Question

A woman, who was a long-time resident of State A, decided to go on vacation. Unable to fly nonstop to her destination, she changed planes at an airport located in State B. While in the waiting area for her next flight, the woman was served with process in connection with a lawsuit filed against her by her former business partner. The former partner, who had recently become a citizen of State B, had brought suit in federal district court in State B under diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the woman had defrauded him out of his rightful share of the profits of the partnership. According to the complaint, the fraud took place entirely in State A. Can the federal district court in State B properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the woman?
Answers:
A. No, because the alleged fraud took place entirely in State A.
B. No, because the woman is a citizen of State A.
C. Yes, because the former partner is a citizen of State B.
D. Yes, because the woman was served in State B.

Answer 1

Answer:

D). Yes, because the woman was served in State B.

Explanation:

According to the details provided, Yes, state B possesses the authority to operate the personal jurisdiction congruously as she was in the service of State B. As per the laws, the court has the authority of personal jurisdiction over the accused in case he/she is willfully present there and set out in that state despite the fact that he/she doesn't have anyone known in that state. Thus, option D is the correct answer due to the liberty of 'diverse jurisdiction' and the law stating that in case the defendant is voluntarily available and summoned by the law officer there.