Introduction

On May 11^th, 2018 Heather Lommatzsch slammed into the back of a parked fire truck when her Tesla Model S failed to stop while engaged in autopilot mode.  She states the feature “failed to engage as advertised,” as she was going approximately 60 mph.  South Jordan Police issued Mrs. Lommatzsch a Class C Misdemeanor for failure to keep a proper lookout while operating a motor vehicle, the driver stated to police she was looking at her cellphone and the data from the car stated she had not touch any instruments for 90 second prior to two second before impact.  Mrs. Lommatzsch did suffer a broken foot and the car was totaled.  Mrs. Lommatzsch filed a lawsuit in the Third District Court for the State of Utah on September 5^th, 2018:

HEATHER P. LOMMATZSCH, an individual Plaintiff, vs. TESLA, INC., a California Corporation, TESLA MOTORS UT, INC., a Utah Corporation, and SERVICE KING PAINT & BODY, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company DBA SERVICE KING COLLISION REPAIR, Defendants.

The complaint

Mrs. Lommatzsch’s claim is based on Negligence (Tesla), Strict Liability (Tesla), Breach of Warranty (Tesla), and Negligence (Service King).  Mrs. Lommatzsch seeks “damages in excess of $300,000.00” which places it in Tier 3.  Utah State Law states that Tesla, Inc. and Service King have 30 days to respond complaint

The Jurisdiction

The claim states that via U.C.A. § 78A-5-102 the Third District Court for The State of Utah has the jurisdiction to hear the case filed, “The district court has original jurisdiction in all matters civil and criminal, not excepted in the Utah Constitution and not prohibited by law.”

The Venue

The claim states via U.C.A. §78B-3-307 the Third District Court for The State of Utah is the proper venue because, “the cause of action arises,” within its boundaries.

The Question(s)

Knowing that Utah has not been a friendly location for Tesla prior to May 2018 and the plaintiff has filed the case in State Court asking for a jury, please answer the following question:

·       Applying our newly studied elements of jurisdiction and venue, how do you foresee Tesla and Service King responding to the complaint?

I only have the case filing in PDF so I will send it to you all via canvas instead of a hyperlink.

Cloud-based Evidence Management and the Inherent Challenges

Introduction

Technological advancements continue to test the agility of our executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. While civil liberty watchdogs work to keep online exposure in check, how do we get the old rules of collecting evidence to reflect on a virtual-based future? The context of evidence has grown to mean more than just the physical evidence the courts have been accustom to in the past, which has recently led to the adoption of the CLOUD act. As citizens, should this impact our online privacy expectations? 

Cloudy Jurisdiction

The symbiotic nature of law, legislation, and enforcement is clear in the case of Microsoft Corp. v. United States (U.S.,) (later to become US v. Microsoft Corp. on appeal.)As methods of communication evolve, so must our laws on obtaining evidence. In response to a warrant for emails created in the U.S., yet stored on a server in Ireland, Microsoft moved to quash the warrant, claiming that their was no jurisdiction for the data stored overseas. The Southern District of New York disagreed, citing "ambiguous" language in the Stored Communications Act (SCA) (p.3), ruling against Microsoft and finding them in contempt for failure to abide by the warrant.

Not So Fast

Microsoft appealed the District Court’s ruling in the 2^ndCircuit. There it was determined that the SCA “does not authorize courts to issue and enforce against U.S.-based service providers warrants for the seizure of customer e-mail content that is stored exclusively on foreign servers.” (2^ndCircuit)  The appellate court reversed, vacated and remanded the lower court decision.

Solution and Conclusion

It became clear that the very nature of our evolving cyber world would require revision to existing laws. While the Department of Justice (DOJ) petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on the 2^ndCircuits ruling, legislators began addressing the issue by drafting new legislation. (p.7)The result was the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD)Act. Some civil liberties groups, however, are challenging this action, (See EFF& FCW articles) due to privacy concerns. In the time that it took to enacted the new legislation and issue a new warrant the Supreme Court granted certiorari, however the new legislation had rendered the case moot. (SCOTUS opinion)This is a good example of how the executive, legislative and judicial branches function within their respective powers. Problem identified, problem solved, right?  

Lauren's Post

Lauren had formatting issues, so she ended up posting her commentary on a recent case as a comment to my "Welcome to the Class Blog" post. Unfortunately, her hyperlinks do not display in her comment, so I recommend you read the post on the link she provided to Google Docs and then reply to her comment.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Introduction

Is it fair to have two different standards for determining
diversity jurisdiction: one for individuals and another for corporations? Does
this distinction perpetuate corporate power and weaken the people? If
corporations are considered “people” when seeking protections under the First
Amendment, why are they not considered “people” when determining where a
lawsuit is allowed to be filed and disputed?

A Corporation Over Here, A Person Over There

Diversity jurisdiction permits civil cases to be heard in
federal court, as opposed to state court, even if they address state law[1].
If there is not complete diversity, then the case must go through the state judicial
system. There is no diversity if the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of
the same state.

The citizenship of a corporation can be determined by the
state where it has its principal business dealings (“nerve center”) or
the state where it is incorporated[2].
The citizenship of an individual is determined by an individual’s single place
of permanent residence.

In the Citizens United
v. FEC case, it was determined that the First Amendment protects a corporation’s
right to political speech. Additionally, the Supreme Court found that the
requirement of a business to provide health insurance covering specific forms
of contraceptives violated the First Amendment rights of business owners in Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby when the plaintiffs indicated it was against their
religious beliefs.

What’s the big deal?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed, on at least two occasions,
that corporations are, in fact, people. However, diversity jurisdiction clearly
delineates between individuals and corporations when determining which system a
case can be heard. Corporations
may prefer a "fairer" federal court for their cases to “limit their
losses” and cases
may be more likely to be dismissed. Hertz Corp. v.
Friend, the case from which the corporate citizenship test was
conceived, exemplifies a corporation’s preference to be heard in federal,
versus state, court.

It could be argued that the system seems to support what is
most advantageous for corporations rather than individuals.

Conclusion

Corporations and individuals alike are provided the benefit
of free political speech and religious protection. However, if corporations are
defendants in civil cases, it seems their path to a federal court is made
easier by the citizenship test, perhaps placing plaintiffs in a weaker
position.

---

[1] 28
U.S. § 1332

[2]
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010).

Welcome to the Class Blog

This blog is an integral component of our Lawsuits and Litigation MLS course. The purpose of the blog is to (a) promote out of class discussion on topics related to the course and (b) raise litigation questions or legal issues that are of interest to you, so they may be discussed in class.

The blog is public, although one must be a member of the blog to post a comment.  Consequently, the blog is displayed on search results and members of the general public may view posts. If there are potential sensitivities to making public statements that relate to your current employment you should use an opaque user name.

Required posts:

1. Each student shall make one substantive post during a week when the class does not meet that relates to (a) any of the readings, assignments, procedural rules or topics identified on the syllabus for the preceding week or (b) any lawsuit that is currently pending in any federal or state court in the United States.  You will sign up for a posting date on the first day of class, which date will be on a Wednesday of the week where no class is held. The post is due at 9:00 am and should be 300-400 words in length and contain appropriate source citations or hyperlinks regarding the subject of the post. The post may offer a commentary on a particular litigation issue or case or simply raise an issue or question with the week’s readings. The post should be polished, well organized, thoughtful and analytical; not simply a stream of consciousness or opinion.  The blog post author should be prepared to respond in class to questions from me about their post. 
2. Each student shall post a comment on every classmate’s substantive blog post, which comment is due on or before 5:00 pm. on the same day as the blog post. There is no minimum/maximum word count on comments and comments may be on the initial post or a reply to another comment.  The purpose of the comments is to generate an intelligent and civil discourse on the blog postings.  A robust, but civil, back and forth between author and commenter is encouraged. Students may be randomly called upon by me to expand upon or defend their comments in class.

     We are going to have a great semester!