Forum Selection Clause Fails: Insufficient Evidence
In 2006, Johnny Ray Franklin bought a Gulf Stream motor home from a dealership located in Tennessee, where he lives. Gulf Stream is an Indiana corporation, and its dealer is a Florida corporation doing business in Tennessee. Gulf Stream filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit claiming that the Eastern District of Tennessee was an improper venue. Alternatively, Gulf Stream asked to have the lawsuit transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
By Service of Process: You Must Actually Serve the Defendant
In the “master of the obvious” category of legal opinions, we have Profitt v. Smoky Mountain Woodcarvers Supply, Inc., 2010 WL 1240975 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2010). Here, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that, absent service of process on the defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The Court reaffirmed the principle it stated in Watson v. Garza, 2008 WL 4831300 — there is “no authority in support of [the] contention that . . . ’second-hand’ or ‘passed along’ service of process is authorized under the Rules of Civil Procedure.”
An Interactive Website Can Constitute Purposeful Availment for Purposes of Specific Jurisdiction
A recent case points out that, while the internet may be shrinking the world, in doing so it is broadening concepts related to jurisdiction. Braille, LLC (”Braille”) is a limited liability company formed in Florida that sells batteries for automotive use. Braille has no physical presence in the State of Tennessee in the way of office space or other place of business. The company is physically located in Sarasota, Florida. Braille does not have dealers or authorized distributors in Tennessee that maintain an inventory of Braille products.
Removal: Amount in Controversy in Declaratory Judgment Actions
A defendant seeking removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. So, what does a defendant do when the sole claim is one for a declaratory judgment, and the complaint alleges no dollar amount in controversy? The defendants in a recent case from the Eastern District of Tennessee, Burkhart v. Starr Crest Owners Association, Inc., 2010 WL 1687078 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 26, 2010), probably asked themselves the same question.
Older Entries