29. What is the cab driver's strongest argument against litigating the case in State C?

A federal court must have both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit. Subject-matter jurisdiction may be based on diversity, where the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Personal jurisdiction over a defendant is proper if he is physically present in the forum and served with process, as long as the long-arm statute grants jurisdiction.

Unlike subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, which ask which court has the power to hear the case for the parties, venue asks which court is the proper location. A case may be dismissed even if subject-matter and personal jurisdiction exist, but the venue is improper.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in any federal district court where:

(i) any defendant resides, as long as all defendants reside in the same state; OR

(ii) where a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

A third scenario for venue exists, which applies only if the first two avenues are not available:

(iii) «if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction» (emphasis added).

Personal jurisdiction exists over a defendant who is present within the forum state when he is served with process.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a federal court with proper jurisdiction to decline to hear a civil case out of fairness to the parties if there is a more convenient federal court available.

D is correct. The most likely basis for preventing the cab driver from having to litigate in State C is to move to dismiss based on improper venue. When a case is originally filed in an improper venue, the court may either transfer the claim to a proper venue where the case could have originally been filed or dismiss the claim. The ecologist brought the action in federal court in State C, but the events giving rise to the claim (the accident) did not occur there, nor does the cab driver reside there.

The ecologist could have brought the action in State B (where the cab driver resides) or State D (where the accident occurred), which means that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) does not apply, even though the cab driver was on vacation in State C and served there. Therefore, the most effective legal argument for the cab driver to avoid litigating in State C is to file a motion to dismiss based on improper venue.

A is incorrect. A motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction would be unsuccessful. The ecologist filed the case in the federal court in State C, which has proper subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity. The ecologist, from State A, is diverse from the cab driver, who is from State B, and the ecologist is seeking $77,000 in damages, which satisfies the amount in controversy requirement.

B is incorrect. A motion to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction would also be unsuccessful. Personal jurisdiction over a defendant is satisfied if the defendant is personally served with process while physically present in the forum. Here, the cab driver was served with process while on vacation in State C, pursuant to State C's laws. This is enough to grant the court personal jurisdiction over the cab driver.

C is incorrect. This answer choice implies that the cab driver should invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court to transfer a case to a more convenient venue in the interests of justice. However, this doctrine applies to transfers between federal district courts that may properly hear the case, not between a federal court and a state court. A motion to transfer venue would have to be to a federal district in State D (where the accident occurred) or other proper federal court, but not to a state court in State D. Therefore, even if it is inconvenient for the cab driver to litigate in State C, this motion would be unsuccessful because the federal court may not transfer to a state court for the convenience of the parties.