defense could SAC assert to the exercise of personal

Please reply to each post with 150 words Gregory 150 words please. Joette 150 words please. Gergory What defense could SAC assert to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the San Joaquin County Superior Court? The Shnghai Aircraft Company (SAC’s) defense against the exercise of personal jurisdiction of the San Joaquin County Superior Court would be the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) (Pg. 614 of the text). What does this defense provide? This defense provides that foreign states are generally immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, except for seven exceptions: the foreign state waives immunity, the state’s action constitutes commercial activity carried on by the state, rights in property are taken in violation of international law, rights in property are acquired through inheritance or gifts in the United States, the suit involves maritime liens based on the foreign state’s commercial activity, or the suit involves certain types of counterclaims, and the foreign state instituted the lawsuit against a citizen of the United States. Another possibility would be a state-sponsored act of terrorism (Pg. 614 of the text). Would this defense be successful in this case? Why or why not? The success of this defense depends on how the United States Supreme Court interprets the transaction between the Shnghai Aircraft Company, and California Agricultural Aircraft Services, Inc., as well as the subsequent use of property by Central Valley Crop Dusting, Inc. As mentioned before, part of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act states: “The Act defines such activity as commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States . . . and provides that a commercial activity may be either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act, the commercial character of [which] shall be determined by reference to its nature, rather than its purpose. . . .” (Pg. 615 of the text). With this in mind, the Supreme Court’s involvement would depend on whether they interpreted the transaction of SAC selling the planes to CAAS as being “substantial contact” with the United States. If the Supreme Court decides that substantial contact has been established, and that the “nature” of the transaction supports this, then SAC’s use of the FSIA for defense would probably fail. Of course, the reverse could also be true. There is also the Act of State Doctrine to consider after that. The Act of State Doctrine essentially states that to maintain good terms between nations, a U.S. court will refuse to inquire into the validity of any act of a foreign government, although that was recently changed. Overall, the success of SAC’s defense hinges entirely upon interpretation of the situation, but, if pressed for an answer, I would say that SAC’s transaction with CAAS constitutes commercial activity, and thus SAC would be exempt from the protection of the FSIA. Joette, What defense could SAC assert to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the San Joaquin County Superior Court? What does this defense provide? Would this defense be successful in this case? Why or why not? There are several actors involved or else not involved with SAC. SAC is a state-owned enterprise organized in China, therefore, pursuant to the laws of Peoples Republic of China. SAC manufactures the crop-dusting aircrafts. CAAS is California corporation with headquarters in Sacramento which leases aircraft to crop-dusting businesses in California. CAAS purchased ten aircrafts from SAC. CVCD a California corporation leased one aircraft from CAAS. CVCDs aircraft and pilot was involved in a serious accident due to engine failure. Through investigation and discovery Federal and State agencies determined that engine failure was the cause of the accident. SAC was only involved with CAAS in the purchase of the ten aircrafts which the implied sale of transaction was made in China due to the tremendous savings CAAS made in the transaction. SAC does not have any business transactions in the United States. CVCD and the pilot brought litigation in the San Joaquin County Superior Court in California against CAAS claiming breach of contract lease agreement, strict product liability, and negligence. Does the San Joaquin County Superior Court in California have jurisdiction over SAC? On the other hand, CAAS notified SAC regarding the litigation thus requesting indemnification but received no response. Can CAAS assert right to indemnification from SAC? CAAS is seeking relief by contemplating on joining SAC as a co-defendant to CVCD lawsuit. What does personal jurisdiction have to do with SAC and the San Joaquin County Superior Court? The book states on page 84 Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and decide a casecompetent courtIn personam jurisdiction jurisdiction over the person refers to courts power over certain individual or corporation. No party can be made to appear before a court unless that court has personal jurisdiction. If there is no personal jurisdiction the case will be dismissed upon defendants motionIn the U.S., the requirement of obtaining service of process on a defendant in a case, and of having jurisdiction over them is required by the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments of U.S. Constitution. The concept is that SAC cannot be hauled into court from China unless SAC has some type of connection to the state of California. In a case precedent, Asahi Metal Industry Co., v. Superior Court of CA, Solano County, U.S. 102 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court, in which this case determined that a requirement should be made for in personam jurisdiction with minimum contacts. SAC would be able to use the defense that San Joaquin Superior Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because of the lack of minimum contacts. SAC lacked minimum contacts because SAC is not presently doing business in California as to location, presence, business transaction, office, employees, solicitation, shipping, and contract. Therefore, SAC can assert that they cannot be made to appear before the court for lack of personal jurisdiction. In the litigation brought upon CVCD and the pilot against CAAS, SAC was not named as part of the litigation. Therefore, SAC does not have to request a motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction by San Joaquin Superior Court. On the other hand, CAAS notified SAC regarding the litigation thus requesting indemnification but received no response. Can CAAS assert right to indemnification from SAC? On page 85 case Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) The U.S. Supreme Court stated that a NY automobile distributor was not required to appear in Oklahoma to defend a products liability suit based on the sale of a vehicle that took place in NY and was later involved in a serious accident in Oklahoma. This case precedent further defends the lack of personal jurisdiction San Joaquin Superior Court over SAC because minimum contacts was not established. Furthermore, CAAS cannot assert right to indemnification from SAC accordingly to reference made by Justice OConnor in the case Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of CA, Solano County stating The dispute between Cheng Shin and Asahi is primarily about indemnification rather than safety. Moreover, it is not clear at this point that California law should govern the question whether a Japanese corporation should indemnify a Taiwanese corporation on the basis of a sale made in Taiwan and a shipment of goods from Japan to Taiwan. Therefore, SAC in defense can assert this case precedent against CAAS to lacking the right of indemnification because it is questionable whether California law governs this indemnification with business transaction made in China. Final note CAAS is seeking relief by contemplating on joining SAC as a co-defendant to CVCD lawsuit. CAAS cannot seek relief by joining SAC as a co-defendant because San Joaquin Superior Court of California does have personal jurisdiction over CAAS not SAC. Otherwise, SAC is not named nor part of the litigation anyway. SACs defense of lack or no personal jurisdiction on behalf of San Joaquin Superior Court over them would prevail.