Funny Face Case Study 1: Funny Face

985 Words4 Pages
Case Study One: Funny Face The Funny Face case was filed by the defendant Mr. Donald Margolin against plaintiffs Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Now Inc. In this case, the appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. Three important considerations include the following: 1. Personal jurisdiction. This jurisdiction, by definition, is a court’s power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court (Kubasek, Browne, Dhooge, Herron, & Barkacs, 2017). This jurisdiction applies to this case because the lawsuit brought by Mr. Donald Margolin was filed after conducting business over the internet where funds were exchanged for a product. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction over Mr. Margolin and is required to provide a service of process to the defendants, Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Now Inc.…show more content…
Subject matter jurisdiction. This jurisdiction, by definition, is a court’s power to hear certain kinds of cases (Kubasek, Browne, Dhooge, Herron, & Barkacs, 2017). This case would be under State Jurisdiction, because of the type of lawsuit that was filed against the defendants. Also, the company seems to have minimum contacts within the state. 3. Minimum contacts. This process is applicable because the courts had to decide whether the defendants had done business within the state (Kubasek, Browne, Dhooge, Herron, & Barkacs, 2017). Furthermore, in this case, even though the defendants are online, the “sliding-scale” of 2007 would allow personal jurisdiction, and therefore the minimum contact clause would apply to the

More about Funny Face Case Study 1: Funny Face

Open Document