Top Law Schools

say company X is headquartered in Atlanta and incorporated in Delaware when a suit arising form a claim in Colorado is filed in state court in Texas where plaintiff is domiciled.

the suit is filed on March 10, 2010.

Co. X moves its headquarters to Texas on March 16, 2010

on March 20, 2010 Co. X made a motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction.

How should the judge rule?

RelativeEase wrote:say company X is headquartered in Atlanta and incorporated in Delaware when a suit arising form a claim in Colorado is filed in state court in Texas where plaintiff is domiciled.

the suit is filed on March 10, 2010.

Co. X moves its headquarters to Texas on March 16, 2010

on March 20, 2010 Co. X made a motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction.

How should the judge rule?

I believe, off the top of my head, it's at the time the lawsuit is commenced.

Edit: At least in Federal court. It may be different in state court, I have no clue.

I believe that's right. Iirc at the beginning of the suit all the parties are basically labeled with their domicile (state of inc and principle place of business for corps) and that will not change throughout the suit. Of course they could move during the time between the action giving rise to the claim an the actual bringing of the claim with the purpose of destroying or making complete diversity. Thats Probably a little more difficult for corporations though. That's also for SMJ not PJ

I think ph14 was correct and that jurisdiction is determined at the time the suit was filed. Does the corp. have continuous and systematic contacts in Texas prior to their move? If so, I think PJ would exist.

However, diversity jurisdiction would not exist because the corporation doesn't have the intention to remain in GA indefinitely. So unless federal question jurisdiction exists, π is SOL.

lawnerd1 wrote:I think ph14 was correct and that jurisdiction is determined at the time the suit was filed. Does the corp. have continuous and systematic contacts in Texas prior to their move? If so, I think PJ would exist.

However, diversity jurisdiction would not exist because the corporation doesn't have the intention to remain in GA indefinitely. So unless federal question jurisdiction exists, π is SOL.

I'm not sure where you are getting they don't intend to remain in GA indefinitely. I think the question as a whole is fudging the line between a subject matter jurisdiction q and a pj q. If he had continuous and systematic contacts with Texas than he may be subject to any suit there. But as far as we know he only has the contacts with tx by moving there after the suit. If op is trying to use a domicile for the corp to establish general pj then you use the domicile at the time the claim is filed.

RelativeEase wrote:say company X is headquartered in Atlanta and incorporated in Delaware when a suit arising form a claim in Colorado is filed in state court in Texas where plaintiff is domiciled.

the suit is filed on March 10, 2010.

Co. X moves its headquarters to Texas on March 16, 2010

on March 20, 2010 Co. X made a motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction.

How should the judge rule?

Dunno where this question came from, but the point of it seems to be to put personal and subject matter jurisdiction in conflict. At the time the suit was filed, there might be no personal jurisdiction in Texas since there's nothing mentioned about minimum contacts, never mind enough contacts for general jurisdiction. Then, at the time that general personal jurisdiction is possible in Texas, suddenly there's no subject matter jurisdiction.

IIRC, the jurisdiction goes by the time the suit was filed. So the case would fail for lack of personal jurisdiction, unless the company had enough business in Texas all along to be subject to general jurisdiction. I haven't reviewed Goodyear or Asahi but if they produce, for example, bikes which are sold throughout the country, and this case arose from a bike in Colorado breaking, there might be personal jurisdiction in Texas.

If personal jurisdiction fails, then the suit can't be refiled in federal court even once they moved to Texas, because now, there's personal jurisdiction but there is no subject matter jurisdiction.

$peppercorn wrote:

lawnerd1 wrote:I think ph14 was correct and that jurisdiction is determined at the time the suit was filed. Does the corp. have continuous and systematic contacts in Texas prior to their move? If so, I think PJ would exist.

However, diversity jurisdiction would not exist because the corporation doesn't have the intention to remain in GA indefinitely. So unless federal question jurisdiction exists, π is SOL.

I'm not sure where you are getting they don't intend to remain in GA indefinitely. I think the question as a whole is fudging the line between a subject matter jurisdiction q and a pj q. If he had continuous and systematic contacts with Texas than he may be subject to any suit there. But as far as we know he only has the contacts with tx by moving there after the suit. If op is trying to use a domicile for the corp to establish general pj then you use the domicile at the time the claim is filed.

It isn't very easy for a corporation to just get up and move their HQ. It takes months of planning (we don't have all of the facts, but this is a common assumption). Domicile can be boiled down to "physical presence + intent to remain indefinitely." If Co. X moved their HQ 6 days after the claim was filed, it is very arguable that they did not have domicile in GA since they did not intend to remain there indefinitely due to their upcoming move (that should be foreseeable).

Which now makes me wonder if that since the corp. has to have domicile, where would it be? I'd want to say GA until they cross TX lines, but, as always, it's arguable.

lawnerd1 wrote:

$peppercorn wrote:

lawnerd1 wrote:I think ph14 was correct and that jurisdiction is determined at the time the suit was filed. Does the corp. have continuous and systematic contacts in Texas prior to their move? If so, I think PJ would exist.

However, diversity jurisdiction would not exist because the corporation doesn't have the intention to remain in GA indefinitely. So unless federal question jurisdiction exists, π is SOL.

I'm not sure where you are getting they don't intend to remain in GA indefinitely. I think the question as a whole is fudging the line between a subject matter jurisdiction q and a pj q. If he had continuous and systematic contacts with Texas than he may be subject to any suit there. But as far as we know he only has the contacts with tx by moving there after the suit. If op is trying to use a domicile for the corp to establish general pj then you use the domicile at the time the claim is filed.

It isn't very easy for a corporation to just get up and move their HQ. It takes months of planning (we don't have all of the facts, but this is a common assumption). Domicile can be boiled down to "physical presence + intent to remain indefinitely." If Co. X moved their HQ 6 days after the claim was filed, it is very arguable that they did not have domicile in GA since they did not intend to remain there indefinitely due to their upcoming move (that should be foreseeable).

Which now makes me wonder if that since the corp. has to have domicile, where would it be? I'd want to say GA until they cross TX lines, but, as always, it's arguable.

For corporations, domicile is where they are incorporated and their PPB. PPB can be measured a few ways, although I think the majority rule is the "nerve center." Since the company is headquartered in GA, they are likely domiciled there (+ DE). It doesn't matter if they are planning to move, since GA domicile attached already. So i'd argue that domicile is not established in Texas until they have the new headquarters up and running.

The fact that they are planning to move doesn't remove their domicile. They still have their old one until a new one is established.

lawnerd1 wrote:

$peppercorn wrote:

lawnerd1 wrote:I think ph14 was correct and that jurisdiction is determined at the time the suit was filed. Does the corp. have continuous and systematic contacts in Texas prior to their move? If so, I think PJ would exist.

However, diversity jurisdiction would not exist because the corporation doesn't have the intention to remain in GA indefinitely. So unless federal question jurisdiction exists, π is SOL.

I'm not sure where you are getting they don't intend to remain in GA indefinitely. I think the question as a whole is fudging the line between a subject matter jurisdiction q and a pj q. If he had continuous and systematic contacts with Texas than he may be subject to any suit there. But as far as we know he only has the contacts with tx by moving there after the suit. If op is trying to use a domicile for the corp to establish general pj then you use the domicile at the time the claim is filed.

It isn't very easy for a corporation to just get up and move their HQ. It takes months of planning (we don't have all of the facts, but this is a common assumption). Domicile can be boiled down to "physical presence + intent to remain indefinitely." If Co. X moved their HQ 6 days after the claim was filed, it is very arguable that they did not have domicile in GA since they did not intend to remain there indefinitely due to their upcoming move (that should be foreseeable).

Which now makes me wonder if that since the corp. has to have domicile, where would it be? I'd want to say GA until they cross TX lines, but, as always, it's arguable.

Corporations are considered to have two domiciles: the state in which they are incorporated and their primary place of business (now commonly the nerve center.) It doesn't have anything to do with the physical presence + intent to remain since a corporation can't necessarily have intentions.

ETA: I dun got scooped

Flips is correct.

The physical presence plus intent to stay applies to determining an individuals domicile. Ppb and incorporation apply to corporations. Nerve center is how ppb is determined. See shady grove v. Allstate.

gdane wrote:Flips is correct.

The physical presence plus intent to stay applies to determining an individuals domicile. Ppb and incorporation apply to corporations. Nerve center is how ppb is determined. See shady grove v. Allstate.

ಠ_ಠ

?

I don't know what this means.

RelativeEase wrote:say company X is headquartered in Atlanta and incorporated in Delaware when a suit arising form a claim in Colorado is filed in state court in Texas where plaintiff is domiciled.

the suit is filed on March 10, 2010.

Co. X moves its headquarters to Texas on March 16, 2010

on March 20, 2010 Co. X made a motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction.

How should the judge rule?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule3.htm

PJ determined at commencement of suit.