Review Set 2 PJ, SMJ, and Venue Combined
1. Barnum, a citizen of Maine, sues Ringling Brothers, Inc. for injuries suffered when Kelly, a
Ringling Brothers clown, fails to secure the door on a lion cage while the train is refueling in
Bangor, Maine, and Leo, a trained lion, escapes. Ringling Brothers is incorporated in Wisconsin
with its principal place of business in Manhattan, in the Southern District of New York. The
circus has winter quarters in Florida, has permanent facilities for training performers in the
Northern District of Ohio, and performs for two or three weeks each year in ebery state on the
eastern seaboard.
a. Could the suit be brought in the federal district court for Maine? (Maine has only one
district)
b. Could the suit be brought in the Northern District of New York?
c. Could the suit be brought in any federal district court in Ohio?
d. Could the suit be brought in any federal district court in New Jersey?
2. Barnum sues Ringling Brothers and Kelly, the clown who let the lion escape from the train.
Kelly is domiciled in Florida.
a. May Barnum sue in federal district court in Maine?
a. Ringling Bros.
i. Personal jurisdiction
1. Yes, because there were minimum contacts (lion attack in
Maine.)
a. Purposeful availment because they are running their
business in that state.
ii. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
1. Complete diversity as long as its over $75,000
iii. Venue
1. Residential
a. Doesnt work because all defendants have to be from
the same state.
2. Transactional
a. Yes, because a substantial part of the accident took
place in main.
b. May he sue in a Florida federal district court? (Yes, because you have all three)
a. Kelly
i. Personal jurisdiction
1. Yes, over Kelly because he lives in FL
ii. SMJ
1. Yes, because it doesnt change depending on court.
iii. Venue
1. No transactional venue
2. Residential
a. Because Kelly is domiciled in FL
b. Ringling Bros
i. Personal Jurisdiction
1. Yes, but Im not sure why.
2. Because of systematic or continuous contacts
ii. SMJ
1. Yes, because it doesnt change depending on court.
iii. Venue
1. Residential
a. Because they are subjected to personal jurisdiction
c. May he sue in the Southern District of New York? (No, because of second
defendant, (Kelly))
a. Kelly
iv. Personal jurisdiction
1. General
a. No, because hes not domiciled there.
b. No consent
2. Minimum Contacts
a. Specific
b. Even though he performs a couple times there
throughout the year, the contacts are NOT RELATED.
v. SMJ
1. Yes, because it doesnt change depending on court.
vi. Venue
1. No transactional venue
2. No, Residential
a. Because Kelly is domiciled in FL
b. Ringling Bros
vii. Personal Jurisdiction
1. Yes, under general
a. No, minimum contacts
viii. SMJ
1. Yes, because it doesnt change depending on court.
ix. Venue
1. Residential
a. Because they are subjected to personal jurisdiction
3. Barnum sues Ringling Brothers and Kelly in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the
injuries Barnum suffered in Maine. Barnum serves the summons and complaint on Kelly and on
T. Thumb, General Manager of Ringling Brothers, while the circus train is stopped just west of
Philadelphia to feed the animals. Is this suit proper? (No.)
a. Kelly
x. Personal jurisdiction
1.
xi. SMJ
1.
xii. Venue
1.
c. Ringling Bros.
i. Personal Jurisdiction
1. Not going to work because corporations are not subject to
gotcha jurisdiction
2. General
a. Could have systematic or continuous contracts
i. Argue that its far from the case here. Not at
home in PA.
ii. No transient jurisdiction because it is a
corporation.
3. Only way it will work is if it consents to PA (but wont work
because of Venue)
ii. SMJ
1. Yes, because it doesnt change depending on court.
iii. Venue
1. Residential
a. No
2. Transactional
a. No.
3. Fallback
a. No.
4. Suppose the circus sues Kelly, from Florida, and Rice, a Vermont citizen, for allowing Leo to
escape. The circus alleges that Rice was negligent in failing to lock the cage when the train left
Rutland, Vermont, and that Kelly was negligent in failing to check the lock when the train
stopped to refuel in Bangor. The suit is brought in Maine.
a. Will the Maine federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction?
a. Yes. Total diversity
b. Will the court have personal jurisdiction over the parties?
a. Yes, there were minimum contacts with Vermont
b. No, PJ that could be brought in Maine.
c. Is Maine a proper venue? (Hypothetical got consent)
a. Residential
b. Transactional
i. Yes, a substantial part of the events occurred in Maine.
5. Beatty, an Arizona citizen, sues the Bailey Circus Corporation for an injury suffered when
Elmer, a willing but occasionally clumsy elephant, fell on him while Beatty was watching a
circus performance in Phoenix. When the accident occurred, in 2003, Bailey was
incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Phoenix. Since 2003,
however, the circus has prospered. As of 2006, when suit was brought, it PPB was in
California, but it still performed extensively in Arizona as well. May Beatty bring suit in federal
court in California? Yes, in 2006
-Not in AZ because you must look at PPB in time of filing.
b. Bailey Circus Corporation
iv. Personal jurisdiction
1. Subject to personal jurisdiction in CA because thats were its
PPB is.
v. SMJ
1. Total Diversity?
a. Yes, now in 2006, which is what you look at.
b. No, in 2003, when event occurred, but that doesnt
matter.
vi. Venue
1. Residential
2. Transactional
3. Fallback
6. In 2005, Beatty sues the Bailey Circus and Stenk, Elmers trainer, for the circus accident. Suit
is brought in the New Mexico District Court for Guadaloupe County, the state court of general
jurisdiction in New Mexico. Assume that the relevant New Mexico venue statute authorizes
venue in the county where any defendant resides and that Stenk resides in Guadaloupe County.
a. Is the suit properly brought before the state court?
b. May the defendant remove to federal court?
7. A representative of Ringling Brothers visits Adler, a retired clown who lives in Cedar Rapids,
Iowa, in the Northern District of Iowa. The agent explains that the circus wishes to get Adlers
permission to use a famous poster of Adler in promoting the circus, for a small royalty. Adler
agrees. Ringling Brothers uses the picture in advertising in New York but does not pay Adler.
Adler decides to sue Ringling Brothers for breach of contract and a federal copyright claim.
a. Can you think of a court in which personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction
are satisfied, but venue is not?
b. Assume that the contract was made in New York while Adler was visiting there, rather
than in Iowa. Can you think of a court or courts in which venue and SMJ are proper, but
the court would not have personal jurisdiction over Ringling Brothers?
