In A Lawsuit Against Novelty Now, Funny Showt. And Chris, Matt, And Ian

Improved Essays
There are three important considerations the appropriate courts have in this lawsuit against Novelty Now, Funny Face and Chris, Matt, and Ian:
Personal jurisdiction is, the court can exercise judicial power and can sue the defendant. In the case of, Mr. Margolin filed a lawsuit in New York against Novelty Now and Chris, Matt and Ian. The personal jurisdiction can be waived for Chris, Matt and Ian that live in California and has a contract with Novelty Now located in Florida. Being that Chris, Matt and Ian sell their product from the internet website, they wouldn’t meet the criteria for personal jurisdiction nor would Novelty Now. When Long-arm jurisdiction is exercise jurisdiction over a state, the defendants, whether on a statutory basis
…show more content…
Therefore, the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, a person’s citizenship is determined by the person’s domicile, not by the person’s residence and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 for federal law or a combine of $75,000. Now if a plaintiff attempts to avoid federal jurisdiction by failing to allege a question of federal law in the complaint and only pleading state law in a claim filed in state court, where the claim under state law, it is completely trumped by federal law, therefore the federal courts can retain subject matter jurisdiction over the …show more content…
It is also defined as any malicious action that causes harm or damage to another and is punishable by certain penalties, such as imprisonment, fines, or both. Fraud is a wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain by committing a crime, acts within a scope of employment and with the intent to benefit from a corporation. How the case got to where it did was by Chris’ actions directing Novelty Now to use PRY (which wasn’t approved by the FDA) and is a cheaper generic chemical that cause Mr. Margolin face to turn blue. Which was misleading on what the product originally was used to gain extra income in Funny Face. Novelty Now is just as guilty as Chris in this endeavor. When you switch a product in your original ingredients for a cheaper one, Novelty Now knew that they were taking a risk dealing with a new product that they have to have a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) letting them know what kind of chemical they are putting in the product. So, whoever signed the contract at Novelty Now would be the one going down with Chris if it went to the federal courts like thinking it would. Matt and Ian could also get fraud charges against them since they were partners in the

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Title of the Case: Averill Jr. v. Luttrell; 311 S.W.2d 812 (Tenn. App. 1958) Court: This case is on appeal in the Tennessee Appellate Court, from the trial court of Chattanooga, Tennessee, which is the original jurisdiction. Facts: On August 20, 1955, during a baseball game between the Nashville Vols and Chattanooga Lookouts in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Vols pitcher Gerry Lane was pitching to the plaintiff, Lyle Luttrell, when the fourth pitch hit Luttrell on his backside. Luttrell proceeded to throw his bat in the direction of the pitcher’s mound when the defendant, Lookout’s Earl Averill Jr., stepped up behind Luttrell and struck him in the back or side of his head, rendering Luttrell unconscious. Luttrell also sustained a fractured jaw when…

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Appellant brought suit in the Southern District of New York, asserting claims of trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition. The appellee moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellant asserted that New York had personal jurisdiction over the appellee based his main argument that stated because King's website was accessible in New York, King could have foreseen that it would be viewed in New York, and should have restricted its access to users located in Missouri only. The District Court dismissed the appellant’s complaint against King based lack of personal…

    • 407 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    NEPTA Case Study

    • 245 Words
    • 1 Pages

    Does the Queens Supreme Court lack personal jurisdiction over NEPTA? More specifically, Can the Queens Supreme court exercise under New York state law it’s long-arm statute to gain personal jurisdiction over NEPTA, a non-resident, for their alleged cause of injury of Taneka due to their alleged negligence? According to Section 302 of New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law, and Rules (CPLR 302), if NEPTA “transacts any business within the state” the New York court long-arm statute can be applied. Additionally, personal jurisdiction for New York over the case can be applied if NEPTA “contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state” of New York.…

    • 245 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    1. Case Name: Burnham v. Superior Court Case Citation: 495 U.S. 604 (1990) Issue: If a person is in another state on business unrelated to a legal matter before a court, does that state have jurisdiction over that person? Rule of Law: If a person is physically in a state, then that State has jurisdiction over that person regardless of the reason they are in the state. Rationale: Due process is possible for each person within the state that has jurisdiction over the person.…

    • 411 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    IS3110 Lab Answers

    • 739 Words
    • 3 Pages

    What is Identity robbery? Fraud is a type of taking somebody's character in which somebody puts on a show to be you with a specific end goal to have entry to assets, for example, getting your bank data, Visa numbers, and passwords to get to your own data. 9. How is fraud done? Fraud is finished by utilizing a PC, experiencing somebody's waste, skimming gadgets, spyware and programmers utilize a savvy project to have admittance to your money related data.…

    • 739 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    ) ) The Plaintiff, Carl Ameche (hereinafter “Ameche”), complaining of the Defendants, Margie Congdon (hereinafter “Congden”) and Maple Meadows Campground (hereinafter “Maple”) would show unto this Honorable Court as follows: JURISDICTION ALLEGATIONS 1. Ameche is a citizen and…

    • 825 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Petitioners Vs Choctaw

    • 1332 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Dollar General argued that it is insignificant whether a tribal court assures fundamental fairness to litigants, or whether a non member has agreed to tribal jurisdiction. Dollar General, in its oral argument, took the argument further and claimed that no tribal court can use civil jurisdiction on non tribe members because the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to evaluate tribal court decisions. The short claims that American law can not hold an American citizen deprived of property without a neutral meeting and that tribal courts are not unbiased. Dollar General marked the matter as a tort claim, in its petition for certiorari. Dollar General did this to avert attention from the fact that the company had agreed to the application of tribal law under the lease.…

    • 1332 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Motley's Case

    • 470 Words
    • 2 Pages

    I am going to begin this paper by stating that I do, in fact, side with Motley. However, because I want to be an attorney, and I enjoy debate, I feel I must explain how exactly I came to this conclusion, as it was not an easy one. Originally, I was torn between Motley and Anderson. I agreed with both of them in that a sender and receiver is necessary to facilitate communication, thus eliminating Clevenger; however, I struggled with the differentiation they drew in regards to intentionality.…

    • 470 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Preceding the post World War period, undisguised discrimination against Mexican Americans had disseminated amongst the Southwest regions. Often classified as substandard to American society, individuals of Mexican ancestry were underrepresented as constituents in the board of jury. In Jackson County of Edna, Texas, for the last twenty-five years, any individual attached to distinctive indicators of Spanish heritage such as a Spanish surname were denied admittance into serving jury. Consequently, a lack of representation from peers in the court of law was demonstrated in the case of the accused, Pete Hernandez in the murder of Jose Espinosa in 1950. The judicial system’s inbuilt partiality against minority classes is also displayed…

    • 760 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    14th Amendment Definition

    • 1654 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The fourteenth amendment according to dictionary.com is “an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, defining national citizenship and forbidding the states to restrict the basic rights of citizens or other persons”. To my housemate, Tara, she didn’t even know what the fourteenth amendment was, but when asked how she defined equality she said “fairness”. To my mom the fourteenth amendment was having “the same rights regardless of sex or race”. Listing the variety of different meanings of the fourteenth amendment and/or equality takes a great part in cases that have happened recently for example, Fisher v. University of Texas. The plaintiff claimed that her fourteenth amendment right was violated when denied admission into the school…

    • 1654 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Jury Nullification

    • 1033 Words
    • 4 Pages

    There are many controversial issues in the United States criminal justice system. In recent years, the contentious issue of ethnic discrimination has been in the forefront of several trials. There are some individuals who believe that jury nullification should be used by minorities on juries to acquit defendants of color. Jury nullification is defined as a process where a jury acquits a defendant, even though the members of the jury believe the defendant is guilty of the charges. The concept is that the system is biased toward the ethnic majority and nullification can be used to balance the system for minorities.…

    • 1033 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What is the public relations issue (opportunity or problem) that the case is based upon? The main opportunity available in this case is to extend the tourism of Salem beyond the Halloween month of October to make it a yearly attractive destination to increase sales and revenue. The problem at hand is that Salem is just historically known for the city of witchcraft and they want this perception in people to change. What background(secondary) research was conducted in the case (if any)?…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Standing To Sue Case Study

    • 1161 Words
    • 5 Pages

    For instance, the state of Maryland would have personal jurisdiction over all Maryland residents. States also have the authority under the Long Arm Statute to exercise their jurisdiction over nonresident defendants from other states if the defendants have minimum contact with that specific state. Minimum contact refers to the amount of connection the defendant has with the state. Minimum contact was established in Shoe Co. v State of Washington and has been used to determine state jurisdiction in various other cases. The minimum contact requirements are usually met by advertising and/or selling products within the state.…

    • 1161 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Plaintiff in this case has failed to form a prima facie case that either general or specific jurisdiction exists over the Defendant. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) was granted and the Defendant was given leave to amend. In order for a District Court to hear a case it must have jurisdiction.…

    • 1106 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Case A: Adidas America Inc. vs. Sketchers USA Inc. Background On September 14th, 2015, Plaintiff A (Plaintiff Adidas America Inc.) filed a complaint of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and trademark and trade dress dilution, against Defendant S (Sketchers USA Inc.). Plaintiff A put forward such claims due to the assertion of belief that throughout the years, Defendant S had knowingly and continuously produced shoes designs which possessed jarringly similar to those of trademarked signature designs produced by Plaintiff A. Plaintiff A and Defendant S are known to have a long ongoing vendetta that stems from the infamous 1994 Civil Suit and 1995 Settlement Agreement. The 1994 Civil Suit was filed for the infringement of Defendant’s Karl Kani footwear design which was the first to infringe Plaintiff A’s…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays