USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Read World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (p 59) and Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Corp. (p 61)
Submit your response to problem 2, Chapter 3
Here’s the Question- 2. State Senator Bowdler convinced the legislature of State Z to pass a law requiring all professors to submit their class notes and transparencies to a board of censors to be sure that no “lewd” materials were presented to students at State universities. Professor Rabelais would like to challenge this law as violating his First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. a. May Professor Rabelais challenge this law in the State Z courts? b. May Professsor Rabelais challenge this law in a Federal district court?
Here is the PDF of the book heres the book
https://u1lib.org/book/17072408/a19a5d
CASE
3-3
Pretrial Procedure: Summary Judgment
PARKER v. TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX CORP.
Supreme Court of California, 1970
3 Cal.3d 176,89 Cal.Rptr. 737, 474 P.2d 689
Burke, J.
and stood ready to complete the performance, and that de-
Defendant Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation appeals fendant breached and “anticipatorily repudiated” the con-
from a summary judgment granting to plaintiff (Shirley tract. It denies, however, that any money is due to plaintiff
MacLaine Parker] the recovery of agreed compensation either under the contract or as a result of its breach, and
under a written contract for her services as an actress in a pleads as an affirmative defense to both causes of action
motion picture. As will appear, we have concluded that the plaintiffs allegedly deliberate failure to mitigate damages,
trial court correctly ruled in plaintiffs favor and that the asserting that she unreasonably refused to accept its offer of
judgment should be affirmed.
the leading role in “Big Country.”
Plaintiff is well known as an actress, and in the contract Plaintiff moved for summary judgment under Code of
between plaintiff and defendant is sometimes referred to as Civil Procedure section 437c, the motion was granted, and
the “Artist.” Under the contract, dated August 6, 1965, plain- summary judgment for $750,000 plus interest was entered in
tiff was to play the female lead in defendant’s contemplated plaintiff’s favor. This appeal defendant followed.
production of a motion picture entitled “Bloomer Girl.” The The familiar rules are that the matter to be determined by
contract provided that defendant would pay plaintiff a mini- the trial court on a motion for summary judgment is whether
mum “guaranteed compensation” of $53,571.42 per week for facts have been presented which give rise to a triable factual
14 weeks commencing May 23, 1966, for a total of $750,000. issue. The court may not pass upon the issue itself. Summary
Prior to May 1966 defendant decided not to produce the pic- judgment is proper only if the affidavits or declarations in
ture and by a letter dated April 4, 1966, it notified plaintiff of support of the moving party would be sufficient to sustain a
that decision and that it would not comply with our obliga- judgment in his favor and his opponent does not by affidavit
tions to you under” the written contract.
show facts sufficient to present a triable issue of fact. The
By the same letter and with the professed purpose “to affidavits of the moving party are strictly construed, and
avoid any damage to you,” defendant instead offered to doubts as to the propriety of summary judgment should be
employ plaintiff as the leading actress in another film tenta- resolved against granting the motion. Such summary proce-
tively entitled “Big Country, Big Man” (hereinafter, “Big dure is drastic and should be used with caution so that it
Country’). The compensation offered was identical, as were does not become a substitute for the open trial method of
31 of the 34 numbered provisions or articles of the original determining facts. The moving party cannot depend upon
contract. Unlike “Bloomer Girl,” however, which was to have allegations in his own pleadings to cure deficient affidavits,
been a musical production, “Big Country” was a dramatic nor can his adversary rely upon his own pleadings in lieu or
“western type” movie. “Bloomer Girl” was to have been in support of affidavits in opposition to a motion; however,
filmed in California; “Big Country” was to be produced in a party can rely on his adversary’s pleadings to establish
Australia. Also, certain terms in the proffered contract varied facts not contained in his own affidavits. [Citations.) Also,
from those of the original. Plaintiff was given one week the court may consider facts stipulated to by the parties
within which to accept; she did not and the offer lapsed. and facts which are properly the subject of judicial notice.
Plaintiff then commenced this action seeking recovery of the [Citations.]
agreed guaranteed compensation.
The complaint sets forth two causes of action. The first is Applying the foregoing rules to the record in the present
for money due under the contract; the second, based upon case, with all intendments in favor of the party opposing the
the same allegations as the first, is for damages resulting summary judgment motion-here, defendant—it is clear that
from defendant’s breach of contract. Defendant in its answer the trial court correctly ruled that plaintiff’s failure to accept
admits the existence and validity of the contract, that plain- defendant’s tendered substitute employment could not be
tiff complied with all the conditions, covenants and promises applied in mitigation of damages because the offer of the
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
62
PART 1
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS
“Big Country” lead was of employment both different and
inferior, and that no factual dispute was presented on that
issue. The mere circumstance that “Bloomer Girl” was to be
a musical review calling upon plaintiff’s talents as a dancer as
well as an actress, and was to be produced in the City of Los
Angeles, whereas “Big Country” was a straight dramatic role
in a “Western type” story taking place in an opal mine in
Australia, demonstrates the difference in kind between the
two employments; the female lead as a dramatic actress in a
western style motion picture can by no stretch of imagina-
tion be considered the equivalent of or substantially similar
to the lead in a song-and-dance production.
Additionally, the substitute “Big Country” offer proposed to
eliminate or impair the director and screenplay approvals
accorded to plaintiff under the original “Bloomer Girl” contract
*** and thus constituted an offer of inferior employment.
No expertise or judicial notice is required in order to hold that
the deprivation or infringement of an employee’s rights held
under an original employment contract converts the available
“other employment” relied upon by the employer to mitigate
damages, into inferior employment which the employee need
not seek or accept Citation.]
The judgment is affirmed.
CASE
3-2
Jurisdiction
WORLD-WIDE VOLKSWAGEN CORP. v. WOODSON
Supreme Court of the United States, 1980
444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490
White, J.
The issue before us is whether, consistently with the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, an Oklahoma
court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a non-
resident automobile retailer and its wholesale distributor in a
products-liability action, when the defendants’ only connection
with Oklahoma is the fact that an automobile sold in New
York to New York residents became involved in an accident
in Oklahoma.
Respondents Harry and Kay Robinson purchased a new
Audi automobile from petitioner Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. (Sea-
way), in Massena, N.Y., in 1976. The following year the
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
60
PART 1
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS
federal system
Robinson family, who resided in New York, left that State for a As has long been settled, and as we reaffirm today, a state
new home in Arizona. As they passed through the State of court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
Oklahoma, another car struck their Audi in the rear, causing a defendant only so long as there exist “minimum contacts”
fire which severely burned Kay Robinson and her two children. between the defendant and the forum State. [Citation.] The
The Robinsons subsequently brought a products-liability concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to per-
action in the District Court for Creek County, Okla., claim- form two related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects
ing that their injuries resulted from defective design and the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or
placement of the Audi’s gas tank and fuel system. They inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the States,
joined as defendants the automobile’s manufacturer, Audi through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits
NSU Auto Union Aktiengesellschaft (Audi); its importer, imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a
Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen); its regional dis-
tributor, petitioner World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. (World- The protection against inconvenient litigation is typically
Wide); and its retail dealer, petitioner Seaway. Seaway and described in terms of “reasonableness” or “fairness.” We have
World-Wide entered special appearances, claiming that said that the defendant’s contacts with the forum State must
Oklahoma’s exercise of jurisdiction over them would offend be such that maintenance of the suit “does not offend ‘tradi-
the limitations on the State’s jurisdiction imposed by the tional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (Citation.]
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The relationship between the defendant and the forum must
The facts presented to the District Court showed that be such that it is “reasonable * * * to require the corporation
World-Wide is incorporated and has its business office in to defend the particular suit which is brought there.”
New York. It distributes vehicles, parts, and accessories, [Citation.) Implicit in this emphasis on reasonableness is the
under contract with Volkswagen, to retail dealers in New understanding that the burden on the defendant, while
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Seaway, one of these always a primary concern, will in an appropriate case be con-
retail dealers, is incorporated and has its place of business in sidered in light of other relevant factors, including the forum
New York. Insofar as the record reveals, Seaway and World- State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, [citation); the
Wide are fully independent corporations whose relations plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief,
with each other and with Volkswagen and Audi are contrac- [citation), at least when that interest is not adequately pro-
tual only. Respondents adduced no evidence that either tected by the plaintiff’s power to choose the forum, [citation);
World-Wide or Seaway does any business in Oklahoma, the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most
ships or sells any products to or in that State, has an agent to efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest
receive process there, or purchases advertisements in any of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive
media calculated to reach Oklahoma. In fact, as respondents’ social policies, [citation).
counsel conceded at oral argument, [citation), there was no
showing that any automobile sold by World-Wide or Seaway Thus, the Due Process Clause “does not contemplate that
has ever entered Oklahoma with the single exception of the a state may make binding a judgment in personam against
vehicle involved in the present case.
an individual or corporate defendant with which the state
has no contacts, ties, or relations.” (Citation.) **
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma [held] that personal ju-
risdiction over petitioners was authorized by Oklahoma’s Applying these principles to the case at hand, we find in
“long-arm” statute, [citation). ***
the record before us a total absence of those affiliating cir-
cumstances that are a necessary predicate to any exercise of
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment state-court jurisdiction. Petitioners carry on no activity what-
limits the power of a state court to render a valid personal soever in Oklahoma. They close no sales and perform no
judgment against a nonresident defendant. (Citation.) A services there. They avail themselves of none of the privileges
judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in and benefits of Oklahoma law. They solicit no business there
the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and either through salespersons or through advertising reason-
credit elsewhere. (Citation.] Due process requires that the ably calculated to reach the State. Nor does the record show
defendant be given adequate notice of the suit, (citation), that they regularly sell cars at wholesale or retail to Okla-
and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court, homa customers or residents or that they indirectly, through
[citation). In the present case, it is not contended that others, serve or seek to serve the Oklahoma market. In short,
notice was inadequate; the only question is whether these respondents seek to base jurisdiction on one, isolated occur-
particular petitioners were subject to the jurisdiction of the rence and whatever inferences can be drawn there from: the
Oklahoma courts.
fortuitous circumstance that a single Audi automobile, sold
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
CHAPTER 3
CIVIL DISPUTE RESOLUTION
61
in New York to New York residents, happened to suffer an
accident while passing through Oklahoma.
Because we find that petitioners have no contacts, ties, or
relations” with the State of Oklahoma, [citation), the judg-
ment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is Reversed.
****
