David, an Alabama resident, files a suit in an Alabama court against QuickAds, an Internet company based in Georgia that provides advertising services.QuickAds only contact with persons in Alabama has been through QuickAds’s passive advertising. The Alabama court is

a. likely to have jurisdiction over the case.
b. not likely to have jurisdiction over the case.
c. likely to refer the case to a higher district court.
d. likely to refer the case to an appellate court.

Based on the scenario being described within the question it can be said that the Alabama court is not likely to have jurisdiction over the case. Mainly due to the fact that the company that is being sued does not have a headquarters located in Alabama and does not physically or intentionally contact individuals from Alabama to conduct business with.

Answer Link

jepessoa jepessoa · Answer 2 · 2020-03-25T20:40:10+01:00

Answer:

B) not likely to have jurisdiction over the case.

Explanation:

Before a state court can serve an out of state defendant, it must have jurisdiction over the out of state defendant. In order for the court to be able to exercise jurisdiction, the defendant must have minimum contacts with the state.

Minimum contacts refers to

having direct contact with the state, e.g. offices
having a contract with a resident of the state, e.g. that includes employees
sell their products or services within the state
solicit to the residents of the state
satisfy the Calder effects test
have a non-passive website that can be accessed in the state.

Since QuickAds doesn't qualify as having minimum contacts, it cannot be served by an Alabama court.