Business Ethics Case
Business Ethics Case
CALDER vs. JONES, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)
What reason(s) did the Supreme Court give in their holding that California had personal jurisdiction over the defendants?
The case CALDER vs. JONES is a case in which Jones, a California based actress claimed The National Inquirer a weekly magazine based in Florida and its president and editor, Jones, intentional intended to defame her character. South, the journalist who wrote the article is also implemented in the case and is an employee of the magazine company who resides in Florida too. The National Inquirer moved to quash service of process for the lack of personal jurisdiction and have the case dismissed.
The Supreme Court determined defendants Calder and South did have personal jurisdiction in the state of California due to the nature of the case. The Supreme Court concluded that Calder and Souths intentional conduct in Florida was allegedly calculated to cause injury to the respondent in California.
One reason the Supreme Court provides for this holding is that California is the focal point of the harmful allegations of the article. This gives jurisdiction over the defendants based on the “effects” of their Florida conduct in the State of California. Another reason the Supreme Court gives is that the defendants are not charged with mere untargeted negligence, but rather their intentional and allegedly tortious actions aimed at California.
Propose an argument that the actions of the defendants to petition the court to dismiss their case because they believed California did not have personal jurisdiction and the case should be brought in Florida instead: was ethical.
Argument
The arguing for the dismissal of the case in California and re-instatement in Florida is ethical since the defendants have