sues Kelly, from Florida, and Rice, a Vermont citizen, for allowing Leo toescape. The circus alleges that Rice was negligent in failing to lock the cage when the train left

Rutland, Vermont, and that Kelly was negligent in failing to check the lock when the trainstopped to refuel in Bangor. The suit is brought in Maine.

a. Will the Maine federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction?

a. Yes. Total diversity

b. Will the court have personal jurisdiction over the parties?a. Yes, there were minimum contacts with Vermont

b. No, PJ that could be brought in Maine.

c.

Is Maine a proper venue? (Hypothetical got consent)a. Residential

b. Transactional

i. Yes, a substantial part of the events occurred in Maine.

5. Beatty, an Arizona citizen, sues the Bailey Circus Corporation for an injury suffered when

Elmer, a willing but occasionally clumsy elephant, fell on him while Beatty was watching a

circus performance in Phoenix. When the accident occurred, in 2003, Bailey was

incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Phoenix . Since 2003,

however, the circus has prospered. As of 2006, when suit was brought, it PPB was in

California, but it still performed extensively in Arizona as well. May Beatty bring suit in federalcourt in California? Yes, in 2006

-Not in AZ because you must look at PPB in time of filing.

b. Bailey Circus Corporation

iv. Personal jurisdiction1. Subject to personal jurisdiction in CA because thats were its

PPB is.

8/10/2019 Review Set 2 (1)

5/6

v. SMJ

1. Total Diversity?a. Yes, now in 2006, which is what you look at.

b. No, in 2003, when event occurred, but that doesnt

matter.vi. Venue1. Residential

2. Transactional

3. Fallback

6. In 2005, Beatty sues the Bailey Circus and Stenk, Elmers trainer, for the circus accident. Suitis brought in the New Mexico District Court for Guadaloupe County, the state court of general

jurisdiction in New Mexico. Assume that the relevant New Mexico venue statute authorizesvenue in the county where any defendant resides and that Stenk resides in Guadaloupe County.

a. Is the suit properly brought before the state court?

b. May the defendant remove to federal court?

7. A representative of Ringling Brothers visits Adler, a retired clown who lives in Cedar Rapids,

Iowa, in the Northern District of Iowa. The agent explains that the circus wishes to get Adlerspermission to use a famous poster of Adler in promoting the circus, for a small royalty. Adler

agrees. Ringling Brothers uses the picture in advertising in New York but does not pay Adler.Adler decides to sue Ringling Brothers for breach of contract and a federal copyright claim.

a. Can you think of a court in which personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction

are satisfied, but venue is not?

8/10/2019 Review Set 2 (1)

6/6

b. Assume that the contract was made in New York while Adler was visiting there, rather

than in Iowa. Can you think of a court or courts in which venue and SMJ are proper, but

the court would not have personal jurisdiction over Ringling Brothers?