1
Chapter 2
Courts and Jurisdiction
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
2.1 Personal Jurisdiction
No, defendants Live Siri Art, Inc. and Siri Galliano are not subject to lawsuit in New York pursuant to
New York’s long–arm statute. This is because defendant Live Siri Art, Inc, a California corporation, and
defendant Siri Galliano, a California resident, did not have the requisite minimum contacts with the state
of New York to make them subject to a lawsuit brought by plaintiff Richtone Design Group, LLC
(Richtone), a New York LLC, in a New York court pursuant to the New York long-arm statute. Assuming
2.2 Service of Process
Yes, May Facebook, Inc. may use alternative service of process by sending email notices to the
defendants’ websites. Facebook sued the defendants for trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and false
designation of origin by their use of typosquatting schemes whereby the defendants register Internet
domain names that are confusingly similar to facebook.com (e.g., facebock.com) so that potential users of
Facebook’s website who enter a typographical error are diverted to the typesquatter’s website, which is
2.3 Standing to Sue
Michigan law, and not Ohio law, applies in this case. The court noted that because the accident took place
in Michigan, there is a presumption that Michigan law applies absent any other jurisdiction having more
are not persuaded by Bertram’s argument that this issue should control.” The Court of Appeals of Ohio
held that the law of the state of Michigan, where the accident occurred, and not the law of the state of
2.4 Long-Arm Statute
2
Queen, which operated a casino in Illinois, is subject to personal jurisdiction in courts in Missouri under
Missouri’s long–arm statute. The court of appeals stated, “While Myers’s injuries did not arise out of
Casino Queen’s advertising in a strict proximate cause sense, his injuries are nonetheless related to Casino
Queen’s advertising activities because he was injured after responding to the solicitation.” The court of
Eighth Circuit, 2012)
2.5 Standing to Sue
No. The U.S. District Court held that Phoenix of Broward, Inc. (Phoenix), a franchisee of Burger King
did not have standing to sue McDonald’s and dismissed the case. In deciding the case, the court noted that
(Phoenix), a franchisee of Burger King, did not have standing to sue McDonald’s. The court stated, “In
this case, the harm caused by McDonald’s allegedly false advertisements more directly affects the
customers who were denied the opportunity to compete for the high-value prizes criminally co-opted by
Jacobson. While these customers do not have standing to sue under the Lanham Act, they could and did
Georgia, 2006)
2.6 U.S. Supreme Court Decision
This is a plurality decision of the U.S. Supreme Court and does not create precedent for further cases.
This is because although 5 justices upheld the Salinas’s verdict of guilty, 3 did so for one reason and 2 did
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
2.7 Ethics Case
3
resident of Florida, she conducted business in Maryland via several interactive websites. The Zippo court
defendant Ladawn Banks operated the website www.lovenamebrands.com and sold knock-off handbags
and wallets bearing counterfeit trademarks identical to the registered Chanel marks, she has acted
2.8 Ethics Case
No, Hertz Corporation is not a citizen of California and therefore is not subject to plaintiff Melinda
Friend’s—a California citizen—suit in California state court. A corporation is a citizen of the state in
which it is incorporated and in which it has its principal place of business. Hertz Corporation is
headquarters office in New Jersey. Because Hertz was not a citizen of California, and plaintiff Friend was
a resident of California, there was diversity of citizenship and Hertz can legally have Friend’s lawsuit
moved from California state court to the U.S. district court in California. It was probably not unethical for
Hertz to deny citizenship in California even though it has such a large presence in California with its 270