Residence for Corporation in Venue Statute (1391(c))

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
cruelestgame
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:00 pm

Residence for Corporation in Venue Statute (1391(c))

Postby cruelestgame » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:41 am

so in 1391(c) it defines a corporation's residence as anywhere it's amenable to personal jurisdiction...i thought this was just place of incorporation and/or place of principal place of business...but is this something different? do minimum contacts come into play here or a state's long-arm statute?

i know in 1332 it's usually just place of incorporation and principal places of business...is that the same for 1391

thanks

cruelestgame
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Residence for Corporation in Venue Statute (1391(c))

Postby cruelestgame » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:30 pm

?
Last edited by cruelestgame on Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

eroosevelt
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Residence for Corporation in Venue Statute (1391(c))

Postby eroosevelt » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:45 pm

My understanding is that 1391(c) defines where a corporation resides for purposes of venue as "any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction". So I would think that the Int'l Shoe standard comes into play. The place of incorporation/principal place of business is for determining residency for the purposes of subject matter jurisdiction. I think they are separate questions. Also, if the state where the suit is being brought has more than one federal judicial district, (assuming there is personal jurisdiction in that state) venue isn't necessarily proper in the entire state. It would only be proper in the judicial district where there would be personal jurisdiction over the corporation (because of minimum contacts). Hope that helps.

User avatar
queenlizzie13
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:30 pm

Re: Residence for Corporation in Venue Statute (1391(c))

Postby queenlizzie13 » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:02 am

eroosevelt wrote:My understanding is that 1391(c) defines where a corporation resides for purposes of venue as "any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction". So I would think that the Int'l Shoe standard comes into play. The place of incorporation/principal place of business is for determining residency for the purposes of subject matter jurisdiction. I think they are separate questions. Also, if the state where the suit is being brought has more than one federal judicial district, (assuming there is personal jurisdiction in that state) venue isn't necessarily proper in the entire state. It would only be proper in the judicial district where there would be personal jurisdiction over the corporation (because of minimum contacts). Hope that helps.


This. Treat the judicial districts within a state for venue purposes as though they were separate states. So for example, if company C has a factory in the Northern District of Georgia, but doesn't target business anywhere else in the state or have another factory in the state, then the only proper venue in Georgia may be the Northern District of Georgia when you do the International Shoe "minimum contacts" analysis.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: admiringatticus, Baidu [Spider] and 8 guests