A few months back you may remember that O.J. Simpson was again in the headlines. His most recent entrance back into the public surrounded the then soon to be released book – “If I Did It.” The book project, which was eventually halted by the publisher, contained a chapter in which Simpson described how he “would have” killed his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman if he actually did it. To this day, Simpson still claims that he is innocent. A jury of 12 agreed and acquitted him in 1995 of the criminal charges. However, two years later, another jury found him liable for the deaths in a civil lawsuit. At the conclusion of the trial, Simpson was ordered to pay the Goldman and Brown family $33.5 million dollars. Both families are still trying to collect their money from Simpson.

After hearing of the book deal, the Brown family and the Goldman family have attempted to recover any money that was advanced to Simpson by the publisher. In doing so, Goldman filed a lawsuit in the Central District Court of California alleging that Simpson created bogus shell companies in California as a way to collect, hide and protect his earnings from the book deal. Simpson apparently received close to 1 million dollars. Last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Manuel Real, dismissed the case by ruling that the matter is out of his jurisdiction and should be filed in Florida state court. After the hearing, Simpson attorney Yale Galanter proudly stated, “They got kicked out to the curb.” But did they really?

To many, the ruling may indicate that the Goldman and Brown families do not have a strong case. However, this is not accurate. What the Judge was merely stating was that the lawsuit was filed in the wrong court and state. In making this ruling, Judge Real was relying upon the long standing legal principle of personal jurisdiction. This principle, along with its closely related sibling, subject matter jurisdiction, has been confusing legions of law students and attorneys for years.

Before a judge can hear any case, these two legal hurdles must be jumped. The court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the lawsuit and the court must have jurisdiction over the parties to the lawsuit. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to hear a particular matter. Generally, state courts and federal courts settle different types of cases. For example, a bankruptcy matter is based upon federal law, so a federal court, as opposed to a state court would hear such a matter. Conversely, a divorce case is a state matter so a state court as opposed to a federal court would have subject matter jurisdiction. Once it is determined that the court has the authority to hear and resolve a specific legal matter, it must be determined if the court has the legal ability to impose its ruling over the parties. This involves the issue of personal jurisdiction.

Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to impose its ruling on the parties. Without personal jurisdiction over both parties to a lawsuit, the court has no legal right to hear the case. Personal jurisdiction is determined by reliance upon the old legal test of “minimum contacts.” This test simply asks if both parties have sufficient contact with the state that the lawsuit is being filed in so as to allow the court to hear the case. This test is usually satisfied if the parties live in the state or do a substantial amount of work in the state or if the controversy giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in the state.

In the Simpson matter, the lawsuit apparently did not meet the requirements of the test and was dismissed. By dismissing the case, the Judge was not making a statement as to the merits of the case, but was simply stating that Simpson and Goldman did not have sufficient contact with California so as to allow the court to hear the case. Rather, in the Judge’s opinion, the proper state to hear the case would be Florida, where Simpson lives. Despite Simpson’s attorney statement that the Goldman and Brown families got “kicked out to the curb,” this matter is far from over and I expect that a Judge in Florida will soon have this matter in his or her court.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites