I’m confused at why they can’t fill the minimum contacts rule. If the defendants are affiliated with greyhound and greyhound is incorporated in Delaware doesn’t that mean Delaware has general jurisdiction over them?
The key is that the plaintiff sued the directors of the corporation. Those directors did not have minimum contacts with Delaware. Further, it’s not certain the incorporation leads to general jurisdiction. Incorporation is dispositive for subject-matter jurisdiction. But not it is not dispositive for personal jurisdiction.
From what I understand, the reason that can’t be done is because he’s suing them as shareholders. And to bring them to jurisdiction on the fact that they own stock is not fair which violates due process.
@@exantelaw so if the case was different in terms of suing the corporation itself and on subject matter rather than personal then it would have a better chance?
Yes, shareholder derivatives lawsuits are unique. And you always need personal jurisdiction, but you also need subject matter jurisdiction if you want to sue someone in federal court.
Thank you so much for making this video! I’m a 1L. This really helps to demystify my confusion about topic of quasi-in-rem.
The way you explained this case really made it click for me, thanks!
Thank you!
Love it!
You are awesome! Love your videos. You really explain things very well and in a digestible format. Good on you!
Thanks Andrew! Glad you enjoy.
Thank you for this!! Aced my Civ pro cold call cause of this video 😂
Thank you for this video! :)
you are the best thank you
I’m confused at why they can’t fill the minimum contacts rule. If the defendants are affiliated with greyhound and greyhound is incorporated in Delaware doesn’t that mean Delaware has general jurisdiction over them?
The key is that the plaintiff sued the directors of the corporation. Those directors did not have minimum contacts with Delaware. Further, it’s not certain the incorporation leads to general jurisdiction. Incorporation is dispositive for subject-matter jurisdiction. But not it is not dispositive for personal jurisdiction.
From what I understand, the reason that can’t be done is because he’s suing them as shareholders. And to bring them to jurisdiction on the fact that they own stock is not fair which violates due process.
@@exantelaw so if the case was different in terms of suing the corporation itself and on subject matter rather than personal then it would have a better chance?
Yes, shareholder derivatives lawsuits are unique. And you always need personal jurisdiction, but you also need subject matter jurisdiction if you want to sue someone in federal court.
South Dakota, Excellent.
Texas, Great.