Challenging Jurisdiction & Arbitration in California: Legal Pointers for Jill's Case

Overview of Jill's Case

On challenging the jurisdiction of the court of England and asking the court to make proceedings in the case it has some jurisdictions, there some pointers Jill will need to be familiar with. There are two decisions published by the Courts Service on needed evidence for subject party such as Alexandria to attain judgment via the process of summary and therefore avoiding the expense and time of the plenary trial in recovering debt, such as the one Jill has withheld.

It will be necessary to note that the High Court of London confirmed the subject test that Alexander, as the plaintiff, will need to meet in amending a summary summons of including debt particularization, as a way of complying with some of the set out by the Supreme Court. The decision made in High Court was also inclusive of the welcome guidance on the manner in which cases can be pleaded in accordance to the decision made in the Supreme Court as well as the specific needed for the summary judgment.  

The Court of Appeal also made High Court’s decision in a subject case that an evidence of affidavit can be rather inadmissible as therefore, where this party looking for judgement is not a subject bank and the deponent it has been yet to exhibit evidence of the dealing between the sufficient parties enabling the Court of drawing an inference on the evidence that can be adduced in the claim’s support. In the case of Havbell DAC v Harris [2020], for instance, it will necessary for Jill to note that the High Court in this case allowed an applicant for the summary judgment in amending its summons as well as particularizing the claimed debt in taking to account what the High Court had explained as a “tangible development to the prior laws”, those that arise from the decisions made by the Supreme Court in the case Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v O'Malley [2019].

It may be  noted in this case how the Court made  the verdict that subject plaintiff managed satisfying the test, the threefold one, for the amendment of the pleadings; explanation, arguability as well as some lack of a prejudice that is essentially irredeemable. There were also some inconsistencies the Court had also noted with regard to the degree of detail of the needed debt that may need to be included in the summary summons, ones Jill may also use to her advantage. The Court held this could seem rather unfair in visiting some of the inconsistencies in the legal systems on the general litigants or the plaintiffs here in specific.

Legal Requirements for Amending a Summary Summons

It may be unfortunate for Jill to note that the plaintiff was successful in their amendment application, but its rather fortunate that the Court managed to award the application’s costs to subject defendant in the noting that the objections was essentially unsuccessful although not rather unreasonable. It may also seem that the subject characterization can be rather limited to subject defendant in the case, one that was the initial application of the amendment after the decision of the Supreme Court in the O’Malley case. Any following unsuccessful goal to the amendment can justify a costs’ award from the subject objector, with the objection that can be looked at as being rather unreasonable with regards to the judgment.

The High Court also made the acknowledgement of the rather voluminous access to case laws on the issue of the test for, as well as the procedure placed in, summary judgment applications. The High Court managed to express some desire of cutting through the subject complexity through the setting out in the test for the parties looking to obtain the summary for judgments. These include the claim of Alexander, as the plaintiff, to be sufficiently particularized and pleaded with regards to the case, the need of the plaintiff to adduce evidence that established a subject prima facie case, as well as the court needing to inquire whether there had been a reasonable and fair chance of subject defendant having some real or rather bona fide defense, and the defendant need to show that such will go beyond assertions and will also need the presence of evidence.

Jill will need to be familiar with the fact that the High Court of London every limb of this testing on the facts of case prior to it, although this will be the guidance for the initial limb of subject test that was most embraced by the parties looking in recovering the debts via the process of summary.  The High Court also looked advice from the ruling of the Supreme Court in the O’Malley case that the claim was particularize in a sufficient that could have otherwise been directly achieved in pleadings or indirectly through an inference of noted document.  In the O’Malley case, the Supreme Court held which the pleadings needed to specify the manner in which the interest was charged in periodical intervals. The High Court managed confirming that such  a requirement or the specifications is not a single one that could be considered as an issue of evidence that should be handled at later stages of the cases preceding the pleadings which had been exchanged.

Importance of Particularizing the Claimed Debt

The High Court made a reference to some of the more recently made decisions made in the Supreme Court in the case Bank of Scotland v Fergus [2019] that could be elaborated on the needs set out in the O’Malley case. For the Fergus case, the Court made the notion that the plaintiff need to have a clear basis on what is owed, something Jill will also need to keep in mind. The High Court also noted that this impact of subject decision made by the Supreme Court for Fergus was that pleadings needed to include some specifics that placed the lender in some position where some individualized basis they saw where some mistake had been made or in the case where the interest was overcharged or the penalties had been misapplied.  

It will also be necessary for Jill to consider the Harris case in her pursuit of challenging the jurisdiction of the English Court. In the case, the High Court noted which the plaintiff failed not meeting the needs that had been set up in Supreme Court in the O’Malley due to the subject plaintiff in the summons it had, ones that had been referred to the opening balance that was not initial amount that was loaned by the amount that was present in the time of the plaintiff acquiring the interest it had in the loan of the borrower with regards the portfolio of the loan’s transaction. The High Court also made the verdict that, for some reason, it will not be necessary in granting summary judgment for the plaintiff.

In the situation where the concluded contract had made a containment of a provision that referred all the disputes to an arbitrator in California, there are some new obstacles the California Supreme Court = made to summary judgment that Jill will need to be familiar with. Firstly, according to federal law, the “stray remarks” made by Alexander made by the supervisors on decision-making processes unrelated to decisions in subject can be considered insufficient and irrelevant to a defeat of the motion for a summarized judgment. Jill’s lawyer will need to familiarize with the Reid vs. Google., where the California Court made limitations of the applications of the “stray remarks” doctrine in the discrimination of employment cases handled by California Law. The Reid case included a claim of age discrimination by the engineering director that worked at the company between 2002 and 2004. The subject plaintiff had the age of 52 at the time of hire. Reid’s first year performance was rather positive, but there were claims of him being too old for the “Google environment”.

Adducing Evidence for a Prima Facie Case

The plaintiff was removed from his duties after a year of his tenure and was advised to concentrate on the development of an in-house extensive program as well as some program of college recruitment. After a couple of months, at the time the senior recruitment management was looking into whether the plaintiff had an yearly bonus, one of the subject supervisors outline  the suggestion that she should have been treated in a consistent way will the situated performers. The same supervisor made a suggestion that Google need to also make an offer to Reid of a severance package as a result of the risk of a judge making the conclusion that it was necessary to act harshly.  

The case’s remarks are similar to those likely to arise in Jill’s case with Alexander. It was a month afterwards, the company fired Reid. Google made the indication that the plaintiffs that his job had rather been eliminated due to the company deciding not pursue the program of a graduate degree in-house. Even though he had been offered permission of pursing other positions at Google, there were emails between the heads of department that made an indication that doing so could be productive.  For instance, in a single exchange of emails, a head of department wanted to be ready for the interview with subject plaintiff. She also received the response that advised her on the manner she was to respond to the specific inquiries and making the conclusion that “we all reach to agreement on the elimination understanding of the job”.

The case may be to the advantage to Jill if handled in a Californian court. For instance, in the Reid case, the California Supreme Court did not agree with Google, and made the ruling that it’s the responsibility of the jury make decisions on the weight of giving such remarks. Subject court made the Verdi that motions of summary judgment needed to be chosen on some totality of existing evince, inclusive of any necessary remarks of discrimination. As was mentioned in the case, the evidence’s totality test was to in allowing the judges to remove the weak cases due to the test allowing  judges in considering that made subject comments , in the time of being made as related to some of the adverse decisions of the employment contract, and in what the context had been made.  It may be safe for Jill, in the situation, to expect her case to be handled as discrimination for case as far as her claim of the diamonds being fake is concerned, as the employer may have trouble acquiring a judgment of summary in her circumstance. The “totality of subject evidence” test may indeed be an absence of subject test in all and may make it a challenge to predict the manner the courts are likely to treat some specific cases.

Limitations of 'Stray Remarks' Doctrine in Employment Discrimination Cases

The question on the likely resolution of subject dispute can have a connection with European rules on allocating jurisdiction as well as questions on their significance due to being a resident of the US is a subject of consideration. For instance, it was noted how the Court of Appeal managed rejecting a challenge of jurisdiction and upheld subject summary judgment grant in the proceedings that claimed damages for starting Italian proceedings that breached the exclusive clauses of English jurisdictions, Barclays Bank Plc v Ente Nazionale di Previdenza [2016] EWCA 1261.

The case is proof of the fact that the contracting party (Alexander), may not always be respectful of the clause of jurisdiction in the subject contract, in the place where it can reason that there can be some advantage in coming up with the proceedings in some other jurisdiction. The difference between this case and the case of Jill vs. Alexander is that the mentioned case is within EU Member States. It was well established in the Barclays Bank Plc case that, in the case where another jurisdiction is other EU Member, this English court may always aspect an injunction of anti-suit in preventing some type of counterparty with the ones proceeding. However, as was indicated by the made decision, the party that was wronged can come proceeding in the selected court looking for the damages for a breach in the subject clause of jurisdiction, and the selected court can grant some type of judgment on the basis of a summary.

On the other hand, in this subject case Jill faces, the likely decision also stood out as being of interest in the demonstration that, if the subject proceedings  get amended towards introducing a new subject claim that is similar to a claim that had already been brought to US as country that is not a Member  State of the EU, the question  of the level of court that will first be seized  may be  determined by some type of reference to the time when Alexander’s claim was brought into perspective, as opposed to subject proceedings in general.  

Therefore, in this subject case, even though the Californian proceedings will be first within time, the London court can first be seized of the claim which can be added to Californian proceedings by the amendment. However, the decisions cannot be last one of all subject issues. These will indeed some controversial aspects on which the opinions can differ as well as the need of seeking more guidance from the

Reid v. Google Case

The initial issue in the Court of Appeal may be in whether, during the proceedings in the High Court of London would be commenced; the court in California would be seized, or would be deemed as being seized, of claims put forward by Jill. The subject case at the time the court was seized of the proceedings on the amendment (and in the case where the position is different between Articles 27 and 28) may not be always clear. The decision made by the Court of Appeal, preceding the rather briefed look at the main involved authorities, for the main reason of the Article 27, a court would not be seized of the necessary claim until a subject cause of action is raised in some of the proceeding, as a way of making it able for the amendment day to ensue in the case its first made in subject proceedings. The made amendments to California’s proceedings proceedings the judgment in London was thereof no evidence of subject appeal. 

Employment Law. " California Supreme Court Creates New Obstacles to Summary Judgment for Employers." 2010 .

https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/california-supreme-court-creates-new-obstacles-to-summary-judgment-for-employers/ (accessed April 10, 2021).

BBC. "'Mad' Prince Hamlet was right all along ." September 24, 2014.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/shakespeare/60secondshakespeare/themes_hamlet.shtml (accessed April 2020).

California State University. "Global Strategic Management." 2019.

County of Santa Clara. "Judgment - Judicial Decision." 2021.

https://www.scscourt.org/self_help/small_claims/after_judgment.shtml (accessed Apr 10, 2021).

Deziel, Chris. "Information About the Four Regions in California." April 25, 2018. https://sciencing.com/information-four-regions-california-8166790.html (accessed Nov 28, 2019).

Europa.eu. "IoT Privacy, Data Protection, Information Security." 2020.

Freedman, Jeremy, and Jenn N. Crittondon. "Attacking Causation on Summary Judgment California Appellate Court Provides Guidance." November 2, 2020.

https://www.tysonmendes.com/attacking-causation-on-summary-judgment-california-appellate-court-provides-guidance/ (accessed Apr 10, 2021).

Hale, Christopher. "Does the evolution of international criminal ednd with the ICC? The Roaming ICC ": A Model International Criminal Court for State-Centric World of International Law." Mrach 27, 2008.

Herbert Smith Freehills . "Court of Appeal upholds summary judgment for breach of jurisdiction clauses." Dec 13 , 2016.

https://hsfnotes.com/litigation/2016/12/13/court-of-appeal-upholds-summary-judgment-for-breach-of-jurisdiction-clauses/ (accessed Apr 10, 2021).

Hurly, Enda, and Helen O'Connor. "Summary Judgment: Amendment of pleadings and the pitfalls of affidavit evidence." 2021.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e89d03a2-99ba-402a-9603-6aebdbc0e78f (accessed April 10, 2021).

McGinty, Valerie T., and Daniel U. Smith. "Summary Judgment Granted And You’re On The Ropes: Now What?" December 2016.

https://www.plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/summary-judgment-granted-and-you-re-on-the-ropes-now-what (accessed Apr 10, 2021).

Resposible Travel. "California geography." 2019.

https://www.responsiblevacation.com/vacations/california/travel-guide/california-geography (accessed Nov 28, 2019).

Superior Court of California . "Information For The Plaintiff & Defendant ." 2021.

https://www.scscourt.org/self_help/civil/lawsuits/plaintiff_defendant.shtml (accessed Apr 10, 2021).

Zaller, Anthony. "Five negotiation tactics used in mediations that litigants must understand." December 2, 2016.

https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2016/12/five-negotiation-tactics-used-mediations-litigants-must-understand/ (accessed Aug 27, 2020).