IN THE EVENT OF AN ACTIVE SHOOTER, WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO USE DISINFECTANT SOLUTION FOR 1 WEEK BEFORE REPLACING IT. 

DISINFECTED ITEMS CAN BE STORED IN THE SAME CONTAINER AS USED/ CONTAMINATED ITEMS. 

Patricia, a New York citizen, was injured while on a guided tour during her vacation in Hawaii when a car lost control and collided with her Segway. Once home in New York, she filed a lawsuit in New York State court against the driver of the car (a citizen of Hawaii) alleging that the driver was negligent in his operation of the vehicle. Patricia hired a local process server to serve the summons and complaint on the driver at his home in Hawaii. If you represented the driver, which of the following motions to dismiss would most likely be successful?

A citizen of State A purchased life insurance by mail from a State B insurance company. The policy was the only one that the company had ever sold in State A. The purchaser mailed premiums from State A to State B for five years, and then died. The insurance company refused to pay the policy benefits. The purchaser’s administrator sued the company in State A state court. The state has a long arm statute that grants a state court in personam jurisdiction over a defendant who “contract[s] to insure any person, property, or risk located within this State at the time of the contracting.” The insurance company argued that its only contact with State A since it began its business was the purchaser’s insurance policy, and that this single contact does not meet the minimum required for the exercise of in personam jurisdiction under International Shoe. How should the court rule on the minimum contacts issue?

A homeowner from State A hired a contractor from State B to build a vacation home for her in State C. The parties signed the contract in State A. The contractor breached the contract, and the homeowner sued the contractor in a court of State A, seeking damages of $100,000. The contractor removed the case to the federal court for State A. The homeowner promptly moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that venue was improper.Which of the following facts is most relevant to the court’s decision on the homeowner’s motion?

The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of State A after they were involved in a car accident in State B. The defendant filed a motion objecting to venue. The plaintiff is a citizen of State A. The defendant owns a home in State C, where he lives most of the year. The defendant also owns a beach house in State A. He spends about a month and a half each year at the beach house, but never more than a week at a time. Is venue proper in the District of State A?

When he turned 21, a young man who lived in State A decided to move to a city in State B. He loaded all his possessions in his truck and trailer and set out for State B. While en route, he was involved in a serious accident in State C with a woman driving an SUV, injuring both parties. Because of his injuries, the man has remained in State C for several months. However, he still intends to relocate to the city in State B as soon as he has recuperated and is able to travel. The woman, a citizen and resident of State D, is preparing to file a negligence action in federal district court against the man for the injuries she suffered in the State C accident. If the woman files the action before the man proceeds to State B, in what federal district or districts is venue proper?

A corporation has been the subject of several news reports charging that the pollution put out by its factory endangers 5,000 residents of a subdivision. The corporation filed an action naming all 5,000 residents as defendants and seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not liable for damaging their health, and the court properly certified the action as a class action. Per court order, detailed notice of the suit is posted on every light pole throughout the subdivision, but the residents are not notified individually.Was notice in this case constitutional?

A used car dealer in State A is profiled in an article in a newspaper with national circulation. The article states that the dealer never sells a car without rolling the odometer back at least 25,000 miles. In fact, the dealer is an honest businessperson who never changes odometers, so he sued the newspaper for libel in State A state court. The newspaper’s entire operation is conducted from its offices in State B, but it sells 5,000 copies in State A on an average day. In its initial pleading, the newspaper argues for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction over the newspaper because of insufficient contacts. What is the likely ruling of the court on this issue?