Problem 4'2 SubjectMatter Jurisdiction

1
Problem 4.2 Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

• Krista Contino Krahn
• Transnational Litigation
• February 8, 2006

2
Jurisdictional Concerns

• Personal Injury Suits employees, residents and
  tourists vs. GROWFAST
• State Courts in Florida and Texas
• Federal Courts in Florida and Texas
• Products Liability GROWFAST vs. the Japanese and
  UK suppliers
• State Courts in Florida and Texas
• Federal Courts in Florida and Texas
• Part C The Antitrust Claim
• Part D The Terrorist Claim

3
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

• What is Subject-Matter Jurisdiction?
• Whether the U.S. Constitution allows U.S. courts
  to hear a particular form of dispute.
• Ruhrgas, AG v. Marathon Oil Co.
• Supreme Court ruled subject-matter jurisdiction
  will involve no arduous inquiry and impel the
  federal court to dispose of that issue first.
• But how does U.S. procedural law determine
  international disputes?
• Comity
• 3d Rest. of Foreign Relations Law

4
403(2) - Relevant Factors

• the link of the activity to the territory of the
  regulating state, i.e., the extent to which the
  activity takes place within the territory, or has
  substantial, direct, and foreseeable effect upon
  or in the territory
• the connections, such as nationality, residence,
  or economic activity, between the regulating
  state and the person principally responsible for
  the activity to be regulated, or between that
  state and those whom the regulation is designed
  to protect
• the character of the activity to be regulated,
  the importance of regulation to the regulating
  state, the extent to which other states regulate
  such activities, and the degree to which the
  desirability of such regulation is generally
  accepted
• the existence of justified expectations that
  might be protected or hurt by the regulation
• the importance of the regulation to the
  international political, legal, or economic
  system
• the extent to which the regulation is consistent
  with the traditions of the international system
• the extent to which another state may have an
  interest in regulating the activity and
• the likelihood of conflict with regulation by
  another state.

5
Federal Court -Products Liability Action

• Citizenship does not determine diversity
• Alienage citizenship - 28 U.S.C.A. 1332(a)(2)
• Singh v. Daimler-Benz - complete diversity is not
  required as long as U.S. citizen is in action
• Cresswell v. Sullivan Cromwell
• U.S. Citizens domiciled abroad cannot defeat
  diversity.

6
State Court - Personal Injury

• Most international tort actions are filed in
  state courts
• Excepting admiralty law, state courts have
  concurrent subject-matter jurisdiction unless
  forbidden by Congress.
• Removal from Federal Court
• Lacking Complete Diversity
• Any plaintiffs residing in the same state as
  GROWFAST will destroy complete diversity

7
State Court - GROWFAST

• Contract case
• Joseph Muller Corp. Zurich v. Societe Anonyme de
  Gerance et Darmement
• International comity and purely private actions
• Products Liability
• What is the connection of the case to the forum?

8
Where is Brazoria County?
9
Antitrust Suit - Florida Fed. Ct.

• Issues of comity previous cases
• Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act
• Direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable
• Applies to a person engaged in export commerce
• Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California
• What does antitrust have to do with subject
  matter jurisdiction?
• Court requires clear intent now.
• Effects test from U.S. v. Alcoa no longer valid.

10
Terrorist Actions

• Alien Tort Claims Act
• Only applies to alien plaintiffs
• Torture Victim Protection Act
• Applies to both alien and U.S. citizen plaintiffs
• Universal condemnation of torture
• Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

11
Where is Veracruz?