Wednesday audio--Section B (first ~20 minutes cut off), Section A. Essays ## 6 and 7 posted.
Those assigned Essays ## 8, 9, and 10: Would you rather have it posted this Friday (due our final day of class) or next Monday (due the last day of class in my office, even though we do not meet).
If you are interested, here is Mallory, in which the Court held that a state could compel consent to general jurisdiction in its registration statute. And here is Fuld, in which the Court did not decide what, if any, limits the 5th Amendment imposes on Congress' power to grant personal jurisdiction.
Prep Venue, Transfer Venue, and FNC. I hope to finish that in one day. For tomorrow:
The Atlantic Marine excerpt omits FN 6 (on the word "consideration," at the end of Sentence 1 of ¶ 1 of Part III.A). This offers a different statement of the 3-part balancing test on Glannon p.183. The footnote reads, in full, as follows. You can use either version (or both) in your analysis.
Factors relating to the parties’ private interests include “relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, (internal quotation marks omitted). Public-interest factors may include “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; [and] the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court must also give some weight to the plaintiffs’ choice of forum.
We then will start Erie on Friday.
