WHERE ARE THE FIRST AID KITS LOCATED IN THE LAB AREAS?

Crazy Slides, Inc. (“Crazy Slides”) is an amusement park located in Phoenix, Arizona. Crazy Slides has several high-speed waterslides. Crazy Slides has a website advertising the park, which sells tickets online to individuals all over the world that come to Arizona to enjoy the park. Crazy Slides’ website informs a customer as he or she is purchasing a ticket that the purchase of a ticket is subject to Crazy Slides’ Terms and Agreement. A customer must scroll through such Terms and Agreement section before the individual can purchase a ticket. One of the terms is a provision which states that both the parties agree that any litigation which may arise from the purchase of a ticket must be brought in a court in Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiff is a citizen of Nebraska. Plaintiff purchases a ticket to Crazy Slides through Crazy Slide’s website. Plaintiff reviewed the Terms and Agreement before purchasing his ticket. Plaintiff had never been to Arizona before. Unfortunately, while at the Crazy Slides park in Arizona, Plaintiff slipped and sprained his toe, incurring medical costs of $700. Subquestion # 1: Assume for purposes of this subquestion only that Plaintiff files a lawsuit against Crazy Slides in a state court in Nebraska for negligence based upon Arizona common law. Assume that Crazy Slides has sold over 3,000 tickets to Nebraska residents over the last five years. Crazy Slides files a motion to dismiss the case based upon its Terms and Agreement, which requires any suit to be brought in Phoenix, Arizona. Please fully analyze whether the Nebraska state court should grant or deny Crazy Slides’ motion. Subquestion #2: Assume for purposes of this subquestion only that Plaintiff files a lawsuit in a state court in Phoenix, Arizona for negligence based upon Arizona common law. Crazy Slides immediately files documents to remove the case to the federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiff files a response in the federal district court to challenge this removal based upon a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the federal district court. Please fully analyze whether the federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case. 

Patricia, a New York citizen, was injured while on a guided tour during her vacation in Hawaii when a car lost control and collided with her Segway. Once home in New York, she filed a lawsuit in New York State court against the driver of the car (a citizen of Hawaii) alleging that the driver was negligent in his operation of the vehicle. Patricia hired a local process server to serve the summons and complaint on the driver at his home in Hawaii. If you represented the driver, which of the following motions to dismiss would most likely be successful?

A car driven by a foreign citizen collided with a vehicle driven by a resident of the Southern District of State A. The accident occurred in the Northern District of State A. The State A driver brought a negligence action claiming $100,000 in damages in the Southern District of State A, and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court denied both motions.Was the ruling by the district court correct?

A corporation has been the subject of several news reports charging that the pollution put out by its factory endangers 5,000 residents of a subdivision. The corporation filed an action naming all 5,000 residents as defendants and seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not liable for damaging their health, and the court properly certified the action as a class action. Per court order, detailed notice of the suit is posted on every light pole throughout the subdivision, but the residents are not notified individually.Was notice in this case constitutional?

A town planned to build a new street through a parcel of vacant land on the edge of town. The land records show a deed dated October 5, 1947, to the current property owner, for whom an address is given in the capital city of the state. The town instituted an in rem condemnation action in state court, with notice to all interested parties published in the town newspaper. The property owner, who still resides at the address in the capital city, does not see the notice. The court allows the condemnation to proceed as requested by the town. Is the condemnation valid as to the property owner?

A motorist was involved in a car accident with the vice president of a large corporation while on vacation in another state. Upon return to his home state, the motorist decided to sue the vice president. The vice president has had absolutely no personal contacts with the motorist’s home state, although the company for which she works does extensive business in the state. The motorist read in a newspaper that the vice president was served with a subpoena to testify at a grand jury proceeding in the state regarding some of her company’s activities in that state, so he arranged for process to be served on the vice president when she attended the hearing. Does the state court have jurisdiction over the vice president?

The plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the District of State A, is planning to sue the defendant, a citizen and resident of Germany who was visiting relatives in the District of State A, for personal injuries the plaintiff suffered when the defendant pushed him off a ski lift in State B. State B also has only one federal court district. In which district or districts may the defendant be sued?

Reviewing the financial statement for the past six months.

A State A citizen and a State B citizen were in an automobile accident in State B. The State B citizen filed a negligence action for $500,000 against the State A citizen in a federal district court located in State B. The State A defendant would prefer to litigate the case in a State B state court. The State A defendant thus filed a notice of removal, seeking to transfer the case to a State B state court. Should the federal court grant the motion?