Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Civil Procedure Innuendo

You might be doing too much Civil Procedure when your buddy’s friend whose last name is Hsu (“soo”) changes his IM name and starts to go by “International Hsu.” And you’ve definitely done too much Civil Procedure when you have an email exchange with your buddy filled with Civil Procedure innuendo about International Hsu’s sex life.

--------

Kenny: And most of International Hsu's sexual encounters have been non-mutual and offensive.

Me: But the threshold question is really whether International Hsu had "minimum contact" with the, uhm, forum.

Kenny: Unfortunately not, and that's why most of his cases go to summary judgment before they even get to discovery.

Me: Wow, poor guy. So he doesn't even get to the secondary questions of whether there was "fair play," or whether he "purposefully availed" himself of any benefits of the, uhm, forum. And forget the Calder consideration of where the "effects" were felt, because clearly there were none.

Perhaps next time you or someone else with an interest in the transaction could intervene to help encourage discovery and avoid involuntary dismissal.

Kenny: The problem is that the intervention is never timely -- by the time someone's ready to intervene, the case has already been, ah, dismissed ... He once tried to bring in another party in supplemental jurisdiction, but she wanted nothing to do with the same transaction or occurrence.

Me: Maybe we're over-thinking this. Has he tried an alternate forum altogether?

Kenny: He did, but the case was removed because the parties were diverse and there was enough amount in controversy to meet the statutory minimum. What remains to be seen is whether his long arm statute will cover her jurisdiction.

Me: Just don't forget that however long his arm is, no one would ever let him reach past her due process guarantees, if you know what I'm talking about.

You might mention to him that when he's going to make a motion for relief from judgment, I hear "the stranger" is a good one.

Kenny: Well her due process is safe, since he would promise not to implicate her twin aims, and would thus fail to provide any incentive for her to forum shop.

Me: That's eerie.

Remember -- women are not objects. Because if they were, that would require a totally different in rem analysis. Were that the case, the relevant questions might have more to do with whether or not he has properly "attached" himself than whether he is "due-ing" her process.

Kenny: Ah, but in rem is now subject to minimum contacts as well, so we're back to square one -- does he have minimum contacts with her forum such that she can be haled into, ah, court there against her will?

Me: You know, she could always dismiss him under the ol' forum non conveniens doctrine if the action against her would establish "oppressiveness and vexation" that is out of proportion to his convenience.

In any case, has he "occupied the field" here, or are we just looking at injunctive relief for a prospective harm? Might we be able to sanction her for refusing to comply with discovery requests, or for lacking the candor required by Rule 11?

She sounds like a "bitch" to me.

Kenny: Until we allowed women in the bar, "bitch" was grounds Rule 11 sanctions, I believe ...

Me: Well, I think that settles it then.

--------

I am a loser.

5 comments:

grey goose martini dirty straight up with two olives said...

I've got 99 problems but Rule 12(b)(6) ain't one!

The Gnat's Trumpet said...

Hilarious! If you use this kind of commentary when you are a law professor, your classes will excell. This is my first visit to your blog, but I will be back

Nye! said...

Glad you like it.

Dirty Martini said...

Our student speaker at the hooding ceremony this past Friday regaled the audience (translation: zzzzzzzz) with a list of "ridiculous things law students do that no one else would understand." One was incorporating legal jargon into conversations when entirely inappropriate. The audience, of course, had no idea what the hell he was talking about....and explaining it over dinner was to no avail. I'm going to forward this to my family/friends that were there so they can finally see what he meant. Too funny guys...ya'll are great! Good luck with finals.

Anonymous said...

With the trades and acquisitions made going into the draft, plus the bulk of the team that is carried over from last season, and the trades and draft picks made during the draft, it sure seems like the Pats are going to be the team to beat in the AFC this season, and perhaps in all of the NFL.

Considering the Pats were almost in the Superbowl last season with a pathetic receiving corps and that they've added very talented players into said receiving corps this season, barring some nasty injury(ies), they look to be the team to take it all.I say injury(ies) because I think they could survive an injury or two to some positions, but if they lost Brady they'd probably have a hard time recovering.


I wish I could say that the Redskins did well in the draft and/or in free agency but so many holes still exist that I'm not sure they'll be significantly better than last season. I suppose on face they should be if they can keep their corners healthy. With Landry (argh, hard to type that name as a Redskin!!) back there with a healthy secondary they might be able to cheat up more and put more pressure on opposing QBs. Might.

They still have what should be a lot of talent in the receiving positions, and Campbell should be better, but they don't have the quality on either line (offense or defense) that I wish they'd have, so it could be yet another year of .500 at best, or worse.

Still, the NFC East looks to be the NFC Least again this season. None of the teams there look like they'll be that good, and none really look ready to step up and take the division.

Great super bowl xlll odds, Sports Betting Information, NFL Odds, Football Betting,
sportsbet, sports betting lines, vegas sports betting. Visit us for more info at: http://www.bet911.com