Calder_V_Jones

Calder vs. Jones Analysis Brigitte Nichols BUS/415 December 12, 2011 Tanesha Blye Calder vs. Jones Analysis The National Enquirer, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. It publishes the National Enquirer, a national weekly tabloid newspaper with a total of more than 5 million copies circulated. About 600,000 copies, twice as many as any other state, are sold in California. An article was published by the National Enquirer regarding Shirley Jones, an entertainer. Jones, a California resident, filed a civil lawsuit against the National Enquirer and its president, a Florida resident. Nature of the claim The plaintiff Jones brought a civil case against the National Enquirer and its president at that time, stating defamation, invasion of privacy and emotional distress. The claim of defamation is the issuance of an untrue statement about another person, which causes that person emotional suffering (Dailey, 2011). In this case the plaintiff Jones stipulates under the elements of defamation that false statements were made, that they were published (Dailey, 2011). The plaintiff claimed the statements resulted in personal damage. The long-arm statute and National enquirer Long-arm statute is defined as giving the local state court jurisdiction over an out-of-state company or individual whose actions caused damage locally or to a local resident (Hill, 2011). The National enquirer and its President knowingly sold and distributed that issue of the tabloid in the state of California, this allowed for the long-arm statute to be applied. In this case the long-arm statute is applied since the National enquirer and its President had minimum contact within the state under the standard of International Shoe v. Washington (Law School Case Briefs,), thus personal jurisdiction could be applied in the civil case. Ethics in attempting to avoid California jurisdiction Under the laws of personal jurisdiction the President of the National Enquirer knowingly caused harm to another person across state lines. The President’s attempt to avoid having the case tried in California showed lack of care or concern for those that were damaged in the course of the action of the newspaper. The newspaper sold in California and caused defamation to a resident of California thus the attempt to not take responsibility both personally and for the actions of the newspaper showed a lack of corporate responsibility. References Dailey, S. (2011). Defamatio, Libel, and Slander. Retrieved from http://www.lawserver.com Hill, G., & Hill, K. (2011). Law Dictionary. Retrieved from http://dictionary.law.com/Default Law School Case Briefs. (2011, December 10). Law School Case Briefs. Retrieved from http://lawschoolcasebriefs.com