| Wrongful death lawsuit. Page 1 -19 - Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
wehwalt
 Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:33 am |
|
|
|
| MediumRareTBone wrote: | | dugo wrote: | | wehwalt wrote: | | victims cry wrote: | | Any idea why this was filed in CA rather the britaain??? k2 would nolt habve been subect to the same laws that favor the comp;ainant |
Well, what Beth and Dave are trying to say is that by filing in CA against Phil, K2 have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the CA courts and can be sued (and their attorneys served by mail). I'm not sure I buy this.
If Phil counterclaimed against K2, sure, there would be no problem with jurisdiction (I refer to personal jurisdiction throughout). But just because K2 file a lawsuit in California, I don't see that gives anyone leave to file an unrelated suit against them in California and expect to avoid personal jurisdiction problems. Really, a wrongful death suit is unrelated to a libel suit. I expect that Beth and Dave will lose again once K2's lawyers file their objections.
This is not an International Shoe case. K2 are not conducting business in California. They have been allegedly harmed by certain individuals, and they are going to one of the home states of the defendants to seek redress. That doesn't give all and sundry leave to file against them. |
Hmm, I am looking at Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods.. Know of any case where related/unrelated is defined?
What about the tolling agreement, isn't that a form of doing business on a related matter, as in capitalising on the natalee mistery they created? |
Hall v. LaRonde is interesting. |
I assume you're referrrng to this quote:
Specific jurisdiction may be asserted where the defendant has purposefully availed himself of forum benefits and the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 446.) Sufficient minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction exist where a nonresident "'deliberately' has engaged in significant activities within a state [citation] or has created 'continuing obligations' between himself and residents of the forum. [Citation.]" (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 475-476 [85 L.Ed.2d 528, 543].)
I don't think that is good enough. Kalpoes filed suit in the home forum of Dr. Phil, as supposedly injured parties. That is their only contact with Calif,so far as we know. The controversy does not arise out of their filing suit in Calif, it arises out of a tort they may have committed somewhere else
I don't think the wrongful death suit will fly on personal jurisdiction grounds. I expect a special appearance will be filed alleging lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service.
There is also a subject matter jurisdiction problem, and also forum non conveniens, as in NY. Same rationale as in the VDS case.
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 1234
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| dugo
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:21 am |
|
|
|
| wehwalt wrote: |
I assume you're referrrng to this quote:
Specific jurisdiction may be asserted where the defendant has purposefully availed himself of forum benefits and the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 446.) Sufficient minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction exist where a nonresident "'deliberately' has engaged in significant activities within a state [citation] or has created 'continuing obligations' between himself and residents of the forum. [Citation.]" (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 475-476 [85 L.Ed.2d 528, 543].)
I don't think that is good enough. Kalpoes filed suit in the home forum of Dr. Phil, as supposedly injured parties. That is their only contact with Calif,so far as we know. The controversy does not arise out of their filing suit in Calif, it arises out of a tort they may have committed somewhere else
I don't think the wrongful death suit will fly on personal jurisdiction grounds. I expect a special appearance will be filed alleging lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service.
There is also a subject matter jurisdiction problem, and also forum non conveniens, as in NY. Same rationale as in the VDS case. |
Thanks for you input wehwalt! If plaintiffs somehow overcome all these hurdles shouldn't CA apply relevant Aruban law in this case?
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MediumRareTBone
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:44 am |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | On this issue of personal jurisdiction, I'm deferring to the
opinion of the Law Professor from Emory University. It
seems quite simple really:
California case law does grant jurisdiction by consent
as a function of the Kalpoe brothers filing suit in Cali,
but that consent is limited to the parties to the original
case i.e. Dr Phil, Paramount et al
As third party Plaintiffs, the Holloways cannot come in
and use that consent to jurisdiction. |
I agree Heli. I cannot find case law to support the notion that jurisdiction is accepted for a claim of personal liability against a non resident who files suit of personal liability against someone else.
|
|
**Relentless**
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 3586
Location: celebrating with the Jayhawks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:52 am |
|
|
|
This was posted on the Front Page of Scared MonKKKeys
 Like JQK is some legal genuis 
We need a revised pic showing the two Kalpoe "mice"
with a mouthful of the Queef's ears
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23422
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| wehwalt
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:49 pm |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: | | wehwalt wrote: |
I assume you're referrrng to this quote:
Specific jurisdiction may be asserted where the defendant has purposefully availed himself of forum benefits and the controversy is related to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 446.) Sufficient minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction exist where a nonresident "'deliberately' has engaged in significant activities within a state [citation] or has created 'continuing obligations' between himself and residents of the forum. [Citation.]" (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 475-476 [85 L.Ed.2d 528, 543].)
I don't think that is good enough. Kalpoes filed suit in the home forum of Dr. Phil, as supposedly injured parties. That is their only contact with Calif,so far as we know. The controversy does not arise out of their filing suit in Calif, it arises out of a tort they may have committed somewhere else
I don't think the wrongful death suit will fly on personal jurisdiction grounds. I expect a special appearance will be filed alleging lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service.
There is also a subject matter jurisdiction problem, and also forum non conveniens, as in NY. Same rationale as in the VDS case. |
Thanks for you input wehwalt! If plaintiffs somehow overcome all these hurdles shouldn't CA apply relevant Aruban law in this case? |
Yes, I would expect so. While I am not admitted in California, the usual rule is that the substantive law of the place where the tort took place will govern. Lex loci delicti and all that.
And of course proving Aruban law and translating all the documents . . . basicly all the same objections and defensed JT put up in the other case apply here.
On the other hand, the libel case requires NO Aruban law, because the tort, if any, did not take place in Aruba. But if we get that far, I expect some interesting things to be filed by McGraw and Skeeters. Like that the Kalpoes have such a bad reputation that they are effectively "libel proof". It is like you can't slander say, Bin Laden, because he already has no reputation left to lose.
As for the tolling agreement, that is effectively part of the lawsuit. The law encourages settlement negotiations, and generally does not hold them against a party in any way. Being a plaintiff, or potential plaintiff, and engaging in settlement negotiations, is not considered doing business if you are not in the business of filing suits (i.e., landlord, law firm, collection agency, for purposes of such things as the Fair Debt Collection Act, let us say
I see next to no chance that Kelly will ever get anywhere with his case.
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 1234
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:31 pm |
|
|
|
John Kelly gets very far with these suits in terms of $$ in his
pocket.
Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway get nowhere except lighter in
their pocket books or the pocket books of whoever is underwriting
the huge expenses that must be incurred to launch these suits.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23422
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:04 pm |
|
|
|
Thanks a bunch wehwalt. It might be worth considering for K2 accepting the jurisdiction or be worth considering for HT to drop the suit quickly if it will be handled in CA under Aruban civil code.
The complaint is clearly unprepared to be handled under Aruban law. They point at and ask for the wrong things (aside from the funeral thingie).
It might cost a bit, but it will be an insurance for K2 against a civil liability suit drawn up by a serious Aruban lawyer and filed in Oranjestad.
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
I'm trying to get my head around a California Court being compelled to apply Aruban Law to the Wrongful Death Suit. How in the hell could that happen competently? I'm lost on that one.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23422
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:39 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | | I'm trying to get my head around a California Court being compelled to apply Aruban Law to the Wrongful Death Suit. How in the hell could that happen competently? I'm lost on that one. |
I would love to se the miffed faces of the jury trying to get their head around Aruban civil code.
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:44 pm |
|
|
|
| dugo wrote: | | Heli wrote: | | I'm trying to get my head around a California Court being compelled to apply Aruban Law to the Wrongful Death Suit. How in the hell could that happen competently? I'm lost on that one. |
I would love to se the miffed faces of the jury trying to get their head around Aruban civil code. |
Well, there's a world of difference between civil and common law
to begin with. I'm just imagining how that could even happen.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23422
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| wehwalt
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:06 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | | dugo wrote: | | Heli wrote: | | I'm trying to get my head around a California Court being compelled to apply Aruban Law to the Wrongful Death Suit. How in the hell could that happen competently? I'm lost on that one. |
I would love to se the miffed faces of the jury trying to get their head around Aruban civil code. |
Well, there's a world of difference between civil and common law
to begin with. I'm just imagining how that could even happen. |
It is all a matter of jury instructions, and it does happen that courts are called upon to apply foreign law. I'm just imagining all the documents from Aruba . . . just like JT pointed out.
And as for SM and their rats in a trap thing--does anyone really think that the Kalpoes' lawyer weren't fully aware that the suit would be filed against them? Dr Phil's lawyers were probably working hand in glove with JQK. What that says to me is that they aren't worried.
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 1234
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:26 pm |
|
|
|
| wehwalt wrote: | | Heli wrote: | | dugo wrote: | | Heli wrote: | | I'm trying to get my head around a California Court being compelled to apply Aruban Law to the Wrongful Death Suit. How in the hell could that happen competently? I'm lost on that one. |
I would love to se the miffed faces of the jury trying to get their head around Aruban civil code. |
Well, there's a world of difference between civil and common law
to begin with. I'm just imagining how that could even happen. |
It is all a matter of jury instructions, and it does happen that courts are called upon to apply foreign law. I'm just imagining all the documents from Aruba . . . just like JT pointed out.
And as for SM and their rats in a trap thing--does anyone really think that the Kalpoes' lawyer weren't fully aware that the suit would be filed against them? Dr Phil's lawyers were probably working hand in glove with JQK. What that says to me is that they aren't worried. |
In the numerous Causes of Action they name Beth Twitty in
nearly all of them, although they did not name her as a Defendant.
I feel the Kalpoes' attorney left her out knowing full well that that
forecloses her from gaining personal jurisdiction over the
Kalpoes with a third party suit. In reality, Beth Twitty is
probably the person who most often slandered J2K's; there
must be thousands of instances of her stating they drugged
Natalee, gangraped her, kidnapped her, were sexual predators
etc.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23422
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| wehwalt
Posted:
Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:59 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | | wehwalt wrote: | | Heli wrote: | | dugo wrote: | | Heli wrote: | | I'm trying to get my head around a California Court being compelled to apply Aruban Law to the Wrongful Death Suit. How in the hell could that happen competently? I'm lost on that one. |
I would love to se the miffed faces of the jury trying to get their head around Aruban civil code. |
Well, there's a world of difference between civil and common law
to begin with. I'm just imagining how that could even happen. |
It is all a matter of jury instructions, and it does happen that courts are called upon to apply foreign law. I'm just imagining all the documents from Aruba . . . just like JT pointed out.
And as for SM and their rats in a trap thing--does anyone really think that the Kalpoes' lawyer weren't fully aware that the suit would be filed against them? Dr Phil's lawyers were probably working hand in glove with JQK. What that says to me is that they aren't worried. |
In the numerous Causes of Action they name Beth Twitty in
nearly all of them, although they did not name her as a Defendant.
I feel the Kalpoes' attorney left her out knowing full well that that
forecloses her from gaining personal jurisdiction over the
Kalpoes with a third party suit. In reality, Beth Twitty is
probably the person who most often slandered J2K's; there
must be thousands of instances of her stating they drugged
Natalee, gangraped her, kidnapped her, were sexual predators
etc. |
Entirely agree. They left her out. Very clever. Then they can depose her. Should be fun.
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 1234
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pawleys
Posted:
Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:33 am |
|
|
|
That was a great catch Heli!!
Have you seen the promos for his show?
In a way, it looks like they are trying to get Beth named in the lawsuit, yet it could be Dr. Phil doing a CYA??
(Acala posted all of it on the Dr. Phil thread)
:snip:
Dr. Phil saying to Beth:
"...they’re now contesting what was said and have sued this show and made allegations against me and you about tampering with the tape. How do you feel about the fact that they’ve sued the show over that broadcast that you and I did that day?”
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 6691
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| kimmy37
Posted:
Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:40 am |
|
|
|
If you think the Kalpoe brothers are going to get any money from their lawsuit against Dr. Phil, et al., hold your breath! I tend to agree with wehwalt’s post on Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:49 pm:
...But if we get that far, I expect some interesting things to be filed by McGraw and Skeeters. Like that the Kalpoes have such a bad reputation that they are effectively "libel proof". It is like you can't slander say, Bin Laden, because he already has no reputation left to lose…
Libel and Slander are hard to prove in U.S. Courts, so the Kalpoes will likely walk away empty-handed. However, they may gain something more valuable than money, if the case goes to trial. They may gain public approval and credibility in the U.S., which could benefit them immensely in their attempt to clear their name and/or prove their innocence (if in fact, evidence of a crime against Natalee is ever uncovered or produced).
|
|
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:20 pm |
|
|
|
If they had such a bad reputation in Aruba, we sure didn't hear
about it. We heard that Deepak and Satish were not known to
ALE and had never been in legal trouble before.
Beth did try to float some ridiculous stories about D&S having
been kicked out of Suriname (how dumb can she be to suggest
citizens can be deported from their own country) for having
perpetrated assaults against females much like what she alleges
they perpetrated on Natalee.
McGraw's attorney would no doubt attempt to use that argument;
proving that would be an entirely different matter. Beth already
tried it and failed.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23422
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:22 pm |
|
|
|
John Q Kelly told Greta on January 16, 2007 that the Wrongful
Death suit has NOT been served on the Kalpoes yet.
He claims personal service will be effected IN ARUBA shortly.
Is the long delay due to the red tape that has to be completed
with the aruban jurisdiction in order to secure someone to serve
the Complaint?
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23422
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jenna
Posted:
Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:20 am |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | John Kelly gets very far with these suits in terms of $$ in his
pocket.
Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway get nowhere except lighter in
their pocket books or the pocket books of whoever is underwriting
the huge expenses that must be incurred to launch these suits. |
I predict that eventually Beth and Dave will sue John Kelly for malpractice. That is just a layman's opinion based on common sense. Even if Kelly told them that these suits were long shots, I don't think that other attorneys will think that the facts of the case were strong enough to even warrant filing as a long shot. Even if Kelly makes the argument that he was just recommending any possible means of action to get information, there are standards. So far almost every legal expert has called his strategy "creative at best," that's not a good thing when it comes to law. Law is not about being creative. If Kelly wanted a career in creativity, he should have been a fiction writer.
|
|
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 3731
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:53 am |
|
|
|
John Q Kelly's Complaints in New York and California read more
like screenplays for an HBO movie of the week.
He's a BOOB!!
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23422
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jenna
Posted:
Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:19 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | John Q Kelly's Complaints in New York and California read more
like screenplays for an HBO movie of the week.
He's a BOOB!! |
I have heard of entertainment law - attorneys who represent the entertainment industry. But there is a new field, I guess - INFO-tainment law.
|
|
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 3731
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iquitos
Posted:
Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:16 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | | wehwalt wrote: | | Heli wrote: | | dugo wrote: |
I would love to se the miffed faces of the jury trying to get their head around Aruban civil code. |
Well, there's a world of difference between civil and common law
to begin with. I'm just imagining how that could even happen. |
It is all a matter of jury instructions, and it does happen that courts are called upon to apply foreign law. I'm just imagining all the documents from Aruba . . . just like JT pointed out.
And as for SM and their rats in a trap thing--does anyone really think that the Kalpoes' lawyer weren't fully aware that the suit would be filed against them? Dr Phil's lawyers were probably working hand in glove with JQK. What that says to me is that they aren't worried. |
In the numerous Causes of Action they name Beth Twitty in
nearly all of them, although they did not name her as a Defendant.
I feel the Kalpoes' attorney left her out knowing full well that that
forecloses her from gaining personal jurisdiction over the
Kalpoes with a third party suit. In reality, Beth Twitty is
probably the person who most often slandered J2K's; there
must be thousands of instances of her stating they drugged
Natalee, gangraped her, kidnapped her, were sexual predators
etc. |
i think you nailed it heli.
|
|
beady eyed rat
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 14493
Location: nowhere man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iwabwu
Posted:
Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:12 pm |
|
|
|
McDonalds - with recent revelations about PVDS, Joran, & Natalee being seen together at the McDonalds at 4:00 a.m. Monday May 30th, it seems like that might be an option to prove the Kalpoes are innocent.
Where did they leave off Joran and Natalee? Or, did they?
Where did PVDS pick up Joran and Natalee? Where did he drop them off?
|
|
** Banned **
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 6314
Location: Third Rock From The Sun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GeorgiaMom
Posted:
Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:20 pm |
|
|
|
| iwabwu wrote: | McDonalds - with recent revelations about PVDS, Joran, & Natalee being seen together at the McDonalds at 4:00 a.m. Monday May 30th, it seems like that might be an option to prove the Kalpoes are innocent.
Where did they leave off Joran and Natalee? Or, did they?
Where did PVDS pick up Joran and Natalee? Where did he drop them off? |
Where are these recent revelations? Paul says 11 and Beth says 4. Is that the recent revelations?
|
|
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 4163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| charlierat
Posted:
Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:26 pm |
|
|
|
| iwabwu wrote: | McDonalds - with recent revelations about PVDS, Joran, & Natalee being seen together at the McDonalds at 4:00 a.m. Monday May 30th, it seems like that might be an option to prove the Kalpoes are innocent.
Where did they leave off Joran and Natalee? Or, did they?
Where did PVDS pick up Joran and Natalee? Where did he drop them off? |
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Wabbi, you're just going to jump all over this board with this monKKKey talk about "new evidence" aren't you? All of the witness statements that claim that Paulus stated that he picked up Natalee and Joran at McDonalds were available to ALE in June of 2005 and were investigated and determined to be unfounded.
In spite of what you and ViVi want the rest of us to believe, Paulus, himself, never made any such admission. If you don't believe me, go re-read his PV. If his PV had contradicted evidence that ALE had obtained through telephone wiretaps, he would not have been released from custody at his first hearing before a Judge of Instruction.
Bad news to you and the rest of your klan; Paul's re-arrest is not imminent.
|
|
** Banned **
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 6970
Location: If you don't know by now, don't mess with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| GeorgiaMom
Posted:
Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:51 pm |
|
|
|
| charlierat wrote: | | iwabwu wrote: | McDonalds - with recent revelations about PVDS, Joran, & Natalee being seen together at the McDonalds at 4:00 a.m. Monday May 30th, it seems like that might be an option to prove the Kalpoes are innocent.
Where did they leave off Joran and Natalee? Or, did they?
Where did PVDS pick up Joran and Natalee? Where did he drop them off? |
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Wabbi, you're just going to jump all over this board with this monKKKey talk about "new evidence" aren't you? All of the witness statements that claim that Paulus stated that he picked up Natalee and Joran at McDonalds were available to ALE in June of 2005 and were investigated and determined to be unfounded.
In spite of what you and ViVi want the rest of us to believe, Paulus, himself, never made any such admission. If you don't believe me, go re-read his PV. If his PV had contradicted evidence that ALE had obtained through telephone wiretaps, he would not have been released from custody at his first hearing before a Judge of Instruction.
Bad news to you and the rest of your klan; Paul's re-arrest is not imminent. |
Not only that charlierat, he was removed from suspect status. I think that speaks volume. If he had Natalee in his car at anytime, he would still be a suspect right along with J2K.
|
|
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 4163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
