Hounds case assignment business | Law homework help

As Agreed

Hello, I have a business law assignment (LPP225) due later in the day tomorrow (2/23), so I would need this completed by 12noon tomorrow. I am willing to pay a good amount of money to get it completed with a grade of B- or above. Length requirement is 4-5 pages double spaced. Please let me know ASAP if you can help me.

LPP 255 (Spring 2016)

Writing Assignment 1

Professor Karen Kukla

Homeless Hounds is a New York not-for-profit charitable corporation that places rescue and shelter dogs in loving homes. The organization grew out of its founder’s desire to save dogs destined for euthanasia in Southern shelters. Operating out of a single location in Oneida County, HH arranges for the transport of dogs from North Carolina and Tennessee to New York. Prior to their arrival, the dogs are given vaccinations, spayed or neutered and tested for heartworm disease. Behavioral tests are occasionally performed, but are rarely documented. Once in New York, the dogs are advertised for adoption via the HH website and its Facebook page. Adoptions cannot be finalized on-line, although applications can be completed and transmitted through the website, which also accepts donations via PayPal.

Kimberly Stevens is a New Hampshire resident with a four year old son who regularly checked the HH website and followed the organization on Facebook. Kimberly was an animal lover who had become intrigued by the HH business model; she had also made a couple of small donations to the charity via its website. One morning, as Kimberly viewed the list of new adoptable dogs on the HH homepage, she saw a beagle named Buddy and immediately fell in love. Kimberly clicked on the “Adoption Application” button and proceeded to fill out the on-line form, which she then transmitted to HH electronically.

Several days later, Kimberly was notified via email that her application had been approved. She was instructed to contact HH and make arrangements to meet Buddy. If all went well, she would be free to take him back to Pennsylvania. Thrilled about the prospect of a new family member, Kimberly and her son made the four hour drive from their home to Oneida County the following Saturday. They met Buddy, who greeted them with a wagging tail and lots of excitement. Kimberly asked one of the rescue’s volunteers about Buddy’s temperament and disposition. She was told Buddy was a great dog and that “he got along well with children.” And the HH volunteer also said she would not hesitate “to leave Buddy alone with her own toddler.” Satisfied that she had picked the perfect dog, Kimberly paid the $300 adoption fee, put a new collar on Buddy and proceeded to secure him and her son in the car for the drive back to New Hampshire.

All was wonderful when Buddy arrived at his new home. Kimberly was happy to learn that Buddy was housebroken. He adjusted well to his new environment, rarely barked and seemed to really enjoy playing with Kimberly’s son. Early one morning, Kimberly decided to leave Buddy and her boy in the family room while she took a quick shower. Kimberly was upstairs getting dressed when she heard horrible screams coming. Kimberly rushed downstairs and found Buddy attacking her child, who was bleeding horribly from his face and hands. The boy was holding the dog’s tail, twisting and pulling it while Buddy howled in pain and kept trying to bite the boy. Kimberly eventually separated them, but not before her son was badly injured. He required extensive medical care, including multiple plastic surgeries.

On behalf of herself and her son, Kimberly brought suit against Homeless Hounds in New Hampshire, alleging fraud, false advertising, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint seeks damages of $250,000. Homeless Hounds has filed an answer denying the allegations and asking for dismissal, claiming the New Hampshire court does not have in personam jurisdiction. How should the New Hampshire court rule on the dismissal request?

This is intended to be a “closed universe” assignment – With the exception of the U.S. Constitution, Southern Prestige (posted on Blackboard) and International Shoe, authority for your response can be found below. I have not reprinted the entire text of these decisions; just brief, relevant summaries. You are, of course, free to use other parts of these decisions (or other cases) and the textbook in your analysis as you deem appropriate. You may collaborate with one classmate; please make sure both your names are on the paper.

            We will discuss the “Questions Presented” or the “Issues” in class on Wednesday, February 17th and Thursday, February 18th. I will also take any other non-substantive questions at that time. I will have no further comments on this assignment before it is due, as addressing individual questions/drafts would be unfair to those who do not approach me.

Due Dates:    Section M008 (M&W) – February 24^th

Section M011 (T&TH) – February 23rd.

Relevant Long-Arm Statute

Personal jurisdiction by acts of nonresidents.

(a) The term “person” in this section includes any natural person, association, partnership or corporation.

(b) The following acts constitute legal presence within the State. Any person who commits any of the acts hereinafter enumerated thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the Delaware courts and is deemed thereby to have appointed and constituted the Secretary of State of this State the person’s agent for the acceptance of legal process in any civil action against such nonresident person arising from the following enumerated acts. The acceptance shall be an acknowledgement of the agreement of such nonresident that any process when so served shall have the same legal force and validity as if served upon such nonresident personally within the State, and that such appointment of the Secretary of State shall be irrevocable and binding upon the personal representative.

(c) As to a cause of action brought by any person arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident, or a personal representative, who in person or through an agent:

(1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State;

(2) Contracts to supply services or things in this State;

(3) Causes tortious injury in the State by an act or omission in this State;

(4) Causes tortious injury in the State or outside of the State by an act or omission outside the State if the person regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct in the State or derives substantial revenue from services, or things used or consumed in the State. * * *

Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set,  937 F.Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996)

Inset Systems claimed that Instruction Set’s website made an infringing use of Inset’s registered trademark.

The Connecticut long arm statute allows for out of state corporations to be sued by residents of Connecticut as long as the out of state corporation has conducted repeated solicitation for business in Connecticut “by mail or otherwise.” The court held that this standard was met by Instruction Set’s Internet presence, which it found to be at least as much of a case of solicitation as advertising through hard copy mailers and catalogs. The court also found there to be sufficient minimum contacts because Instruction Set should have realized that their nationally available phone number and Internet site could reach potential customers in Connecticut.

Holding: Solicitation by advertising through an Internet website is enough to establish minimum contacts anywhere. Note: Other courts have since distanced themselves from this concept.

Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)

In Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com, the court considered state and federal trademark infringement and trademark dilution claims.

The plaintiff was Zippo Manufacturing, famous for their lighters. The defendant, Zippo Dot Com, operated a web portal and news service out of California. Dot Com offered three levels of service, the upper two of which required registration with the website and a payment of monthly fees. Dot Com had approximately 3,000 subscribers in Pennsylvania at the time the suit was commenced.

The Pennsylvania long arm statute allowed the court to exercise personal jurisdiction for claims arising out of contracts to supply services in the state. The court found that Dot Com had contracts with the 3,000 subscribers and with seven Pennsylvania ISPs. Since Dot Com’s website, unlike that in CyberGold, was an active website, garnering money from people in the state where they were being sued, the court held that it could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court also applied the three part International Shoe test, finding that it could also exercise jurisdiction under that standard.

Holding: A passive webpage is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, but an interactive site through which a defendant conducts business with forum residents, such as Zippo Dot Com’s, is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997)

In this case, Bensusan Restaurant Corp. claimed that King was infringing on Bensusan’s registered trademark “The Blue Note”, the name of Bensusan’s successful jazz club in New York City, when he created a website for his Missouri club, also called The Blue Note.

New York law allows a non-resident who does not transact business in New York to be sued if the non-resident has committed a tortious act within the state of New York. Since King’s website was created by a person physically in Missouri, there was no tortious act in New York and the court held that there was no personal jurisdiction over King.

New York law also allows jurisdiction over non-residents that have caused an injury in the state even if the tortious act was committed outside. However, this is limited to people who should have reasonably expected the act to have consequences in the state, and who derive substantial revenue from interstate commerce, something the court held was not shown here.

Holding: an allegedly trademark-infringing website alone is not sufficient for personal jurisdiction where the website was created by someone physically located in another state.

Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008)

Plaintiff Boschetto, a resident of California, purchased a vintage car through eBay from defendant car dealership in Wisconsin. Upon receiving the car, plaintiff discovered many problems with the car which were counter to how the defendant described it. After failing to resolve the issue through eBay, plaintiff brought suit against the defendant in the State of California. The court applied a three-part test for establishing minimum contacts: (1) purposeful direction of activities toward the forum, (2) a claim arising out of or related to defendant’s forum related activities, and (3) reasonableness, fair-play, and substantial justice.

Holding: The court ruled that the lone transaction for the sale of one item did not establish purposeful availment.

Huggins v. Boyd, Georgia Court of Appeals 2010 (304 Ga. App. 563)

In this case involving a permanent protective order prohibiting Jonathan Huggins from stalking Karen Boyd, Huggins appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside the order, arguing that the trial court had no personal jurisdiction over him. Because it was undisputed that Huggins (a South Carolina resident) engaged in the stalking conduct (sending e-mails) only outside Georgia, and because it was further undisputed that Huggins engaged in no other conduct (persistent or otherwise) in Georgia, the protective order was reversed.