Calvin Murphy wrote:mvp99 wrote:Calvin Murphy wrote:mvp99 wrote:Calvin Murphy wrote:My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.
Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?
ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.
I knew this rule but now it got me thinking, does it apply to partnerships?
Good question. I'm guessing that it depends who is named. If the partners are named individually, then no; however, if the partnership is named then yes.
Just a guess, though.
for smj a partnership is a citizen of each state in which the partners (limited or general) are domiciled. But I'm wondering if for venue this changes also to anywhere where there is PJ with respect to the action.
That's what I'm talking about. Obviously the rule that BVest outlined is correct for purposes of determining citizenship for the inquiry of SMJ. As far as PJ goes, I'm guessing that a partnership can be hailed into court anywhere that it has engaged in regular, systematic, continuous business.
You may have PJ in jurisdictions where the partners are as well. I don't really know much about this... I do know that courts generally don't permit for transient PJ (i.e. partner or agent is in Hawaii on vacation and gets served there does not confer PJ over partnership, just as it would not over a corporation).