Jana Dart, a citizen of California, was attending the premier showing of the movie "Titanic" at the Yoda Four-PO Theatres in Salt Lake City, Utah. She bought a cola and popcorn, and the popcorn contained some small pieces of broken glass. Engrossed in

Question

the movie, she ate enough glass to cause severe and numerous internal injuries. She suffered a great deal of pain and anguish, plus numerous medical expenses, and she could not work for four months. She wishes to sue Yoda Four-PO Theatres for $200,000 in damages. The firm's headquarters are in Texas, although the company does business in Utah and Maine. In which court or courts can Dart bring her suit—in a Utah State court, a Texas State court, a California State court, or a federal court?

Answer 1

Questions of jurisdiction are about political boundaries, persons and property, and the type and amount of a dispute. Subject matter jurisdiction is about the geographical area (usually a political boundary, such as a state) within which a court has the right and power to decide cases. Appropriate
service of process must be made on the defendant by any court with theoretical subject matter jurisdiction in order to get jurisdiction. This type of jurisdiction is usually in personam jurisdiction, power over the person (Yoda Four-PO Theatres).
A plaintiff submits to jurisdiction by filing a lawsuit. For the court to proceed against a defendant, the defendant must be served within the state or be a resident of the state. Most, if not all, states also have long-arm statutes, which allow an injured plaintiff to sue a nonresident motorist for accidents occurring within a state and businesses that conduct business within the state after they have physically left the state. The lawsuits using long-arm statutes must claim an injury related to the statutory purpose.
Federal court jurisdiction includes matters of federal constitutional and statutory law, treaties,
lawsuits in which the United States is a party, and lawsuits between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, called diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction leads to the interesting U.S. allowance of concurrent jurisdiction where two or more court systems have potential power over the same case.
Yoda Four-PO Theatres did business in Utah, and the accident occurred there. Thus, the state of Utah would have had jurisdiction over the defendant using the probable state long-arm statute. The firm was headquartered in Texas and had its principal place of business there, thus Dart could have chosen to sue in a Texas court since a Texas company and could be found and served with a complaint and summons in Texas. Because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the suit involves a plaintiff and defendant from different states, the suit could be brought in federal court on
the basis of diversity of citizenship. Even if Dart has the right to use the court in the state of her residence, there appears to be no basis upon which she could get in personam jurisdiction over Yoda Four-PO in California.
Dart can bring suit in the state courts of Utah and Texas, but not in California. She could also bring suit in either Utah or Texas federal district court, because that is the location of the incident.