Trump asks New York judge to dismiss rape allegation case

[90DayFinancier 910]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/476748-trump-says-alleged-rape-victim-cant-sue-him-in-new-york?amp

[90DayFinancier 910]

The request was based on procedural grounds.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Now, I am not familiar with the intricacies of New York law regarding personal jurisdiction, but it appears to be substantially similar to Federal law. If so, it's unlikely that Trump will succeed. It's useful to consider how this might be dealt with as a hypothetical in a federal district court:

 

In order for a federal district court to hear a case, it must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and defenses in the matter.

 

Personal jurisdiction ("PJ") is concerned with the court’s ability to exercise its jurisdiction over the parties to the action. PJ may be established in personam (over the person), in rem (over a thing -- usually real property) or quasi in rem (too boring to get into). In personam PJ is PJ over a person (including corporations) based on their contacts within the state. Traditionally, this can be from (1) domicile in the forum state; (2) presence in the forum state when served with process; or (3) consent. Modernly, PJ can be established over a person who is not domiciled or present in the state, or who has not consented, under a state’s long-arm statute, subject to constitutional concerns.

 

There will be traditional PJ over the defendant, if he is (1) domiciled in the forum state; (2) personally served in the state; or (3) he consents to the forum. Here, Trump was domiciled in the forum state at the time of the alleged rape. It doesn't matter that Trump has since moved his domicile (i.e., place of usual abode) from New York -- the question is where was he domiciled at the time of the incident? New York. Boom, end of. And because I'm nice, I won't get into the whole long-arm analysis because it isn't germane when there is traditional in personam PJ. (Be thankful -- it's really boring.)

 

At the same time, his lawyers did the correct thing by filing this motion. You want to preserve an objection to a court's personal jurisdiction -- submitting to the jurisdiction of the court is tantamount to a waiver.

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, elmcitymaven said:

Now, I am not familiar with the intricacies of New York law regarding personal jurisdiction, but it appears to be substantially similar to Federal law. If so, it's unlikely that Trump will succeed. It's useful to consider how this might be dealt with as a hypothetical in a federal district court:

 

In order for a federal district court to hear a case, it must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and defenses in the matter.

 

Personal jurisdiction ("PJ") is concerned with the court’s ability to exercise its jurisdiction over the parties to the action. PJ may be established in personam (over the person), in rem (over a thing -- usually real property) or quasi in rem (too boring to get into). In personam PJ is PJ over a person (including corporations) based on their contacts within the state. Traditionally, this can be from (1) domicile in the forum state; (2) presence in the forum state when served with process; or (3) consent. Modernly, PJ can be established over a person who is not domiciled or present in the state, or who has not consented, under a state’s long-arm statute, subject to constitutional concerns.

 

There will be traditional PJ over the defendant, if he is (1) domiciled in the forum state; (2) personally served in the state; or (3) he consents to the forum. Here, Trump was domiciled in the forum state at the time of the alleged rape. It doesn't matter that Trump has since moved his domicile (i.e., place of usual abode) from New York -- the question is where was he domiciled at the time of the incident? New York. Boom, end of. And because I'm nice, I won't get into the whole long-arm analysis because it isn't germane when there is traditional in personam PJ. (Be thankful -- it's really boring.)

 

At the same time, his lawyers did the correct thing by filing this motion. You want to preserve an objection to a court's personal jurisdiction -- submitting to the jurisdiction of the court is tantamount to a waiver.

I am in awe of our young Portia of Chambers.

[TBoneTX 43,254]

Whole lotta tortfeasin' obviously goin' on...

[TBoneTX 43,254]

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

in personam [...] in rem [...] quasi in rem

Tantumodo in regionalibus colloquiis aliter atque Anglice loquimini!

[Ban Hammer 12,861]

8 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

 or quasi in rem (too boring to get into).

is that what that latin phrase means?  

[TBoneTX 43,254]

18 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

is that what that latin phrase means?

Do not encourage the blatant, possibly tortfeasin' use of non-English outside the regional forums, no man!

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

On 1/5/2020 at 12:30 AM, TBoneTX said:

Tantumodo in regionalibus colloquiis aliter atque Anglice loquimini!

Sorry, couldn't be avoided. Sometimes you need to roll out the Latin. Salve!

On 1/5/2020 at 5:48 AM, Ban Hammer said:

is that what that latin phrase means?  

Totes. I remember we touched on quasi in rem in class and the professor said, there isn't going to be a civil procedure question on the bar exam involving QIR jurisdiction, so just know it exists to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about. 

[TBoneTX 43,254]

Knowin' what you're talkin' about in the CEHST forum!!!  Reported!!!!!