Top Law Schools

Royal wrote:My Civ Pro outline is not finished yet, so I may not be right, but I'll take a crack at it!

Forum selection clauses are generally enforced as long as they're reasonable. See Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute. Since Defendant is located in Alabama, and that's the forced forum in the clause, it's probably reasonable.

I'm not sure, however, what the defendant's next step would be. Rule 12(b)(2) motion, maybe?

betasteve wrote:

jdubb990 wrote:AHA! I remember the Carnival case, in fact I think there may have been two cruise ship cases. They use the forum selection clause because of efficiency because there is the possibility of so many different suits from different patrons of different states. I wonder what that practice (of enforcing forum selection clauses) is grounded in though? (28 USC____, FRCP___?, or common law?)

common Ks law - freedom of contract principle.

betasteve wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:

betasteve wrote:

jdubb990 wrote:AHA! I remember the Carnival case, in fact I think there may have been two cruise ship cases. They use the forum selection clause because of efficiency because there is the possibility of so many different suits from different patrons of different states. I wonder what that practice (of enforcing forum selection clauses) is grounded in though? (28 USC____, FRCP___?, or common law?)

common Ks law - freedom of contract principle.

This. As long as it's reasonable and doesn't violate anything else, common law says they can stipulate to nearly anything. You can stipulate to venue. However, because other posters said you can stipulate to "venue and jurisdiction", I want to note the important difference between personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction.

You can stipulate to personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to haul you in before it) because you're agreeing by contract to appear before that state's courts. You can also waive personal jurisdiction by appearing in that state's court without claiming lack of personal jurisdiction at the first opportunity. There are plenty of ways to get around personal jurisdiction. However, you absolutely cannot waive or stipulate to subject-matter jurisdiction (whether courts have the authority to hear the case at all). If you stipulate that your diversity claim for less than $75,000 can be heard in federal court, it doesn't matter, the court still lacks the authority to hear it.

yeah - good point addressing pjx v. subject matter. It all boils down to the court's power. Of course a party can waive a court's "inability" to have pjx (power) over a person because pjx is, at least in part, a personal right. However, subject matter is the immutable power and limitation of the court on the issues before it - it is not directly for the protection of, or subject to the preferences of, the individual. This part is also why personal jurisdiction can be waived and not be an issue later in a trial, but a successful challenge to subject matter jx can absolutely kill a proceeding no matter what stage it is in, and a court can even do it sua sponte.

dakatz wrote:Lol we listened to an audio recording of Judge Easterbook pointing out the lack of proper subject matter jurisdiction like 2 years into a lawsuit. He then verbally undresses every single lawyer present. Listening to them shake in their boots from this terribly imposing man was one of the highlights of our semester.

vanwinkle wrote:

dakatz wrote:Lol we listened to an audio recording of Judge Easterbook pointing out the lack of proper subject matter jurisdiction like 2 years into a lawsuit. He then verbally undresses every single lawyer present. Listening to them shake in their boots from this terribly imposing man was one of the highlights of our semester.

I want to hear this now. Do you remember the case name?

The Kim Jong illest wrote:Further note on forum selection clauses: there are basically states that totally ignore them and states that respect them completely. There are courts that will act as if forum selection clauses are not there.

betasteve wrote:

The Kim Jong illest wrote:Further note on forum selection clauses: there are basically states that totally ignore them and states that respect them completely. There are courts that will act as if forum selection clauses are not there.

Um, where? Given the supreme court precedent that they are binding unless unreasonable, I am having difficulty believing this.

vanwinkle wrote:

dakatz wrote:Lol we listened to an audio recording of Judge Easterbook pointing out the lack of proper subject matter jurisdiction like 2 years into a lawsuit. He then verbally undresses every single lawyer present. Listening to them shake in their boots from this terribly imposing man was one of the highlights of our semester.

I want to hear this now. Do you remember the case name?

smittytron3k wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:

dakatz wrote:Lol we listened to an audio recording of Judge Easterbook pointing out the lack of proper subject matter jurisdiction like 2 years into a lawsuit. He then verbally undresses every single lawyer present. Listening to them shake in their boots from this terribly imposing man was one of the highlights of our semester.

I want to hear this now. Do you remember the case name?

belleville catering co. v. champaign market place l.l.c., 350 F.3d 691

dakatz you dont happen to be one of the million section 1 people on TLS do you?

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:law school is an intellectually unworthy endeavor. this thread has 21 posts about a rule that basically boils down to "if a, then b."

1l is only hard because of how much is on the line. but hey, this shit is easy.

dakatz wrote:

smittytron3k wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:

dakatz wrote:Lol we listened to an audio recording of Judge Easterbook pointing out the lack of proper subject matter jurisdiction like 2 years into a lawsuit. He then verbally undresses every single lawyer present. Listening to them shake in their boots from this terribly imposing man was one of the highlights of our semester.

I want to hear this now. Do you remember the case name?

belleville catering co. v. champaign market place l.l.c., 350 F.3d 691

dakatz you dont happen to be one of the million section 1 people on TLS do you?

Nope, no Section 1. As for the case, glad someone found the name. Its not a case my class actually read. We just listened to the tape while learning about SM jurisdiction and making the point that a case can be dismissed for lack of SM juris. at any time. The two things I learned from listening to it are 1.) Judge Easterbook is not someone I wanna screw up in front of, and 2.) Make damn sure to file your paperwork correctly before getting the case started!

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:law school is an intellectually unworthy endeavor. this thread has 21 posts about a rule that basically boils down to "if a, then b."

1l is only hard because of how much is on the line. but hey, this shit is easy.

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:the pressure's on, but guess who ain't gonna crack/ ha ha. pardon me, i had to laugh at that.

bet i'll pwn both of your 1l first semesters, my stiffer competition notwithstanding.

god, i've clearly gone delirious from contracts outlining. good night.

booyakasha wrote:

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:the pressure's on, but guess who ain't gonna crack/ ha ha. pardon me, i had to laugh at that.

bet i'll pwn both of your 1l first semesters, my stiffer competition notwithstanding.

god, i've clearly gone delirious from contracts outlining. good night.

unless you're first in your class, good luck pwning steve. you delusional fuck.

booyakasha wrote:

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:law school is an intellectually unworthy endeavor. this thread has 21 posts about a rule that basically boils down to "if a, then b."

1l is only hard because of how much is on the line. but hey, this shit is easy.

HAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:law school is an intellectually unworthy endeavor. this thread has 21 posts about a rule that basically boils down to "if a, then b."

1l is only hard because of how much is on the line. but hey, this shit is easy.

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:the pressure's on, but guess who ain't gonna crack/ ha ha. pardon me, i had to laugh at that.

bet i'll pwn both of your 1l first semesters, my stiffer competition notwithstanding.

THE GRADE GAME

It was the first few weeks of January, and fall grades had yet to arrive. The denizens of USS Bitter Pessimism were staring to sound like 0Ls waiting for their LSAT scores.

"Oh god I'll kill myself if I got a C," Renton wrote. "That first question kicked my ass."

"Expecting the worst," IAFG wrote. "Well at least bf is jobsecure."

APNS played the part of annoying douchebag. "I was honestly expecting the exams to be difficult, or at least moderately challenging. Let me put it this way: if those exams were a bitch, I put that bitch in the hospital."

Joan was resentful but resigned. "My period started the night before exams. TransferNOTsecure "

Desert Fox looked on the bright side. "Well at least I spelled my name right. I think."

"Sooo nervous," Jackie wrote. "Oh god I can't believe I'm asking internet people for sympathy."

BriaTharen promised herself a drinking binge if she was above a 3.5 GPA. About ten guys offered to pick up the tab if that happened. Holly asked if she could get the same deal, but no one was wealthy enough to risk a Golightly bar tab. Beta and Booya told everyone to calm down, that law school isn't that hard, but in reality they were hoping to lord it over anyone who was sub-median. "They will no longer call me Beta," BetaSteve wrote to Booya in a private message. "I will henceforth be Alpha to those losers."

When the grades arrived, panic ensued.

"Fuuuuuuuuuuuck," wrote LtK.

"Hmm, maybe I should pursue that writing career," wrote Existenz.

"Can I haz my paralegal job back? " Holly wrote.

"Well, someone had to set the bottom edge of the curve, fuck you very much," Boo Jersey Shore wrote.

APNS suddenly went silent and defriended everyone on FB....