Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
21. Should the court grant the actor's motion to dismiss?
The personal assistant is seeking $125,000 in damages. In response to the complaint, the actor filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
A personal assistant from State B sued an actor from State A in federal district court in State B, alleging a breach of contract. The alleged breach occurred while the personal assistant was working for the actor on a one-day shoot in State B. Aside from the one-day shoot, the actor has had no other contacts with State B. The personal assistant had worked for the actor for over five years, with all prior services performed in State A.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is correct. The court should not grant the actor's motion to dismiss because, by contracting with the personal assistant for services performed in State B, even if only for one day, the actor purposefully availed himself of the forum. This is despite the fact that most of the services performed between the parties occurred in State A, where the actor resides. By hiring the personal assistant and receiving services in State B, the actor should have foreseen that he could be subject to litigation in that forum.
A is incorrect. Although the court should not grant the actor's motion to dismiss, it is not because the challenge was improperly raised. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(2) allows for a pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court should still not grant the motion, however, because the actor had sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction.
C is incorrect. This is a misapplication of the law to the facts. By employing the personal assistant to work for him while on location in State B, even if just for a single day, the actor purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in that forum. It is a red herring that most of the previous work between the parties happened in State A because the contract dispute here is based on events in State B, even if only during a one-day shoot. It would have been foreseeable that receiving such services could have caused the actor to be called into court in State B.
D is incorrect. As explained above, the actor's motion to dismiss alleging lack of personal jurisdiction was properly filed. Moreover, this choice contains a misstatement of the law; it is subject-matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction, that may not be waived under FRCP 12(h). Although personal jurisdiction may be waived, it was not waived here. Nevertheless, the court should not grant the motion, for the reasons explained above.