Caroline is a California wine maker who switched to online ordering, and national shipping of her wines after the C19 lockdowns. She was completely closed to the public during the lockdown and she is abiding by all local California laws.
Andre ordered a case of wine from Caroline. Andre is a Pennsylvania resident and the wine was shipped to Pennsylvania. Andre drank the wine, and he had a bad reaction. He believes that he was made more susceptible to C19 because of the wine. This may be true, but probably not. What is important is that Andre now wants to sue Caroline in Pennsylvania. Caroline’s only contacts with Pennsylvania are though shipments to internet customers like Andre. She uses local California banks, servers, farms, etc. Everything else that she does for her business in located solely in California.
Assume that Pennsylvania has banned the shipment of wines from out of state. Also assume that all liquor stores in Pennsylvania are closed. The Pennsylvania long-arm statute allows for service of process on a civil defendant in any state if the defendant is a business entity and ships any products into the Pennsylvania.
Discuss, using external sources to back up your assertions, how much contact with a state is sufficient for a court to exercise jurisdiction over the person without offending the due process requirements of the US Constitution. Is there any situation where a slight amount of contact with the state still justifies exercising jurisdiction? What about exercising jurisdiction over a business that regularly ships products to customers in a state but does not have a physical presence in the state and is not registered to do business? What constitutional or other legal argument could Caroline make to defend against being served with process and called into court in Pennsylvania? Discuss!
Resource Video: http://thebusinessprofessor.com/state-long-arm-statute/
See also Topic 3 of the text.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|