The appellate court held that personal jurisdiction did indeed exist, but found that the case was not ripe under the criteria of Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S. Ct. 1507, 18 L. Ed. 2d 681 (1967). Specifically, the court had to determine the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. The court noted that it was difficult to know whether enforcement of the French court’s interim orders would have been repugnant to California public policy. Until the court knew whether further restrictions on access by French, and possibly American, users were required, the court could not decide whether or to what degree the First Amendment may have been violated by enforcement of the French court’s orders, and whether such enforcement would be repugnant to California public policy. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action without prejudice.
RULE OF LAW AND REASONING; Until the court knew whether further restrictions on access by French, and possibly American, users were required, the court could not decide whether or to what degree the First Amendment may have been violated by enforcement of the French court’s orders, and whether such enforcement would be repugnant to California public policy.
Unit Questions:
1. Why might the French court have had jurisdiction over Yahoo! France? Over Yahoo!?
Yahoo! subsidiary corporations operate regional Yahoo! sites and services in 20 other nations including Yahoo! France. Each of these regional websites contains the host nation’s unique two-letter code as either a prefix or suffix in its URL. Yahoo!’s regional sites use the local regions primary language, target the local citizenry, and operate under local laws. In this case the local laws are France, therefore it would be held under France’s jurisdiction.
2. If you were sitting on the Ninth Circuit, how would you have decided the jurisdiction questionable? Consider both the U.S. rule of minimum contacts and the Restatement provision.
The Restatement provision is a series of treaties that articulate the principles or rules for a specific area of law. They are secondary sources of law. Meanwhile, the U.S. rule of minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. If I were sitting on the Ninth Circuit I would have decided the jurisdiction questionable because the U.S. rule of minimum contacts allows one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state.
3. Is this approach to the requirements of comity consistent with the discussion of comity in chapter 16?
In chapter 16 comity is defined as the concept that countries should abide by international custom, treaties, and other sources of international direction because that is the civil way to engage in relationships. Comity is the means by which those principles are encouraged. In this case, comity is consistent with the discussion in chapter 16.
