Civil Procedure Midterm

Pennoyer v. Neff

1. LSF: Michell sued Neff for unpaid legal fees. Neff was a non-resident of Oregon and was not personally served with the process. Neff failed to appear in court. Neff later acquired land, and Mitchell had a sheriff seize it and he sold it to Pennoyer to get the money for the legal fees.

2. Rule: Have to be served in the state also land has to be added to the claim at the beginning of the suit not later on.

Hess v. Pawloski

1. LSF: Hess was a PA resident driving in MA when he hit Pawloski, an MA resident. MA has a long arm statute where if you drive on MA public roads you default to being served in MA via the MA DMV. 

2. Rule: By availing yourself to state statutes you are consenting to jurisdiction in that state.

In Personam Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction over the person for all purposes

In rem jurisdiction

1. Property in the state

2. Jurisdiction over the thing

3. issue is about the land

Quasi in rem jurisdiction

Using the thing to get jurisdiction but not about the thing itself

International Shoe

1. LSF: Washington wanted to collect on unemployment from International Shoe, one of the largest companies at the time. International Shoe had 12 sales associates in Washington who showed samples in hotel rooms, but did not have any stores and did not sell any product.

2. Rule: Minimum contacts test: the number of contacts v. how related the contacts are 

   1. Fair play and substantial justice: enough contacts where if they are sued it is not an inconvenience 

Long-arm Statutes

1. provisions that permit the exercise of jurisdiction over those outside the state

2. Does the state want jurisdiction over the defendant?

3. Minimum contacts

McGee

1. LSF: Insurance company from Texas solicited to a California resident. Re-uped the policy in effect and continued the policy. There was 1 policy and 1 customer and the contact was volitional.

2. Rule: Jurisdiction because although there was 1 contact, it was very related to the suit and it was solicited in CA.

3. Minimum contacts

Hanson

1. LSF: Woman lived in PA and had a trust in DE. The woman moved to FL. The woman changed the trust. Daughters wanted to sue saying the trust was invalid and filed in FL court.

2. Rule: Since the trust was made in DE and did not solicit to FL, there was no purposeful availment in FL and thus no Jurisdiction.

3. minimum contacts

World-Wide Volkswagon

1. LSF: Robinsons were driving in OK when their car caught fire causing injury. Robinsons are suing Audi, Volkswagen of America, Worldwide-Volkswagen, and Seaway (located in NY) in OK. WWVW had no business in the state, didn’t have workers in the state, and the Robinson’s car was the only one in OK.

2. Rule: There were not enough contacts for there to be jurisdiction over WWVW.

3. minimum contacts

Keeton

1. LSF: Keeton was defamed in an issue of Hustler Magazine. Keeton was from NY and sued Hustler in NH. Hustler has a lot of contracts in NH. It was favorable for Keeton to sue in NH as it would not have been barred by the statute of limitations.  

2. Rule: every person reading in NH is a new contact, thus sufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction. Also there was a vested interest in proceeding with this case.

3. minimum contacts

Calder

1. LSF: A writer and editor in FL wrote a defamatory article about a CA citizen. They never went to CA and it was fully written in FL. National inquirer, the magazine, was widely distributed in CA. However, information was taken from CA and the brunt of the harm occurred in CA.

2. Rule: Jurisdiction was upheld due to the relatedness of the contacts in CA and the amount of harm suffered in CA.

3. minimum contacts

Walden

1. LSF: Men who were from NV went on a trip where they went gambling in the Caribbean and on their way back they had a layover in ATL where a police officer seized a large amount of cash and prepared a false affidavit alleging the money to  be related  to drug activity. The money was discovered to not be from drug activity and returned it to them and they sued in NV. Conduct only happened in GA.

2. Rule: Mere injury to a forum resident is insufficient to establish jurisdiction; the defendant's conduct must connect them to the forum in a meaningful way. Conduct needs to be connected with the forum state.

3. minimum contacts

Stream of Commerce

1. The supreme court has not found jurisdiction based on stream of commerce

Asahi

1. LSF: Asahi manufactured tire valves in Japan and sold them to another company in Taiwan. The tires were put together there and sold in CA where they were involved in a motorcycle crash. They knew that the other company was selling the tires in CA, but could not stop them from selling there. 

2. Rule: There must be some additional conduct by which the defendant indicates an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum state

3. Stream of Commerce

McIntyre

1. LSF: Nicastro’s hand was seriously injured by a metal shearing machine manufactured by McIntyre UK. The machine was sold by McIntyre US and ended up in NJ. UK officials would attend conventions in the US but never in NJ and only 4 machines in NJ. 

2. Rule: the defendant needs to purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state.

3. Stream of Commerce

General jurisdiction

1. Individuals can only have 1 state of citizenship

   1. Domicile: where someone lives and intends to stay indefinitely 

2. Corporations can have 2 places of citizenship

   1. Where they are incorporated 

   2. Where the HQ is 

      1. Where you are essentially at home

         1. Perkins

            1. LSF: defendant was a Filipino corporation that mined in the Philippines. It ceased operations in the Philippines due to WWII and Japan’s occupation. Ran operations from Ohio.

            2. Rule: Essentially at home for extenuating circumstances

Daimler

1. LSF: 22 Argentinians sued Daimler in CA over Human Rights Violations in Argentina by their subsidiary. Sued in the US because a subsidiary MBUSA is present which has a lot of contacts. Being sued was convenient for Daimler; however, Daimler could not be sued due to lack of sufficient and related contacts to the claim

2. Rule: continuous corporation operations in the state are so substantial to justify the suit on causes of action arising out of dealings separate from the ones in the state

3. General v. Specific Jurisdiction

BMS

1. LSF:  Plaintiffs not from CA sued BMS in CA. BMS is incorporated in DE and has an HQ in NY and do most of their operations in NY and NJ. The plaintiffs did not consume, be injured by, or purchase any of the drugs in CA. BMS did not have their branding, manufacturing, or any regulatory approval in CA. It was distributed in CA.

2. Rule: Contracting with a CA distributor is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction in the state. Harm has to be suffered, relate to, or arise out of the state.

3. Relatedness

Ford

1. LSF: Ford is incorporated in MI but does business everywhere. They have advertisements, sell cars to dealers, do maintenance and repairs, and foster an ongoing relationship with the customer. The plaintiff died when a car part broke off a Ford vehicle and caused a crash in Montana, where the case takes lace.

2. Rule: a state court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant if the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state and the plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum. 

   1. States have a sovereign interest in these cases

   2. Is it fair to sue there for the defendant

3. Relatedness

Burnham

1. LSF: A couple decided to get a divorce and the wife filed in CA for irreconcilable differences and the husband filed in NJ for abandonment. When he comes to visit his kids when he drops them off, he is served with divorce papers.

2. Rule: if a person is physically in the state they can be served

3. Tag Jurisdiction

Mallory

1. LSF: Mallory worked for a railroad company and after years of being exposed to chemicals, was diagnosed with cancer after he moved to PA. He only worked in Ohio and Virginia. The company was based in Virginia. Mallory sued the company in PA. The company had lots of contacts in PA and PA has companies who do business with the state register and can be served there. None of the contacts were related to the cancer.

2. Rule: If you waive your due process right by registering with the state, the corporation consents to be sued in that state.

3. Consent and Waiver

Young

1. LSF: The New Haven Advocate wrote an article about a new policy where prisoners being sent to Virginia and it brought up the warden at this prison. The conditions were really bad at the prison, and the warden sued for defamation. The paper was targeted to people in New Haven and CT. There were some subscribers in Virginia. Also the article was about a policy issue not to defame the warden.

2. Rule: Your contracts need to be targeted at the forum state

3. online interaction and personal juridiction

uBid, Inc.

1. LSF: GoDaddy allowed forum names that took away clicks from uBid, harming the money that they bring in. GoDaddy did not expressly target Illinois but they did advertising in Illinois and had many customers. The number of contacts was enough to be considered targeting the forum state.

2. Rule: The due process clause is not violated if there is deliberate exploitation of the market in the forum state

3. Online interaction and personal Jurisdiction

Briskin

1. LSF: Briskin purchased an item off a website that used Shopify. Shopify downloaded cookies onto his device which he did not consent to. His information was kept and sold later on and he sued Shopify in CA. Shopify is not incorporated nor headquartered in CA. 

2. Rule: the torturous action deliberately targeted the consumer in the forum state, thus can be sued for actions arising out of the forum state

3. online interaction and personal jurisdiction

Federal Diversity Jurisdiction

1. Amount in Controversy: 

   1. Must exceed $75,000

2. Complete Diversity:

   1. Plaintiff and defendant cannot share state of citizenship

      1. Individuals: where they are domiciled

      2. Corporations: place of incorporation or where their principal place of business is

Sheehan

1. LSF: Sheehan tried suing Gustavson in Federal Court of Nevada under Diversity Jurisdiction. Gustavson had a presence in both Minnesota and Nevada. He was a citizen of Minnesota until 1973  and moved to Las Vegas to manage a hotel he purchased in 1972. He sold 80% of his hotel in 1975 and went to jail in Nevada from 1984-1987. He had bank accounts, investments, property, corporate vehicles, and regularly went back to Minnesota to check messages and mail. He had some Minnesota addresses for some Nevada businesses. However, he had a license, personal vehicles, a permanent address, and a will in Nevada. The court held that Gustavson intended to remain in Nevada and thus domiciled there and lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

2. Rule: where you are domiciled is where you are present and where you plan to remain in the future

3. Diversity Jurisdiction for an individual

Hertz

1. LSF: Employees sued for alleged violation of wage and hour laws in California. Hertz operated in 44 states, California had 273 of Hertz’s 1,606 car rental locations, 2,300 employees in the state, and made $811 million in total revenue there. Its corporate headquarters were in NJ, and executive offices were in OK. 

2. Rule: A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of the state where their principal place of business is located (nerve center) and where they are incorporated.

3. Diversity Jurisdiction of a Corporation

Belleville Catering Co.

1. LSF: Belleville alleged that it was incorporated in Missouri with its principal place of business there, and 5 individual plaintiffs were citizens of Missouri. Champagne Market alleged they were a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in Illinois. However, Belleville was actually incorporated in Illinois, and some members of Champaign Market were also citizens of Illinois. Thus, diversity jurisdiction was destroyed. 

2. Rule: There needs to be complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants

3. Complete Diversity issue

Mottley

1. LSF: The Mottley’s brought a suit against the Railroad for failure to honor a lifetime pass after a federal statute was passed that made free passes illegal. The railroad company refused to honor the passes due to the statute. The court held that the underlying claim was just a state-law breach of contract, not a constitutionality issue.

2. Rule: A plaintiff’s cause of action needs to be based on federal laws or the constitution, not an anticipated defense.

3. Federal Question Jurisdiction

American Well Works

1. LSF: American Well works manufactured a pump and sued under state trade libel law, alleging that the Layne & Bowler Co, the defendant, wrongfully accused the plaintiff of infringing the defendant’s patent on the pump. The Supreme Court held that the suit did not arise under federal patent laws.

2. Rule: State libel claims take place in state court and therefore cannot arise out of federal law.

3. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Smith

1. LSF: Plaintiff sued a corporation in which he held stock seeking to enjoin the company from using corporate funds to invest bonds issued under the Federal Farm Loan Act. He asserted that such an investment was illegal according to Missouri Banking Law because the Farm loan Act was unconstitutional and Missouri law created the cause of action.

2. Federal issue deemed sufficiently substantial (possibly because of impact on federal law/ agency in the future) and cases are unlikely to disturb federal/state balance by shoving a large number of state cases in federal court

3. Rule: Federal Question Jurisdiction depends on the constitutionality of the law.

4. Yes FQJ

Moore

1. LSF: The plaintiff sued under a state Employers Liability Act where contributory negligence could not bar an employee's recovery if the employer had violated a statute enacting for the safety of employees. Incorporated into the state statute was the Federal Safety Appliance Act.

2. Rule: No jurisdiction as the claim arose out of the application of federal law not the constitutionality of federal law.

   1. State claim, only used federal statute to determine if the court should consider contributory negligence

3. No FQJ

Merrell Dow

1. LSF: Thompson sued a manufacturer of drugs in State Court on a variety of State claims which involved birth defects caused by the ingestion of drugs by pregnant women. One of the claims is for negligence per se saying that the drug was misbranded in violation of the FDCA. The defendant removed the case to federal court and argued that the negligence per se claim invoked Federal Question Jurisdiction.

2. Rule: Applying federal laws does not invoke Federal Question Jurisdiction.

   1. Violation of federal law not enough, especially where the federal law created no private right of action 

3. No FQJ

Grable

1. LSF: In 1994 the IRS seized property belonging to the plaintiffs to satisfy federal tax delinquency. Title 26 USC 6335 required the IRS to give notice of the seizure, and there was no dispute that the plaintiff received actual notice by certified mail before the IRS sold the property to the defendant. 5 years later the plaintiff brought a quiet title auction in State Court claiming that the title was invalid because the IRS failed to notify the plaintiff of its seizure of property in the exact manner required by 6335a which required personal service and not certified mail. The defendant removed the case to Federal District Court because the claim of title depended on interpretation of the notice statute in federal tax law.

   1. Deciding the case may affect how the IRS serves people and conducts business

2. Rule: Federal Question Jurisdiction can be invoked when the constitutionality of a law is in question.

3. Yes FQJ

Gunn

1. LSF: Plaintiff asserted a state law claim against his lawyers for malpractice in a patent matter. He argued they were negligent in not asserting the experimental use exception to the “on sale” bar in the underlying infringement suit.

2. Rule: State jurisdiction over such state malpractice claims would not upset the appropriate balance between federal and state judicial responsibilities. The claim did not arise under federal law. 

   1. State-based claim, not sufficiently substantial, even though it arose during federal patent action 

   2. Establishes a FQ test 

      1. Necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, capable of resolution w/o disrupting balance

3. No FQJ

Empire Health

1. LSF: Insurer contracted with the federal government to cover medical expenses for federal employees. After the insurer had paid an injured employee’s medical expenses, the employee’s estate settled a state-court tort suit for his injuries. The insurer filed in federal court a subrogation claim to recover the value of the medical expenses that it previously disembursed. Federal statute governed the relationship between the insurer and the government and preempted state law on coverage and benefits; however the statute did not include subrogation and did not confer federal jurisdiction over such claims. 

2. Rule: fact bound cases do not come under federal question jurisdiction as it's an issue of federal compliance with the facts and not a constitutionality issue. 

   1. Application of a federal rule is fact-bound, not a question of federal law that federal courts should decide

3. No FQJ

Swift

1. LSF: Tyson gave a bill of exchange to a 3rd party for land that they did not own and did not sell which was fraud. The 3rd party gave it to Swift for debt. 

2. Rule: apply state law strictly local in nature (coming out of the general common law)

Erie

1. LSF: Tompkins was walking along a railroad track and he got hit by an open door on the train. Erie wants to use PA law which says that Tompkins is a trespasser and they do not have a duty to him, therefore making the railroad not negligent. Tompkins sued in New York on diversity jurisdiction. He contends that he was owed a duty of care because the pass was permissively used by the public. 

1. The Erie court is worried about vertical disuniformity

   1. Forum shopping 

   2. Equitable distribution of the law

2. Law has to come from a sovereignty 

3. Federal: constitution, statutes, treaties

4. State: everything else

5. Rule: Federal courts must apply the law of the state, including state common law as declared by the highest state court, in cases not governed by the US Constitution or federal statutes

York

(State) 

1. Brings up the question of whether state law is a procedural law or a substantive law

2. Want the same outcome in state court and federal court

3. Rule: State law must be applied as not applying it will have a different outcome in federal court

4. Outcome determinative

Ragan

State

1. Rule 3: a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint

2. Holding: state law controls when an action is commenced for purposes of statute of limitations

3. Outcome determinative

Woods

State

1. Mississippi door closing statute: out of state corporations that had failed to register properly in Mississippi were barred from suing in state court

2. Holding: Mississippi federal court should apply the state statute and bar such corporations from suing in federal court

3. Outcome determinative

Cohen

State

1. State law: plaintiffs in shareholder derivative actions to post a substantial bond

2. Federal Law: Rule 23.1 enumerates the criteria for shareholder derivative actions and does not require bond

3. Holding: State bond requirement applied in a shareholder derivative action in federal court 

4. Outcome determinative

Byrd

(Federal) 

1. LSF: Byrd was a North Carolinian Citizen suing a South Carolinian Company on Diversity Jurisdiction. Byrd claimed that he was an independent contractor, so he must be paid outside of the Workers compensation act. Blue Ridge claimed that they could not be sued under the South Carolina Workers Compensation Act because Byrd is an employee of a contractor who was hired to do the same business as Blue Ridge does. The question then became who gets to decide whether Byrd is an employee or independent contractor: Judge or a Jury. State law requires only a judge to decide, but the 7th amendment preserves the right to a jury .

   1. Court focuses not only on outcome determination but also

      1. Federal interests: uniformity under the constitution

      2. State interests: efficient processing of cases, helps corporations in that state, etc…

      3. Look at policy judgements

2. Rule: The court held that, in federal court, the factual issue of whether the defendant was a statutory employer should be decided by the jury, notwithstanding South Carolina’s rule that such issues are decided by the judge. Federal rule prevailed.

Hanna

 Federal

1. LSF: Hanna was in a car accident. She served Plumer when he was not home and his wife received it. Under FRCP 4, the summons and the complaint shall be served together upon an individual other than an infant or incompetent person by delivering the copies to him personally or leaving them at his home with someone of suitable age. Massachusetts law says you have to hand it to them specifically.

   1. Both state and federal have interests 

   2. Harlan’s concurrence takes the position that in pre-litigation life→ who you serve to doesn’t matter

      1. Look at pre-litigation behavior

2. Rule: The court held that just serving process is procedural and not changing litigation decisions.

   1. If state law is in conflict with federal law, federal law wins under the supremacy 

Walker

State

1. LSF: Walker was injured and brought a suit against a manufacturer within the statute of limitations. It was filed on August 22, 1975, but was not served until December 1, 1977, outside the statute of limitations. In OK law, the statute of limitations lasts 2 years after service. In Federal law, Rule 3, a civil action commences when you file a complaint, thus starting the timer for the statute of limitations. When read narrowly, they do not conflict as rule 3 governs procedural timing while state law governs tolling requirements.

2. Rule: the court held that the state law controlled tolling of the state statute of limitations as it reflects the state substantive policy decision ensuring actual notice.

3. Policy interests

Sibbach

1. LSF: The court ordered the plaintiff to submit a physical examination according to Rule 35. State law did not permit a court to order such examinations, and the plaintiff argued that Rule 35 was invalid because it abridged a substantive right to be free from the indignity and intrusion of court order physical exams

2. Rule: The Court held that subsection (b) of the statute simply restated, but did not modify, subsection (a).

   1. Does it really regulate procedure, if it does, it cannot amend a state substantive right

   2. If it is a FRCP, it must be procedural, and therefore not subject to Erie

Gaspirini

State

1. LSF: Photographer spends time in South America taking pictures. A humanitarian group wants them for a documentary, and loses them. Gasparini sued in NY Federal Court on Diversity Jurisdiction. At trial he is awarded $450,000 in damages, $1,500 for each slide given. 

   1. State law: if the amount awarded deviates materially from what is reasonable, the appellate court can knock down the amount to what is reasonable. 

      1. Debated in legislature, Erie worthy concerns

   2. 7th amendment: an appellate court cannot reexamine questions of fact found by the jury under the reexamination clause, and therefore cannot knock down the amount based on what part of the facts that they find reasonable. 

      1. Trial judges apply a “shocks the conscience” standard

      2. A constitutional right and federal procedure

   3. There is a policy concern here

   4. Rule: The court held that the case should be remanded back to trial level for the judge to apply NY state statute and set aside the jury verdict. 

      1. Reading the law narrowly so they coexist 

      2. Ginsburg Majority: reasons that because trial judges could always at common law set aside verdicts in extreme settings, a trial judge reviewing an award for excessiveness does not violate the re-examination clause, though appellate review would 

         1. Applies federal procedure where only the trial courts can review jury verdicts and the state substantive law where it deviates materially standard

         2. Points to Erie aims for why the state’s substantive standard should apply

      3. Scalia Dissent: there is a federal rule on point. Look to Rule 59: terms for a new trial. 7A. If there is a federal rule in the vicinity, test it under the REA, if it is valid, then the federal wins (Brightline Rule)

Shady Grove

1. LSF: Shady Grove files a class action case against Allstate for interest due to late payments. New York state law states that class actions suits are barred for penalties or statutory minimum damages and does not allow interest class actions. Rule 23 governs class actions and was brought into conflict as you only need to meet its pleading requirements, not do maneuvers around what needs to be excluded to make a class action. 

   1. Scalia (majority) believed that Rule 23 applies and the class action can be heard and that it does not have a substantive aim, it is just procedural

      1. Going back to Sibbach if it is arguably procedural and under the REA it is a valid rule then its a federal statute that is in conflict and under the supremacy clause, the federal rule applies

      2. On its face it has to be vaguely procedural 

      3. Just looks at federal rule

   2. Stevens (concurrence) says how would I know if it is valid if I don’t look at how to abridge modify or enlarge state rights

      1. This is an important state interest due to the increase in class actions

         1. Both a policy choice of the state and something insurance companies may take advantage of 

         2. Justice Stevens doubles down on his concurrence

            1. There needs to be a high bar weather something is substantive

      2. The rule itself is not about insurance claims it is actually a procedural party that applies to any statutory penalty in NY and that's why it is in conflict 

   3. Ginsburg says there is no conflict between the two because the rule can be interpreted narrowly 

      1. Rule 23 is procedural on how to bring a class action

      2. The state law says that you cannot bring it as a class action

         1. The state determines if the content is valid as a claim

            1. No valid cause of action 

      3. Rule 23 doesn’t kick in until there is a cause of action 

      4. State law determines if there is a cause of action and it is a state policy interest 

2. Rule: Look at the face of the rule and if it is procedural, then go with the federal rule (federal rule ousted the state law in this case)

Berk

1. LSF: under state Delaware law that states for medical malpractice claim, you need a signed affidavit or it cannot be filed by the clerk. Under Rule 8, all a plaintiff needs is to give a short statement of the cause of action. Under rule 12, failure to state a claim upon which relief is relevant. Under rule 3, as soon as the complaint is filed, the civil suit commences. The state law was to make it harder for people to make medical malpractice claims and limit the number of claims. It really benefits medical practitioners in the state and will cause forum shopping. The Plaintiff argued that if you don’t have all the requirements of a cause of action then rule 8 does not apply 

   1. Jackson concurrence not solely based on their text but to regulatory policies 

   2. Under the Justice Stevens approach would look like: 

      1. Does rule 8,3,12, abridge, modify, or enlarge states rights 

      2. This is a specific medical malpractice suit

      3. More substantive then shady grove then these would be flipped for the other cases 

2. Rule: 8,12,3 are all procedural and do not speak to substantive rights and under Sibbach, it is a valid rule and as it is in conflict we use the federal rule.

Piper

1. LSF: A small commercial aircraft crashed in Scotland. On board were all Scottish people. The aircraft was made by an American company (Piper) in PA. The administration of the state was in CA. The propeller manufacturer (Hartzell) was in OH. The case was filed in CA state court to circumvent the fact that Scotland did not have strict liability ways to recover. Hartzell and Piper removed to federal court on diversity since they had complete diversity of citizenship and greater than the amount of controversy ($75,000). California did not have PJ over Hartzell due to the component part problem of stream of commerce (Asahi) and it was pre-International Shoe, so they transferred under 1406 to PA. There was PJ over Piper (they did not challenge it), but they removed under 1404 to a better location (PA). Hartzell now was going under PA choice which dictated Scotland tort law (no strict liability) while Piper was now going under California choice of law which dictated that they use PA tort law. Under the Forum of Non Conveniens and using the Gilbert Factors, Scotland had a greater interest in the case as the crash was in the UK, evidence was in the UK, witnesses were in the UK, and professionals on Scottish law were in Scotland. 

2. Rule: Cases can be dismissed under the forum of non-conveniens due to improper and inconvenient forum. It is a judge-made doctrine and is very controversial since it is not impossible to execute the case in the US. Basically saying that the judge won’t hear the case because it is better suited somewhere else.

   1. However, PA may have had a policy interest in disciplining their own companies since this plane has crashed and other could too 

   2. Some evidence could also be in the US if it is a manufacturing defect of the plane/propeller.