It is correctly pointed out that Alabama is an entirely inappropriate venue for the case between Mr. O’Leary and Ms. Johnson. Alabama is the wrong choice of courts because there is no subject-matter jurisdiction (as the controversy occurred in Florida) and neither is there personal jurisdiction over Ms. Johnson because she is a resident of New Jersey.
The analysis regarding federal diversity jurisdiction is largely correct as well. Ms. Johnson should have been prevented from filing a claim in the federal courts for want of an appropriate value of the controversy that she presented. However, the analysis regarding the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure uses the wrong law. Firstly, the service was attempted in Florida, and if anything the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure would be the relevant rules regarding delivery of service to Mr. O’Leary. However, as Ms. Johnson sought recourse in the federal courts the appropriate regulations would be the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, more specifically, Rule 4.
As far as the rest of the analysis is concerned, I believe reading into Mr. O’Leary’s injuries is inappropriate. It is for the claimant and his attorneys to properly calculate the damages that they have suffered. Granted the loss of his job, brain injuries, loss of his right arm, and his automobile might be valued over $75000, but as a law clerk for a federal judge, it is safe to assume that he should know his damages and what and where he’d be entitled to sue. In fact, given the fact that he’s a law clerk, it is shocking that he filed his initial complaint in such an incorrect manner.
Julie’s analysis of the conflict of law issues is largely correct regarding the inappropriate attempts to establish jurisdiction in the Alabama Courts and the Federal Circuit Court of Florida.
I am in complete agreement that Ms. Johnson and the person who performed service for her had no reasonable excuse for not knowing Mr. O’Leary’s proper address. Given that there was a police report, that he had filed a lawsuit where he managed to properly perform service, and owned a vacation home in Florida that we must assume had listed his proper address in order to pay the appropriate property taxes – the delivery of service to the tenant was grossly improper and under the circumstances, negligent.
ndeed, the Alabama State court lacked personal jurisdiction over Ms. Johnson because she had no minimal contacts with the state. And it is also true that the claim for $50,000 was not enough to use the federal courts under the theory of diversity jurisdiction. Both parties should have had their law suits dismissed by the courts and it is shocking that the clerk of the federal court allowed Ms. Johnson to file her claim in the first place, and then that this error was followed up by the court placing a default judgment on Mr. O’Leary is unconscionable. The default judgment in the Federal Circuit should be immediately vacated and both parties should be required to re-file their suits in a proper manner, using the appropriate venues.
Both parties should retain competent council and file their cases correctly. It is surprising that their auto-insurance companies are not managing the bulk of this issue.
