On Oct 11, Branden Robinson wrote: > Allonn Levy of the HS Law Group <http://www.hsapc.com>, represents Matt > Pavlovich in the DVD CCA v. Bunner, et al. suit. [...] > At root, we want to answer one question: > > Why shouldn't the State of California be able to assert its jurisdiction > over anyone in the world in civil matters? (You can't extradite someone > on a non-criminal complaint, AFAIK.) Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are relatively good reasons why plaintiffs should be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions. Imagine you buy a car, it is defective, and you want to sue the manufacturer. Now imagine you have to sue them in a court in Detroit, Flint, Nashville, Osaka, Seoul, New Delhi, or whereever the car was manufactured... If the judges in Detroit are in the auto industry's pocket, I doubt you're ever going to see your money. (See also: Everyone in Bhopal v. Union Carbide.) Hence the reason why plaintiffs can sue in their home jurisdictions. I think the place to focus the argument on is the fact mpav is an *individual* (as opposed to a corporation that does business in California), rather than the overall jurisdictional argument which at best is specious. Chris (IANAL) -- Chris Lawrence <cnlawren@olemiss.edu> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ Instructor and Doctoral Student, Political Science, Univ. of Mississippi 208 Deupree Hall - 662-915-5765
Attachment:
pgpomExPLcEsr.pgp
Description: PGP signature