Asahi Metal Industry Co PDF

Preview

Summary

Chapter Main Points (Smith) 1st Semester...

Description

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court -Zurcher files in CA -Indemnification claim filed by Cheng Shin’s against Asahi (essentially suing Asahi) -We have been sued and ordered to pay damages, BUT reason of problem is cuz other so they should have to pay liable party back -Cheng Shin acts as a π by bringing claim against Asahi -Zurcher settles claims and are dismissed -CA’s long arm statute = as long as not unconstitutional to reach out to non-resident ∆s, okay to do so then (general type of long arm statute) -Turns into one step process as opposed to usual (1. Long arm 2. DP) (If DP then 1. Contacts 2. Fairness) -Most we can say here is that Asahi has some contacts to CA by selling to Cheng Shin who sends out to all over US and 20% to CA -Similar to Gray case (valve made in Pennsylvania, sold in ____) -Gray court went to state SC, not US SC -States can ignore federal interpretation of constitution, but FED has final say ****Is ∆ subject to jurisdiction if was aware that selling product to one company will end in a certain area, and then enters that stream of commerce?? -Superior court CA rules since Asahi does business on an international level, they should be able to defend on that level -Interlockatory order = not final order -Can’t immediately appeal during interlockatory order -Use peremptory writ of mandate (writ of mandamus) = TC judge made an erroneous decision that is putting substantial burden on ∆ and needs dealt with immediately -SC CA dismisses write issued by COA CA -SC US (All 9 justices agreed CA court lacked jurisdiction over Asahi, but differ why) -Stream of commerce “PLUS” = evidence Asahi designed its product in anticipation of sales in CA (mere chattel ending up in the forum state isn’t enough for this national level) -4 justices agree no jurisdiction because not minimum contacts -Stream of Commerce (General = 4) -Brennan thinks it’s enough if product sold and knowing it’s going to CA can be sued there SC Justice Opinions: -4 = Stream of Commerce “Plus” -4 = Stream of Commerce -1 = ??? (Scalia, says we don’t have to answer here really) -Overall agreement that unfair or “unreasonable” to “fair play and justice” of traditional matters to subject Asahi to CA court -Justice Scalia doesn’t like balancing tests (after balancing following factors…. Appropriate?  not subjective)  believed it was justices expressing their personal opinions

**Factors*** -Burden on ∆, states’ interest, π’s interest, convenience for 3rd party -Zurcher had interest of settling in CA, but Cheng Shin hasn’t displayed why outweighs burden on Asahi (making it unfair and unreasonable) Procedure: 1. Z

v.

C et al. v. A

2. C et al. v. A...