Case Activities 1
Spotlight on AOL The facts presented in this scenario state that AOL, LLC was a brought a suit filed by 650,000 members for making their personal information public. The members alleged that AOL was in violation of California law. AOL countered by asking for dismissal of the suit based on a “forum-selection” clause that designates the Virginia courts to try member disputes. There are two precedents exposed within this problem first is that The United States Supreme Court has held that a forum selection clause is unenforceable “if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought” and second is California has declared in other cases that the AOL clause contravenes a strong public policy. …show more content…
According to our textbook Business Law Text and Cases, the doctrine of stare decisis is the process of deciding a case with reference to former decisions, or precedents under the doctrine judges are obligated to follow the precedents established within their jurisdiction. This is a sensitive issue where the disclosed information could be used for other reasons by non-authorized personnel which may lead to increase fraud and illegal activity. A forum selection clause is presumptively valid; the party seeking to avoid a forum selection clause bears a “heavy burden” to establish a ground upon which we will conclude the clause is unenforceable (M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co, 1972). In this scenario, if the courts applied the doctrine of stare decisis then they will dismiss the suit. In the actual case on which this problem is based, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) ("Rule 12(b)(3)") (Doe 1v AOL LLC, …show more content…
claiming she had sustained injuries to her head, neck, and shoulders by a metal cylinder that had fallen from the store’s ceiling two years earlier. Both parties had agreed to nonbinding arbitration then ten days before the hearing Peatie requested for more time on discovery and was granted four additional months. On the day of the newly rescheduled hearing Peatie again requested for more time, she was ultimately denied and the arbitrator then ruled in favor for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Peatie then filed a motion for a new trial, that was granted and after five months of pursuing discovery, the court issued a protective order against her request. The court stated that time for discovery had long been over and on the day of trial Peatie requested for the order to be
Spotlight on AOL The facts presented in this scenario state that AOL, LLC was a brought a suit filed by 650,000 members for making their personal information public. The members alleged that AOL was in violation of California law. AOL countered by asking for dismissal of the suit based on a “forum-selection” clause that designates the Virginia courts to try member disputes. There are two precedents exposed within this problem first is that The United States Supreme Court has held that a forum selection clause is unenforceable “if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought” and second is California has declared in other cases that the AOL clause contravenes a strong public policy. …show more content…
According to our textbook Business Law Text and Cases, the doctrine of stare decisis is the process of deciding a case with reference to former decisions, or precedents under the doctrine judges are obligated to follow the precedents established within their jurisdiction. This is a sensitive issue where the disclosed information could be used for other reasons by non-authorized personnel which may lead to increase fraud and illegal activity. A forum selection clause is presumptively valid; the party seeking to avoid a forum selection clause bears a “heavy burden” to establish a ground upon which we will conclude the clause is unenforceable (M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co, 1972). In this scenario, if the courts applied the doctrine of stare decisis then they will dismiss the suit. In the actual case on which this problem is based, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) ("Rule 12(b)(3)") (Doe 1v AOL LLC, …show more content…
claiming she had sustained injuries to her head, neck, and shoulders by a metal cylinder that had fallen from the store’s ceiling two years earlier. Both parties had agreed to nonbinding arbitration then ten days before the hearing Peatie requested for more time on discovery and was granted four additional months. On the day of the newly rescheduled hearing Peatie again requested for more time, she was ultimately denied and the arbitrator then ruled in favor for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Peatie then filed a motion for a new trial, that was granted and after five months of pursuing discovery, the court issued a protective order against her request. The court stated that time for discovery had long been over and on the day of trial Peatie requested for the order to be