Analysis Of Federal Courts Procedures For Civil Cases

1.

• Court may accept the objection made by Denial regarding the improper venue as per the Rule 12(b)(3)  because the suit can be filed at the place where contract has been initiated or at the place where the party in default resides (Barriage, Harger, & de la Peña McCook, 2016).
• Court only may allow an alternative motion to the place at where the defendant is practicing his business or he resides.
• Court may also dismiss the suit on the basis of improper jurisdiction of lawsuit. Patricia cannot file the case at Arizona due to the reason that Arizona law would be more favorable to her (Barriage, Harger, & de la Peña McCook, 2016).

2.

• As per the rule 12(b) (3), it is suggested that the Court if satisfied may accept the fact and dismiss the case by considering the lack of subject matter. It is the best defense mechanism use by the parties at any point of litigation.
• Court shall consider that whether the trial Court has the power to entertain the suit or not. On the basis of that point Court may dismiss the lawsuit.
• It is a different concept from jurisdiction; it is the location of court where the trial of case initiated. In case of improper venue, the Court may transfer the case to the proper venue instead of dismiss the case.
• Court may take the action to transfer the case at Court of Wisconsin as the case can be filed at the place of business of defendant (Hamm, 2017).

3. i) The civil Rights Act states that any discrimination on the basis of color, race, sex, religion and national origin will not be accepted in any field. The given case is related to the racial segregation. Pablo is good looking guy and it becomes a hurdle for him in his employment. Irrelevant of the fact that he is the most qualified candidate for such job. The reason and discrimination defined by Pablo is not justified and mentioned in the provision of Civil rights (Hamm, 2017).

ii) Court may at its discretion be able to order the defendant to show cause for the rejection of Pablo from appointment. However the Rule has no provisions for such matter but the discrimination has been occurred against the Pablo. Thus Court can call for the proper reason showing non-discrimination with Pablo at any place of appointment (Barriage, Harger, & de la Peña McCook, 2016).

4. i) As per the FRCP 12(b) (3) it is found that Janice Attari can claim against Tasco and the claim will prevail because Tasco is the actual defendant in the case. If during the trial or judicial proceedings new facts get revealed then the plaintiff can file the suit against the revealed defendant. Janice can file against Tasco at the place where its business place is situated or at the place where the event has occurred ((Henslee, 2015).

ii) If Tasco was incorporated in Texas then Janice could file the case in the Court having jurisdiction of Texas. In that case the law of Texas would be more favorable for Janice as that is her native place ((Atlas, 2015).

5. As per the rule 12(b) (3), it is suggested that court may entertain the trial at Texas because NVS is incorporated there but the other defendant does not fall under the jurisdiction of Court of Texas. Hence Court on its discretion can decide the proper jurisdiction of the matter and transfer the case in appropriate jurisdiction (Cho, & Smith, 2015).

References

Atlas, A. G. (2015). Who Says You Can’t Go Home: Retroactivity in a Post-Daimler World. Cornell L. 1(2) 101, 1597.

Barriage, S., Harger, E., & de la Peña McCook, K. (2016). Union Library Worker Blog: 2016 Review. Progressive Librarian,1, (45), 135.

Cho, S., & Smith, J. (2015). Chen v. Major League Baseball: Hybrid Collective Action under Rule 23 and the Fair Labor Standards Act 216 (b). Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 25(2), 154-175.

Coleman, B. D. (2016). One Percent Procedure. Wash. L. 1(2), 1005.

Hamm, R. (2017). Off the Streets: The Origins of the Doctrine of Commercial Speech. American Journal of Legal History, 57(4), 495-520.

Henslee, E. (2015). Down the Rabbit Role: E-Books and User Privacy in the 21st Century. Creighton L. Rev., 49, 23.

Morley, M. T. (2017). Nationwide Injunctions, Rule 23 (b)(2), and the Remedial Powers of the Lower Courts. BUL Rev., 97, 615.

Silberman, L. J., Stein, A. R., & Wolff, T. B. (2017). Civil Procedure: Theory and Practice. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.