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?

A homeowner, domiciled in State A, hired a contractor, domiciled in State B, to build an addition to his residence. Dissatisfied with the contractor’s work, the homeowner refused to pay the contractor. The contractor promptly commenced a contract action against the homeowner by filing a complaint in the federal court for State B, seeking damages in excess of $75,000. The contractor’s lawyer went the homeowner’s residence in State A and attempted to hand the summons and complaint to a man who was painting the front porch of the residence. The lawyer told the man that he was serving legal papers. When the man refused to accept the papers, the lawyer touched the papers to the man’s arm and placed them on a nearby bench on the porch. The lawyer assumed that the man was the homeowner. In fact, he was the homeowner’s neighbor, whom the homeowner had hired to paint the porch while he was vacationing. What is the homeowner’s best argument that service was improper?

The plaintiff is a resident of City A, located in the Northern District of State A. The defendant is a resident of City B, located in the Eastern District of State B. The defendant negligently ran a red light in City B, resulting in a collision between his car and the delivery van that the plaintiff was driving. The result: 100 pounds of cork that the plaintiff was delivering wound up striking him in the back of the head, causing severe injuries. The plaintiff sued the defendant in the Northern District of State A. The defendant moves to dismiss based on improper venue. How should the court rule on the defendant’s motion to dismiss?

The plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the District of State A, is planning to sue the defendant, a citizen and resident of Germany who was visiting relatives in the District of State A, for personal injuries the plaintiff suffered when the defendant pushed him off a ski lift in State B. State B also has only one federal court district. In which district or districts may the defendant be sued?

The plaintiff corporation is incorporated in State A and has its principal place of business in State B. The defendant corporation is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State C. It also has branch offices and does substantial business in all 50 states. The cause of action is based on a breach of contract that was to be performed in State D, which has a long arm statute authorizing jurisdiction in such cases. In which of these states may the plaintiff corporation bring its action?

Plaintiff #1 (citizen of California) and Plaintiff #2 (citizen of California) bring suit together against Defendant Train Company (Nevada corporation with offices only in Las Vegas, Nevada) in a federal district court in San Francisco, California. Both Plaintiffs claim that they were injured by undercooked chicken that Defendant Train Company served on a train ride from Las Vegas, Nevada to San Francisco, California. The chicken was served and consumed as lunch while the train was just departing Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiffs assert negligence claims based upon California common law against Defendant Train Company.  Plaintiff #1 claims minor injuries valued at $10,000. Plaintiff #2 claims more substantial injuries and related damages valued at $70,000. Plaintiffs state in their complaint that they anticipate that Defendant Train Company will assert a defense based upon a federal statute regarding train travel, as has been explained in prelitigation discussions with Defendant Train Company’s attorney. Subquestion #1: Please fully analyze whether the federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Subquestion #2: Assuming proper subject matter jurisdiction for this subquestion only, Defendant Train Company files a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) (improper venue). Please fully analyze what action the federal district court in San Francisco, California should take regarding Defendant Train Company’s motion.

Dividing a large sales territory into two smaller territories and assigning managers and salespeople to the territory.

Conducting a department meeting.

Determining salary increases based on annual performance evaluations.

A movie director sued an actor in federal court in the District of State A, alleging breach of a contract to star in a movie. Both parties are domiciled in State B, the contract was made there, and the movie was to be made there. Nonetheless, the director prefers to sue in federal court in State A where he is working. The actor is also currently working in State A on another project and does not object to the federal court in State A hearing the case. May the United States District Court for the District of State A hear the case?