NOTE: (P) is for Plaintiff (one who sues) and (D) is for Defendant (one who is sued and must defend himself/herself). Jurisdiction means authority to hear a case and Home Forum means the venue or place for the trial.
Here is a sample legal brief of the famous Burger King case: Follow the FIRAC Steps below.
FACTS: Facts of the case (Summary): Rudzewicz (D) contracted for a Burger King franchise in Michigan with the Burger King Corp. (P), a Florida corporation. A franchise was granted. The terms of the contract called for substantial supervision of the franchise’s operations by Burger King (P), and also for the laws of Florida to apply in the case. Despite the fact that Rudzewicz (D) was a sophisticated businessman, the business failed, and Burger King brought suit for unpaid rent. The Florida district court granted damages and injunctive relief to Burger King (P), but the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision, holding that Rudzewicz (D) was not subject to Florida jurisdiction. In other words, Burger King won its case in the Florida District Trial Court but then appealed to the federal Circuit Court (Eleventh Circuit Court) where the District Court decision was reversed. Burger King (P) appealed to the Supreme Court of the U.S., arguing for a reversal of award of damages and injunctive relief for breach of contract by Rudzewicz.
ISSUE: May direct and continuous contacts by a franchisee with the franchisor lead to the franchisee being subject to the jurisdiction of the franchisor’s home forum?
RULE OF LAW: Direct and continuous contacts by a franchisee with the franchisor may lead to the franchisee being subject to the jurisdiction of the franchisor’s home town.
HOLDING OR DECISION OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:YES. Justice Brennan (Brennan, J.), writing for the Majority, held that direct and continuous contacts by the franchisee with the franchisor may lead to the franchisee being subject to the jurisdiction of the franchisor’s home forum.
Analysis: In this case, the main test for personal jurisdiction is whether a defendant’s actions were such that he should have been notified of the possibility of becoming subject to the subject’s forum’s jurisdiction. In his case, Rudzewicz (D) contracted with the Florida franchisor and entered into a contract providing for a continuous relationship with that franchisor and constant monitoring by the franchisor. Further, the contract stated that it was to be construed as a Florida contract. Thus, considering Rudzewicz’s (D) contacts with Florida, an adequate basis for jurisdiction existed. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. REVERSED the decision of the Eleventh Circuit and ruled in favor of Burger King.
Dissent: (Stevens, J.). Justice Stevens dissented, arguing that the Burger King Corporation was a typical and large operation connected to the franchisor’s home office only in name. Since the business was purely local, only local jurisdiction should apply.
CONCLUSION: Burger King (P) brought an action against Rudzewicz, a defaulting franchisee, in Burger King’s (P) home forum, that is, in Florida and not in Rudzewicz home forum. The rationale for the Supreme Court’s opinion in deciding for Burger King was the clause making the contract a Florida one. Most contracts involving parties in different states have such clauses. Thus, the Court determined that there was direct and continuous contact by the franchisee, Rudzewicz (D) and the franchisor, Burger King (P). Rudzewicz (D) was therefore subject to the jurisdiction of Burger King’s (P) home forum of Florida.
Solution:
Order with full confidence and you will be amazed by our results
It’s pretty straightforward, but if you get stuck at any step, please feel free to contact us at any time for a chat.
