|
Litigation Assignment #2
|
|
Question:
|
For this assignment, let's take personal jurisdiction into a more modern context.
Assume that Google, Inc. is a corporation with its pricipal place of business in California.
Mary, a proprietor of a small business in Vermont that specializes in the manufacture and sale of ski equipment to Vermony ski resorts, signs a contract with Google that allows Mary's business to advertise on Google's internet search engine.
Mary has never been to California and does not visit California when dealing with Google. Instead, all of her business with Google is done either online or via telephone. Mary, of course, knows that Google has its principle place of business in California.
Two months into the business relationship, Google complains that Mary has violated the agreement between the parties. Google files a lawsuit against Mary in Superior Court for the County of Monterey in Salinas, California.
Mary claims that the California court has no personal jurisdiction over her, while Google claims that the state does have jurisdiction over her because she knowingly did business with a California company. Assume that there is no applicable possibility of quasi in rem jurisdiction.
Please pick a side (either side) and argue for one party or the other, using appropriate legal authority where applicable.
|
|
