Facts of the case
My business is a company located in Virginia, USA. It carries out its business mainly within the state of Virginia, but some of its products are consumed outside the state. However, the company owners do not want any part of the company to be subjected to service outside Virginia’s boundaries. Thus, it seeks to use the state’s long-arm statute to protect its business.
The Long-Arm Statute of Virginia
The business is subject to the requirements under the VA ST 8.01-328.1 (2003), which is the Long-Arm Statute in the state of Virginia (Smithers, 2005). The statute gives courts in the state the right to exercise “personal jurisdiction” over an entity or person who acts directly or through an agent to result in an action that may arise from the entity’s or a person’s transacting business or contract to supply goods or services in the state. In the case of a company resident in Virginia and soliciting for business outside the commonwealth of Virginia, it is possible to ensure that only the Long-Arm of Virginia are applicable and avoid subjecting the company to services outside the commonwealth. In this case, clause 4 of the Long-Arm Statute of Virginia (VA ST § 8.01-328.1 2003) is the most applicable clause in protecting the company from outside statutes (Smithers, 2005).
The clause states that a court in Virginia has the right to exercise personal jurisdictions over an entity that acts directly or through an agent in a manner that causes an action that may arise from the entity’s involvement in causing tortious injury in the state when the act is omitted outside the state. The main condition is that the entity should be doing or soliciting business or derives revenue from selling products and services within the state (Smithers, 2005).
Since the company is mainly doing business in the state of Virginia and most of the products are consumed in the state, the section will apply. In this case, the statute provides the company a chance to seek legal protection as a remedy when it is involved in an action that causes tortious injury outside the state. The company’s remedy is to quote this clause and seek the courts to rule in favor of the company. However, the court in Virginia will use this chance to allow the prosecution to use this chance in placing their claims against the company. Thus, the case will be heard within the state, which means that the defendants outside the state will have to file the case within the commonwealth of Virginia.
Secondly, clause 5 of the Long-Arm Statute of Virginia (VA ST § 8.01-328.1 2003) is also applicable in protecting the company from subjection to services outside the commonwealth. For instance, the clause gives Virginian courts the right to give personal jurisdiction over an entity or person who causes injury within the state to any other party through the breaching of warranty that is expressed or implied through the sale of goods outside the state. The condition is that the appealing person or entity should have expected the inured party to use, consume, or be affected by the products in the commonwealth provided that the injured also does or solicits business or derives revenue from the products consumed within the state (Hawkens, 2003).
This implies that the company will be allowed to file a petition seeking to forward the case to be heard in Virginia and not outside the state if the injury occurred to a person or entity when it consumed or used the product obtained from within the Virginian territories, but the effect occurred when it was outside. In addition, it can protect the company from facing services outside the state if the individuals affected by the products or services were not residents of the state, but obtained the products from the state or an agent soliciting business outside the commonwealth.
Conclusion
The company will have the right to petition the state to protect it from subjection to services outside the state of Virginia. In this case, the court will have the right to rule in favor of the company. However, the case will still be heard in Virginian states, and if found guilty, the company will meet the compensation and make payments within the state, which the state will then use to make compensation to the non-resident plaintiff. These clauses of the Virginian Long-Arm statute are concise with the minimal constant requirements that were set in the case law International Shoe Company v. The State of Washington (2003).
References
Hawkens, E. R. (2003). Virginia’s Domestic Relations Long-Arm Legislation: Does Its Reach Exceed Its Due Process Grasp? William & Mary Law Review, 24(2), 227-258. Web.
Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (2003). Web.
Smithers, J. W. (2005). Virginia’s “Long Arm” Statute: An Argument for Constitutionality of Jurisdiction over Nonresident Individuals. Virginia Law Review, 51(4), 712-718. Web.
VA ST § 8.01-328.1 2003. Web.