Friday audio--Section A, Section B. Essay # 6 will post at noon Wednesday, April 10, due in class on Wednesday, April 17. Remember our double session on Friday.
Here is the Notice of Removal in Worldwide. Note the dates, as we discussed in class--the action was filed in 1977 and removed in 1980, after the case went through three levels of review. Because of § 1446(c)(1), this could not happen today.
Finish Modern Approach--Burger King and Walden (not Ford for this section). Then prep Property (including reviewing these Glannon excerpts) and General Jurisdiction Revisited.
• How does a contract create minimum contacts? What is the test and what are the jurisdictional facts in BK?
• What is the "effects test" for PJ? How does Walden distinguish Calder?
• Why would there by jurisdiction over Roper (the Walmart driver) in Morgan?
• What is the difference between general and specific jurisdiction? When is a defendant subject to general jurisdiction according to Daimler? Can it be broader than what Daimler describes? How does the question of specific or general jurisdiction fit into the Shoe framework? What happens if there is no specific jurisdiction?
• How do property-based actions (in rem and quasi in rem) fit in the Shoe framework? (Review the old Glannon pages on property-based jurisdiction, as well as the Preliminaries of Personal Jurisdiction). Is there jurisdiction over the following:
• A (OH) sues X (IA) in California; the court enters judgment for A. X owns property in New York. Can A enforce the California judgment by suing in New York and attaching that New York property?
• A (OH) ® X (IA) ® Judgment for A in CA ® Attach NY prop to enforce?
