[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Amicus Brief in DVD CCA v. Bunner, et al.

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

Reply to: