Personal Jurisdiction, Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, and Venue

One of the first issues that my attorney must consider is where to file my lawsuit against my neighbor? The answer is always the same: My suit must be brought in a court that has personal jurisdiction over all the defendants and subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying controversy. When I file suit in this matter in a given court, I am asking the court to exercise its personal jurisdiction over the defendant (my neighbor), summoning him to appear before it to answer my charges, over which it must have subject-matter jurisdiction, or else it cannot hear the case. In this instance, both points will be child's play to establish. My neighbor lives in this jurisdiction (California), and the best way to establish personal jurisdiction is to sue the defendant where you find him, or, in other words, in the jurisdiction where he maintains his legal domicile. Another way to establish personal jurisdiction is to say that the defendant committed the wrongdoing in the jurisdiction where you wish to sue him, and this argument would work for me as well: My neighbor not only resides in California, but also committed the legal wrong here. In other cases you can establish personal jurisdiction by showing that the defendant breached a contract that was supposed to be performed or that was made in the jurisdiction; or by showing that he maintains sufficient "minimal contacts" so that he can expect to be sued in this jurisdiction, at least with respect to the transactions at issue, etc. As for subject-matter jurisdiction, it is likewise a simple matter in this instance. Stealing another's tomatoes is both a criminal offense that can be publicly prosecuted (larceny) as well as a civil offense that can be privately litigated (conversion of assets). The state courts of California have subject-matter jurisdiction of all common-law torts, such as conversion of assets. Indeed, all state courts everywhere in the United States have subject-matter jurisdiction over all crimes and civil claims, save those as to which the federal courts have pre-emptive or exclusive jurisdiction. Suppose I were to bring suit under the federal Sherman Act (an antitrust statute). I would be obliged to do so in federal court. The state courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over matters brought under Sherman Act. The federal courts have pre-empted jurisdiction over all claims made under the Sherman Act. This is called pre-emptive or exclusive federal jurisdiction. But in our example, that of tomato-thievery, I can sue my neighbor in a California court, which will have personal jurisdiction over my neighbor as well as subject-matter jurisdiction over my civil claim for conversion, which I want to make against him. California of course is a very big state. Should I sue him in any particular part of the State? There are trial courts sitting in every county of California. Should I arrange to bring my suit in the part of California that is most remote from San Diego, say in Altoona, California? If I were to try, I would be surely sanctioned for an obvious misuse of a civil procedure, and besides my neighbor would instantly be able to have the matter transferred to a more suitable venue (place): He would make a motion to transfer venue, arguing that San Diego is a more convenient venue than Altoona because it is the location where both the plaintiff and defendant reside, where the wrong allegedly occurred, and where all the witnesses and documentary evidence is located. The case would be instantly transferred to San Diego, where I should have brought it in the first place. Since I am no fool (I hope), I would bring suit in the proper venue in the first place, and so none of this would ever happen. These then are the related issues of personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction and venue. They sometimes can present really difficult problems, but not in our example. Cross-claims and Consolidation of Related Claims. To return to our example, I have sued my neighbor for conversion in the California Superior Court for San Diego County. When answering my complaint, my neighbor might consider asserting cross-claims against me or someone else who might have an involvement in the suit. In the meantime, the DuBois Company has sued me for breach of contract in this same court, but in a different proceeding. In response, my attorney makes a motion to consolidate the two proceedings on the ground that they largely concern the same series of transactions and occurrences, and that both cases should be litigated together or at least that the common issues of fact and law should be litigated together, so as to avoid duplicative proceedings or contradictory adjudications of the same issues of fact and law. The judge agrees with my attorney, and he grants the motion, so that my case against my neighbor and DuBois case against me are consolidated.

Page 5 of 5 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next