Bus_415_Week_#2

Bobby Arroyo BUS 415 Week 2 Individual Assignment – State of Confusion Paper University of Phoenix October 31, 2011 State of Confusion The answer to the question about what court will have jurisdiction power over Tanya's suit could be formulated as stated: It is the federal law who takes superiority and takes charge of any conflicts that happen within the state and locally (Cheeseman, 2010). With this, it is therefore the federal law that will take care of Tanya’s suit. However, a statement from the same case also affirms that if the claimant is bringing an existing case to the jurisdiction in state court, the defendant may opt to bring the case to the state court to decide, or may pull it out from the federal court. If a certain case is no longer appropriate to be sent to the federal court, it is then only proper to bring it to the right state court. It would be irrational and pointless for Tanya to file a suit inside the state that has passed this statute, if it is in fact the state of Confusion that put up the statute that requires the use of B-type truck hitch by all towing trailers and trucks that use the state roads. The state itself enacted that law, so there is really no way for just one person make the state take back that law. The only way for it to be gone is if they are already forced by the government to do so. Unless that happens, then the statue will still remain implemented. Therefore, in this case, both the federal law and state court have the power of jurisdiction. However, it is safer for Tanya to file it in the federal law, because the state implemented the statute for their advantage in the first place. To determine if the state of confusion is really constitutional, we will be guided by a similar case, which is the Rowe, Attorney General of Maine v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (Supreme Court of the United States, 2007). Based on this case the Confusion statute is not constitutional. In the mentioned case, it was seen as the overlapping goals of the Congress to keep the transportation rates stable, and improve the routes and services, which is highly dependent on the competitiveness of the market force. At the same time, their program also aims to come up with a transportation system are efficient, innovative, cheap, but high quality. It was the federal law that looked into this Maine Law issue. The state of Confusion is very similar with this case, obliging the passers of the state to have the B-type truck hitch, and it can be said that almost the same thing can be done to it. Going back to the case of the Maine Law, it was one of the cases that federal law has been prohibiting, converting their governmental authority into competitive market forces, as implemented on the services from the motor carriers. In the same way, the State of Confusion’s mandate of a B-type hitch for any vehicle that passes through the state also limits their competitive market, knowing that it is the only state that produces and sells the B-type hitch. However, there was no step made by the government to control the production of B-type hitch in the state, and those being used in the state’s roads. According to the case, if Maine were allowed to let the carriers provide a special checking system would permit other states to do the same thing. For the federal law to approve this proposal, it is still necessary for the state requirements to go through a complicated series of service-determining laws, rules, and regulations. This is not a very easy thing to comply since the mix of laws and regulations is usually changeable with the Congress’ own governmental acts to leave certain federally uncontrolled decisions to the competitive market. However, the case encourages the federal law to prevent such efforts of Maine, simply to have proper regulation of the carrier services in the state. This same law that will be ideally imposed on Maine is also highly applicable on the state of confusion case, which will only create an imbalance in the transportation competitive market. What are some of the provisions in the US Constitution that are relevant in assessing the statute’s validity' The Supremacy Clause is the most relevant provision that can be applied to this case, which stated that federal laws and Constitution, and regulations serve as the ‘federal’ law of a certain society. Any laws or regulations, like state or local laws are not part of the federal law are immediately considered as non-constitutional. This is already an established policy: The federal law is always higher than the state and local laws. Does Tanya have a great opportunity of winning the case' Fortunately, Tanya is most likely to win the case, if we base it on the previously described similar case. Considering the mere fact that the there was no significant steps made by the government to control the production of B-type hitch in the state roads, this is already an sign that the State of Confusion is already making a bad move. It is clear that the state of Confusion has broken one of the constitutional provisions for generating income from its own state, and this is more than enough to put an impediment in wining the case. McClanahan (2010) provides ten stages of a civil law suit, which are officially opened by a suit filed in the court (Stage 1). The complaint will include all of the reasons of the complainant on why the court should put a solution; more often let the involved party pay for the damages they are causing. Following that step is for the copy of that complaint to be sent to the defendant (Stage 2). This act is specifically called the service and could be done either through the mail or by the sheriff’s deputy. The moment the complaint is received by the defendant receives the complaint, he or she will be given 30 days to rebut the complaints. In cases when the defendant fails to deliver their counter-suit, then the court will simply end with a default judgment. Stage 3 would be pursued once the defendant provides answers, a counter claim, cross claim, or make a suit for a third party (third party complaint). Stage 4 is the discovery process. In this step, both parties literally try to discover all the possible facts that can be used for the case, and will be presented during the trial period. This period may last for many months and may even continue until the time of the trial. Stage 5 entails the period when either of the party files motions while still undergoing the discovery stage. A motion is a request for the court to do some action regarding the case already. Stage 6 is the mediation process, which always happen before the trial period. This is usually spearheaded by the Superior Court. Arbitration is for district court. Mediation literally means a point where both parties meet to settle things in the presence of the mediator, however whatever can be derived from that meeting is already out of the control of the mediator. Stage 7 takes into account the many instances wherein arguments are not settled during mediation, at this point, trial is set to happen. In a trial, the judge will be the one to decide on the case, but the parties are also free to choose their own jury. In Stage 8, the judge or the jury already makes the decision. Ideally, it is assumed that the petitioner won the decision. The appeal period usually runs for 30 days. Stage 9, considering that it is an actual fact that the defendant lost the case, then the next step is to serve them with a Notice of Rights to Claim Exempt Property. Stage 10 will be the signing of the Writ of Execution, upon the receipt of the filled out Notice of Rights to Claim Exempt Property. This Writ of Execution will legally allow the sheriffs to start the collection process. This last process can really take a long time, and, at times, complications may arise as some defendants do not have enough properties to pay the collection for the judgment. References Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). The legal environment of business and online commerce: Business ethics, e-commerce, regulatory, and international issues. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. McClanahan,D. (2010). Stages in a civil law suit. McClanahan Law. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from http://www.mcclanahanlaw.com/recentarticles/stages-in-a-civil-law-suit.html Supreme Court of the United States. (2007). Rowe, Attorney General of Maine v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/