Discussion week 1 Discussion Hypothetical Study

BUS311 Business Law

Week #1 Discussion #1

Read the Hypothetical Case Problem #1 at the end of Chapter 1 and respond to these questions:

If Javier sued Energy-Auto Inc., identify who would be the plaintiff and the defendant.

A plaintiff is a person who sues another person or accuses another person of a crime in a court of law. A defendant is an individual, company, or institution being sued or accused of a crime in a court of law. In the hypothetical case of Javier and Energy-Auto, Inc., the plaintiff would be Javier, because he is the one suing and Energy-Auto Inc., would be the defendant, because they are the ones being sued.

In which state or states can the suit be brought?

Javier resides in New York. The car manufacturer, Energy-Auto Inc., has their headquarters in New York and does not have any dealerships or do any advertising in Oklahoma where the crash took place. Therefore, the case should be heard in New York. The case cannot be heard in Oklahoma because Energy-Auto, Inc. does not operate there.

Assume that Javier incurred $100,000 in damages.

Analyze whether the suit can be brought in federal court

Even though Javier incurred $100,000 in damages, this particular case is not eligible to be brought in federal court due to the element of diversity jurisdiction. “Diversity jurisdiction means that the plaintiff (the person suing) and the defendant (the one being sued) are from different states” (Rogers, S., 2012, Chapter 1, p. 17). Since both the defendant and the plaintiff are from the state of New York, the lack of diversity jurisdiction prevents this case from being held in federal court.

Explain the advantages and disadvantages of federal versus state court for this type of suit.

One advantage of federal versus state courts is that state court officials are often elected and make decisions based on self-preservation and federal judges are appointed for life and not influenced by job security. “An out-of-state party might face local prejudice in state courts” (Rogers, S. 2012, Chapter 1, p. 18). Personal jurisdiction is an advantage of federal court because “the plaintiff can choose the court in which he files the case, and then submits voluntarily to the court and gives it the right to decide his or her fate” (Rogers, S., 2012, Chapter 1, p. 18). Another federal court advantage would be that federal rulings would overrule state court and potential for widespread awareness because of safety concerns over the brakes with multiple owners. Some disadvantages would be higher costs and the time it would take for the case to be heard.

References

Rogers, S (2012). Essentials of Business Law (Electronic version) Retrieved from

https://content.ashford.edu/

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Peer Responses:

Joshua Gorman

Hi Joshua. In order for this case to be heard in federal court, “federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction need to be present. Federal question jurisdiction involves claims arising under the federal Constitution, a federal statute, or a federal treaty.” Diversity jurisdiction means that the plaintiff (the person suing) and the defendant (the one being sued) are from different states and the monetary claim of the case is over $100,000” (Rogers, S., 2012, Chapter 1, p. 17). This case only satisfies the $100,000 criteria for diversity jurisdiction and not the different states condition. Both Javier and Energy-Auto, Inc. are from the state of New York. Why do you believe this case can be heard in federal court? Would Javier be able to appeal?

References

Rogers, S (2012). Essentials of Business Law (Electronic version) Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

William Mello

            Good afternoon William. I agree with your assessment of the Javier vs. Energy-Auto, Inc. case and that diversity jurisdiction does not exist.  However, judges are supposed to be impartial and the court system should be free from outside influence and favoritism to either the defendant or plaintiff in determining the outcome of a case, but we know that is not always true. 

The Atlanta Braves moved from Turner Field in Atlanta to SunTrust Park in Cobb County this year. Top government officials in Cobb County that brokered the deal which brought the Braves to Cobb County did it behind their constituents’ backs.  This secret deal had prevented the public from voicing their opposition at a public hearing, and left taxpayers on the hook for over $450 million towards the construction of the new stadium.  As a result of this ethically questionable deal, negotiated by Cobb County Commissioner Tim Lee, he lost his re-election bid.  How much influence do corporations and businesses have in determining the outcome of a case?  How can the courts prevent this from happening?