§Why CasetextPricing

Klayman v. Deluca et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

28 Cited authorities

  1. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown

    564 U.S. 915 (2011)   Cited 5,192 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

  2. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 16,815 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

  3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 10,823 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

  4. Lincoln Prop. v. Roche

    546 U.S. 81 (2005)   Cited 1,878 times
    Holding that because the plaintiffs did not name as a defendant a party who had an interest in the action, the defendant need not have alleged that party's citizenship upon removal

  5. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

    465 U.S. 770 (1984)   Cited 3,023 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because the defendant was "carrying on a part of its general business" in the state, it was fair to subject the defendant to jurisdiction for a claim arising out of that activity

  6. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,569 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )

  7. Omni Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff Co.

    484 U.S. 97 (1987)   Cited 1,880 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process concerns related to personal jurisdiction are alleviated where the defendant has consented to service

  8. St. Paul Indemnity Co. v. Cab Co.

    303 U.S. 283 (1938)   Cited 6,045 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a complaint filed pleads more than the jurisdictional amount required for federal jurisdiction, "the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith" and that "[i]t must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal"

  9. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.

    298 U.S. 178 (1936)   Cited 5,360 times
    Holding that a plaintiff, when challenged, must provide "competent proof" supporting jurisdictional claim

  10. IMO Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert AG

    155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,030 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that minimum contacts do not exist in an intentional tort case unless the defendant " expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum"; the mere fact that the harm caused by the defendant was primarily felt in the forum because the plaintiff resided there is not enough

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 345,449 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 111,223 times   572 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

  13. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 61,690 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  14. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 27,767 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

  15. Section 1964 - Civil remedies

    18 U.S.C. § 1964   Cited 6,084 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Granting civil remedies for RICO violation

  16. Section 1965 - Venue and process

    18 U.S.C. § 1965   Cited 740 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing for special RICO venue