Friday, June 20, 2008

An Eye For Personal Jurisdiction?

In Philips v. Prairie Eye Center, the First Circuit recently held that an eye treatment center did not meet the “minimum contacts” standard by negotiating an employment contract via e-mail with an eye doctor in the forum state.  When addressing “relatedness” in relation to a contract claim, the court looks at whether the defendant's activity in the forum state was instrumental either in the formation of the contract or its breach. Here, the court noted that negotiations by e-mail are inherently different from actually negotiating a contract in the forum state. Thus, the claim underlying the litigation did not directly arise out of, or relate to, the defendant's forum-state activities.--Counseller

June 20, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel and FRCP 19b

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled on Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 19 required the dismissal of an interpleader in the absence of one of the parties, the Republic of the Philippines. Rule 19b provides that when a person that is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed. Rule 19b also gives a number of factors the court should consider. In this suit, the district court dismissed the Republic of the Philippines, and awarded the assets of the interpleader to another party. Here, the Court held that the Philippines would be prejudiced if the case were to proceed in its absence and further, no alternative remedies or forms of relief would be available that would lessen or eliminate the prejudice. The in depth recap of the opinion, brought to you by SCOTUS Blog can be found here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/opinion-recap-republic-of-the-philippines-v-pimentel/#more-7450

More information about the case can be found here: http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Republic_of_the_Philippines_v._Pimentel

--Counseller/eh

June 19, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

“Out of Bounds” — Bush Administration’s Executive Privilege Claims

On Slate.com, David Iglesias posted an article titled “Out of Bounds – The Bush Administration’s Executive Privilege Claims Almost Make Watergate Look Like a Fond Memory.” To read the entire article discussing executive privilege claims, click here.  --Counseller/nc

June 17, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (2)

E.D. Pa. Finds Claim Inadequately Pleaded under Twombly

In George v. American Baptist Churches USA, 2008 WL 226581, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Plaintiff’s claim of discriminatory discipline. The only paragraph in the complaint which could possibly be read to state such a claim is paragraph 16, which states:

Defendant discriminated against [plaintiff] by denying her the same rights as are enjoyed by White employees with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment relationship with defendant and to the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of that relationship, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended.

After citing Twombly, the court found that this paragraph was inadequate to state a claim because it simply stated the legal standard and provided no factual detail to support the claim.  --Counseller/nc

June 17, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

Monday, June 16, 2008

2d Cir: Federal Magistrates Lack Power to Remand

Law.com’s Mark Hamblett discusses the Williams v. Beemiller, Inc.case, in his piece, “2nd Circuit Holds Magistrate Lacks Power to Remand.” In Williams, the Second Circuit challenges a federal magistrate’s power under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 to remand cases to state court. Click here to read Hamblett’s article and here to read the Second Circuit’s decision. –Counseller/jm

June 16, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (2)

"Of Pre-Service Removals, Yet Again"

Over at Drug & Device Law, Beck and Herrmann note the latest development in a topic we've both been covering: removal games and 28 U.S.C. s1441(b)'s joined-and-served provision.  Click here to read today's DDL post;  click here to read our earlier, related posts; and click here to read the opinion inspiring today's post. --RR

June 16, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)