SwampRat88 wrote:Civ Pro Hypo: A wants to sue B. The dispute is between two farmers: A from WI, B from Illinois. They live just across the border from one another. B breeds a certain type of animal which can be trained and contained (but he fails to do so), and every once in a while the animals cross the state line and fuck with A's crops. Assume SMJ is not an issue, and A wants to know if she can establish PJX and venue in either her federal district in WI, or B's in MN. Assume A owns the farm in WI, and B resides at his farm in Illinois.
Would A want to bring quasi-in-rem type I action to sue B in her state federal district?
Well, this would be a potential specific jx case, so we look to purposeful availment. This kind of reminds me of Calder, your actions in one jurisdiction causing a harmful effect in another. If the action arises out of those contacts (ie, the animal), I think you have a good argument for PJ. Then look at the 5 factors of fair play and substantial justice, they don't look very substantial as D won't have to litigate too far from home in this case. Venue is met under the "substantial acts" prong of 1391, since the substantial acts ("fucking" with A's crops occurred in WI).
Edit: Assuming the long arm statute of WI is to the full extent of the Constitution or is enumerated and includes causing tortious harm (or something to that effect) in the state.
Also, you would have PJ over B in Illinois by virtue of his domicile (gives you general jurisdiction over them), or if he is not actually domiciled there for whatever reason (his stay is temporary), then you most likely have general jurisdiction and if not, surely have specific jurisdiction. Venue would be proper there because all Ds reside in one state so the judicial district where D resides would be proper. If not, a strong case can be made that substantial omissions (ie, keeping control of the animals) occurred in IL so venue is proper in that district where he has the farm.