Friday audio--Section B, Section A. Essays ## 6 and 7 will post on Wednesday at 12:30 (please note the correction). We will cut 10 minutes off class on Wednesday and Friday of next week; we will make it up the following week.
Section B: Remember that we are flipping class with Crim; we will meet at 9 on Wednesday in RDB 2008. Remember that next Friday's class will be in the Courtroom.
Prep the rest of Personal Jurisdiction--Property and Review. We will begin with whether the contacts in Ford "relate to" the claim. What make "relate to" entail beyond what Ford did? Consider: Defendants travel to TX to enter into a contract to provide transportation services for a pipeline project in Colombia; the helicopter crashes in Colombia; plaintiffs sue in TX.
How is Ford not the old "doing business" general jurisdiction? Note Justice Breyer's concerns in Nicastro for Appalachian potters, Brazilian coops, and Egyptian shirtmakers; how should the Shoe algorithm deal with those concerns?
Looking at FRCP 4(k), how might PJ be different in federal court? Consider this statute, which authorizes suit against foreign entities for making certain payments in support of international terrorism. In conducting the Shoe analysis in federal court, what constitutional question must the court consider?
