IE 447 Chapter 2 Homework
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
New Jersey Institute Of Technology *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
447
Subject
Industrial Engineering
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by geovanibaak
IE 447 Chapter 2 Homework
1)
The court might have determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Huoqing if Gucci had not provided proof that Huoqing had made one actual sale through his website to a person who lived in the court's district. To determine whether Huoqing had intentionally conducted business activities in California, the court used a sliding-scale analysis. According to this analysis, passive websites do not establish enough contacts to establish personal jurisdiction. A fully interactive website, however, might generate enough contacts. In addition to the fact that Huoqing's websites are interactive, Gucci also provided proof that Huoqing advertised and sold the fake goods in the court district and that he made one sale there. Huoqing may not have had enough minimal contacts with the forum for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over him if there had not been proof of one actual sale within the district.
2)
Yes, I think Winstead has a responsibility to be truthful and fair during the legal process, which might necessitate that he provide the defendants with the pertinent information they have requested.
3)
The selection of an arbitrator, the rules for conducting the arbitration, and the procedure for appealing the arbitrator's decision would probably be included in the arbitration's procedures. The arbitration policy would most likely also outline the applicable law, the arbitration's venue, the language to be used, and the costs that the parties would be responsible for. The policy may also set forth guidelines for discovery, evidence presentation, evidence rules, and the parties' rights to present their arguments.
Business Scenarios and Case Problems:
2-1 I believe the Turtons may have legal grounds to hold the county accountable for breaking federal environmental laws. A plaintiff must demonstrate that they have been harmed in some way by the defendant's actions to have legal grounds to file a lawsuit. The Turtons have complained about the damage the landfill has done to their property, which is located directly across the street from the landfill in this instance. accepting dangerous materials, The Turtons may have grounds to sue because of their proximity to the landfill and the potential harm its actions could cause.
2-2 The customer lists and marketing strategies used by ATC in this situation are probably going to be viewed as relevant to RoadTrac's claims of contract breach. The court, however, would probably consider
any potential harm brought on by the disclosure of this information, including any potential damage to ATC's competitive position in the GPS market. Before ordering ATC to produce this information, the court might impose a restriction by issuing a protective order. The disclosure of the information should be specifically tailored to the issues in the case and should not be overly broad or onerous, which is another
restriction the court may think about imposing.
2-3 Yes, the arbitrator's decision needs to be overturned. The arbitrator's decision in this case appears to
be in accordance with the terms of the contract between Matthews and the Titans, which stated that disputes would be resolved through arbitration and that Tennessee law would govern workers' compensation claims. As a result, the award does not contravene the arbitration rules.
2-4 It is not enough to stop the Illinois judgment from being collected against Med-Express in North Carolina simply because the company is incorporated under North Carolina law, has its main office there,
and has no minimal contacts with Illinois. A defendant must have a minimum number of contacts with
the forum state for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. The minimum contacts must be such that requiring the defendant to defend a lawsuit in the state of the forum would not be unfair or unreasonable.
2-5 The arbitrator determined that de la Garza had broken a reasonable safety rule in this case of Horton
Automatics v. The Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America and ordered his reinstatement. Therefore, the arbitrator's decision would probably be upheld by the court.
2-6 Digital forensics may be used to recover the information that was removed from Isaiah's Facebook page. The success of a forensic expert's attempt to recover deleted data from Isaiah's Facebook account may depend on the precise techniques used to delete the data and the amount of time that has passed since the deletion. The "misconduct" of Isaiah in deleting the content from his Facebook page will be viewed as a violation of the court's order for discovery, and the court might punish Isaiah for disobeying the order by imposing sanctions.
2-7 In order to ensure a timely filing in her case, Faden did not exercise sufficient diligence. Faden missed
the deadline the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) had set for her to submit her appeal. Faden attempted to submit her appeal electronically while the MSPB's system was down, but it is ultimately the
individual's responsibility to make sure that the necessary steps are taken to submit the appeal within the specified deadline.
2-8 It is inappropriate to grant the motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. A defendant must have a minimum number of contacts with the forum state for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. Given that this was not the case, it should not have been granted.
2-9 1. It is crucial to remember that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) has been interpreted to allow arbitration agreements that are freely entered into and applies to disputes arising from contracts when it
comes to medical facilities imposing arbitration when there is typically no bargaining over such terms.
2. A person's next of kin who signed an arbitration agreement on their behalf should not be responsible for a person with diminished mental capacity. It would be unfair to hold someone with poor mental capacity accountable for the arbitration clause because they might not be able to comprehend its legal implications.
(Extra)
2-10 Generally, before a court can hear any case, it must possess a valid jurisdiction over an individual against whom suit is going to be files. Limited jurisdiction means the court can hear only some kind of cases, whereas general jurisdiction refers that the court can hear all types of cases.
1.
In this case, R can file a motion against diverse jurisdiction. It is because operating the business in a city that straddles the border of two states requires no dual citizenship. Hence, the federal court lacks jurisdiction.
2.
If B at the end does not accept the verdict given by the trial court and wants to challenge the validity of the trail court’s decision, then B has an option to appeal in an appellant’s authority in due course of time. Even B can also challenge in US Supreme Court over the issue of diversity jurisdiction. Hence, if the trial court does not give decision in favor of B then B has an option to appeal in higher courts.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help