« Eco-Palms, Baby | Main | Erieblogging: Day Twenty-Six »

Friday, January 25, 2013

Erieblogging: Day Twenty-Five

Two more questions about the twin aims of Erie. Do they apply when a federal court entertains a state law action after having gotten personal jurisdiction over a party pursuant to the “100-mile bulge” in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(B) or through pendent personal jurisdiction?

That's what federal courts have assumed. But, once again, why uniformity with a forum state court when it could never have entertained the action, because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant?  

Posted by Michael Steven Green on January 25, 2013 at 04:59 PM in Civil Procedure | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef017c364313e0970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Erieblogging: Day Twenty-Five:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I can't answer your question(s), but I can say this: I totally and unreservedly admire your persistence.

Posted by: SparkleMotion | Jan 25, 2013 6:02:31 PM

Post a comment