MC Question

[Needalife]

please answer the question.


Cheyenne, a citizen of Florida, wishes to bring a product-liability suit against various defendants. She claims that the shampoo she has been using for six months has caused her to develop a painful case of hives. Her lawyer has identified as possible defendants: (a) Sally Merry Products, Inc., the manufacturer of the hair restoration product; (b) Monroe Drugstores, the drugstore where Cheyenne purchased the product; and (c) Southern Distributors, the wholesaler that distributes the product to retailers like Monroe Drugstores. Cheyenne seeks $100,000 from each of the defendants, for a total of $300,000 in damages.

Cheyenne resides in Tampa, which is in the Northern District of Florida. Sally Merry Products is a Delaware corporation whose principal headquarters and is in Georgia. Sally Merry shampoo is extensively consumed throughout the United States (it is as popular as Pepsi). Monroe Drugstores operates drugstores in the greater Tampa area.  Southern Distributors is a Delaware corporation with executive headquarters in Alabama. It distributes products in all southern states, including all parts of Florida. (Continued on next page…)

Cheyenne’s attorney has told her that he prefers to bring all suits in Miami, which is in the Southern District of Florida and is where juries are much more liberal in their verdicts. He also prefers to litigate in federal court. Even though she has never been to Miami, Cheyenne agreed with her attorney.

Which of the following statements is MOST ACCURATE?

A. A federal court in Miami has both subject matter jurisdiction and venue in Cheyenne’s action.

B. While a federal court in Miami probably has subject matter jurisdiction, venue in Miami is improper because no “events” happened there and not all defendants reside in Florida.

C. While a federal court in Miami probably has subject matter jurisdiction, venue in Miami is improper because no “events” happened there and no defendant resides in the Southern District of Florida.

D. There is no subject matter jurisdiction because two of the defendants are citizens of the same state.

[m1ss_uNdeRst00d]

Is this from a take home exam?

[Needalife]

No. Its a sample question for civ pro. I don't have any take-home exams this sem. =(

[Angry Gorilla]

C

[just dot]

I don't see how there would be SMJ in a Fed Ct either.  Plaintiff is domiciled in Florida and so is Monroe, one of the Defendants.  Doesn't that destroy complete diversity? 

Otherwise, I would agree with C.  It doesn't appear that the "events" happened in the S. District of Florida and none of the Defendants reside there.  It wouldn't fit under 28 USC 1391 (a)(1) or (a)(2) and the fallback (a)(3) doesn't apply because there are other districts where venue would be proper (like where the events happened, N Dist of Fla under (a)(2)).


ETA:  Wait, wait, wait.  I realized that I should have used 28 USC 1391 (c) for the corporations.  Ok, tell me if I'm wrong here:

Sally Merry Products might be found to "reside" in the S. District of Florida because of the whole "stream of commerce" minimum contacts test.  If their products are as popular as Pepsi, they likely obtain a lot of revenue from the S. District of Florida, and would be subject to Personal Jurisdiction there, therefore reside there. 

Monroe Drugstore we already know resides in Florida.

And Southern Distributors serves all of Florida, including the S. District.  Same test as Sally Merry.

If you analyze under 28 USC 1391 and say that each of those corporations "reside" in Florida because they are subject to PJ there, venue would be proper under (b)(1) (assuming it is Fed Question) because they all reside in Florida and at least one of them resides in the S. District of Florida.  So, it would be A.

What do you think?  It bugged me that there was all of the other info there....

[Needalife]

I don't see how there would be SMJ in a Fed Ct either.  Plaintiff is domiciled in Florida and so is Monroe, one of the Defendants.  Doesn't that destroy complete diversity? 

Otherwise, I would agree with C.  It doesn't appear that the "events" happened in the S. District of Florida and none of the Defendants live there.  It wouldn't fit under 28 USC 1391 (a)(1) or (a)(2) and the fallback (a)(3) doesn't apply because there are other districts where venue would be proper (like where the events happened, N Dist of Fla under (a)(2)).

I agree with you! I don’t see how there would be SMJ in fed ct. 

[UnbiasedObserver]

I don't see how there would be SMJ in a Fed Ct either.  Plaintiff is domiciled in Florida and so is Monroe, one of the Defendants.  Doesn't that destroy complete diversity? 

Otherwise, I would agree with C.  It doesn't appear that the "events" happened in the S. District of Florida and none of the Defendants live there.  It wouldn't fit under 28 USC 1391 (a)(1) or (a)(2) and the fallback (a)(3) doesn't apply because there are other districts where venue would be proper (like where the events happened, N Dist of Fla under (a)(2)).

I agree with you! I don’t see how there would be SMJ in fed ct. 

Is this the entire question?

My guess is that there is a federal c/a for certain products liability cases.  Perhaps this is one of them?

[Angry Gorilla]

I don't see how there would be SMJ in a Fed Ct either.  Plaintiff is domiciled in Florida and so is Monroe, one of the Defendants.  Doesn't that destroy complete diversity? 

You don't know where Monroe is domiciled.  We are not told where they are incorporated or their primary place of business.

[just dot]

I don't see how there would be SMJ in a Fed Ct either.  Plaintiff is domiciled in Florida and so is Monroe, one of the Defendants.  Doesn't that destroy complete diversity? 

You don't know where Monroe is domiciled.  We are not told where they are incorporated or their primary place of business.

See my new analysis above and tell me what you think.

I see what you're saying.  Still could be diversity. 

I still say if Monroe has a drugstore in the N. Dist of Florida they're at least going to be subject to PJ in that district in Florida. 

I like this question.  I wish I had more time to practice/study for Civ Pro.

[Needalife]

I don't see how there would be SMJ in a Fed Ct either.  Plaintiff is domiciled in Florida and so is Monroe, one of the Defendants.  Doesn't that destroy complete diversity? 

You don't know where Monroe is domiciled.  We are not told where they are incorporated or their primary place of business.

See my new analysis above and tell me what you think.

I see what you're saying.  Still could be diversity. 

I still say if Monroe has a drugstore in the N. Dist of Florida they're at least going to be subject to PJ in that district in Florida. 

I like this question.  I wish I had more time to practice/study for Civ Pro.

I think the answer is B.

For the venue in diversity cases 1391(a)
1)   any district where the defendant’s resides, if ALL defendant’s reside in the SAME STATE. (the answer choice C gets this same state part wrong…instead it says “no defendant resides in the Southern District of Florida”…we don’t care if they reside in the same district…we just care if all the defendant’s reside in the same state.)
2)   Any district where the substantial part of the event occurred etc.
3)   ….