April 16 Live Class Integrated Hypo (SMJ/PJ/Venue) With Brief Analysis Summary
P1 (NY Corp., PPB Maine) & P2 (NH) v
D (Delaware corp., PPB Vermont) (both states have one district)
E (Delaware corp., PPB Rhode Island) (both states have one district).
P1 and P2 want to sue D and E in federal court on a tort cause of action arising from an
environmental incident at a plant in the Northern District of Ohio owned and operated by D
(allegedly without safety precautions), due to a faulty product produced by E in Rhode Island
that D purchased directly from D. P1 suffered $100,000 in damages; P2 suffered $50,000 in
damages.
Analyze if these two parties can sue these two defendants in federal court and where they
could do so.
SMJ?
Federal Q – no
Diversity: (a) citizenship (1332(a)(1):
 NY/Maine/NH v. Del./VT/RI OK
Amt in controversy?
 P1 $100K v. D; P1 $100K v. E (assuming joint-and-several liability, P1 can seek $100K
from each defendant)
 P2 only $50K against each D BUT Allapatha permits supplement jur. if same
case/controversy
PJ?
Del – general for both
OH – specific for D based on owning and operating plant where incident occurred; need more
info for E but seems likely since E provided product to D directly; stronger if there were facts
showing either E knew D would use the product in OH and even stronger if E had other direct
outreach to OH, incl. web contacts, other sales, advertisements, service etc.
RI – general for E (PPB); specific for E as well b/c they produced the allegedly faulty product
there; possible specific for D based on the fact that D purchased directly from E; stronger case
for D if could show other, similar connections to RI including same list as E for OH
Venue?
Del.- 1391(b)(1): PJ exists for both under general jur and so under 1391(c) b/c Del is single
district Del also is where both reside; therefore both reside in Del and venue proper
OH - 1391(b)(1): IF PJ exists per the specific PJ analysis above, then 1391(c) says both D&E are
deemed to reside in OH; OH is multi-district so use 1391(d) to decide which district(s) each
resides; only NDOH has contacts so that’s the only possibility.
1391(b)(2): NDOH is where injury occurred and alleged faulty product was used, and so venue
should be proper here b/c these are substantial events/omissions.
RI – 1391(b)(1) fails b/c only E resides here not D
1391(b)(2) – mfr of the alleged faulty product should qualify as substantial event/omission