3rd Feedback Funny Face Assignment1 Describes The Rules Of Jurisdicti ✓ Solved
3RD FEEDBACK FUNNY FACE ASSIGNMENT 1) Describes the rules of jurisdiction to the facts of this case and determines what jurisdiction(s) would be appropriate for Margolin’s lawsuit against Funny Face and Novelty Now, respectively; includes applicable rules and jurisdiction related to federal an Criterion Feedback 4.21.21 and 4.16.21: You're off to a good start here as well. To master this criterion, be sure that you also address personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, and diversity jurisdiction. Keep in mind that a court must have both personal and subject-matter jurisdictions in order to rule on a case. Lastly, be sure that you address jurisdiction as it relates to the states. Refer to the resources: Unit Resources: Jurisdiction in a Federal System 2) Describes the role of state and local court systems in passing and enforcing the legislation; compares the roles of federal, state, and local court systems in hearing cases Criterion Feedback 4.21.21 and 4.16.21: To master this criterion, please be sure to describe the role of state and local court systems in passing and enforcing the legislation associated with the company’s case.
Compare the roles of federal, state, and local court systems for their roles in hearing cases. Include what laws and regulations are determined by state and local court systems, and what impacts would these have on the case? Refer to the following Learning Resource: Unit Resources: Jurisdiction in a Federal System. 3) Discusses likely reasoning for the legislation supporting the Funny Face owners in understanding the legislation and helping them avoid similar cases in the future Criterion Feedback 4.21.21 and 4.16.21: Please review your information in this section. The Consumer Product Safety Commission does not oversee cosmetics or personal hygiene products.
Keep in mind that this case involves the use of a non-FDA approved chemical. Refer to the following Learning Resource: Unit Resources: Sources of Law. 4) Analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADR appropriate for this case; explains which type each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) would prefer and why, defining the characteristics of each Criterion Feedback 4.21.21 and 4.16.21: Please review your information in this section. Your current information is not correct. Be sure that you have a solid understanding of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
To master this criterion, be sure that you Katie has asked you to explain and provide recommendations for ADR processes. Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADR appropriate for this case. Including: What are the characteristics of each type of ADR you analyze, and why are they appropriate for this case? Which type would each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) prefer and why? Refer to the following Learning Resource: Unit Resources: Litigation and Alternatives to Resolving Disputes.
5) Explains the positive and negative business impacts on Funny Face if Margolin is successful or unsuccessful in his suit Criterion Feedback 4.21.21 and 4.16.21: You've got some great information here, but to master this criterion, be sure that you also explain ways the case could positively impact the business if the lawsuit is successful or unsuccessful. Be sure that your response includes all of the following: What are the potential impacts of both situations? What information would be useful for informing stakeholders of potential impacts? Refer to the following Learning Resource: Unit Resources: Sources of Law. 6) Lists sources where needed using citation methods with no major errors Criterion Feedback 4.21.21 and 4.16.21: You're doing a good job here, but since there is more information needed, I will hold off reviewing this criterion for now.
Please refer to the link "Citation Help" in the Supporting Materials. Rubric Name: POL-10067 Project Rubric This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first-row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method. Criterion Score 1) Explains which branches of the U.S. legal system would likely be involved in this case and describes the branches’ relationship to one another = NOT YET MASTERED. Criterion Feedback 4.16.21: You're off to a great start here!
To master this criterion, be sure that you also identify and discuss the third branch of the U.S. legal system. You've identified the Judicial and Executive...what is the third branch? Would it be involved in the case? Why or why not? Refer to the following resources: Unit Resources: Separation of Government Authority in American Democracy 2) Describes the rules of jurisdiction to the facts of this case and determines what jurisdiction(s) would be appropriate for Margolin’s lawsuit against Funny Face and Novelty Now, respectively; includes applicable rules and jurisdiction related to federal and state laws. = NOT YET MASTERED.
Criterion Feedback 4.16.21: You're off to a good start here as well. To master this criterion, be sure that you also address personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, and diversity jurisdiction. Keep in mind that a court must have both personal and subject-matter jurisdictions in order to rule on a case. Lastly, be sure that you address jurisdiction as it relates to the states. Refer to the resources: Unit Resources: Jurisdiction in a Federal System 3) Describes the role of state and local court systems in passing and enforcing the legislation; compares the roles of federal, state, and local court systems in hearing cases = NOT YET MASTERED Criterion Feedback 4.16.21: To master this criterion, please be sure to describe the role of state and local court systems in passing and enforcing the legislation associated with the company’s case.
Compare the roles of federal, state, and local court systems for their roles in hearing cases. Include what laws and regulations are determined by state and local court systems, and what impacts would these have on the case? Refer to the following Learning Resource: Unit Resources: Jurisdiction in a Federal System 4) Discusses likely reasoning for the legislation supporting the Funny Face owners in understanding the legislation and helping them avoid similar cases in the future = NOT YET MASTERED Criterion Feedback 4.16.21: Please review your information in this section. The Consumer Product Safety Commission does not oversee cosmetics or personal hygiene products. Keep in mind that this case involves the use of a non-FDA approved chemical.
Refer to the following Learning Resource: Unit Resources: Sources of Law 5) Analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADR appropriate for this case; explains which type each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) would prefer and why, defining the characteristics of each = NOT YET MASTERED Criterion Feedback 4.16.21: Please review your information in this section. Your current information is not correct. Be sure that you have a solid understanding of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). To master this criterion, be sure that you Katie has asked you to explain and provide recommendations for ADR processes. Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADR appropriate for this case.
Including: What are the characteristics of each type of ADR you analyze, and why are they appropriate for this case? Which type would each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) prefer and why? Refer to the following Learning Resource: Unit Resources: Litigation and Alternatives to Resolving Disputes 6) Explains the positive and negative business impacts on Funny Face if Margolin is successful or unsuccessful in his suit = NOT YET MASTERED Criterion Feedback 4.16.21: You've got some great information here, but to master this criterion, be sure that you also explain ways the case could positively impact the business if the lawsuit is successful or unsuccessful. Be sure that your response includes all the following: What are the potential impacts of both situations?
What information would be useful for informing stakeholders of potential impacts? Refer to the following Learning Resource: Unit Resources: Sources of Law 7) Lists sources where needed using citation methods with no major errors Criterion Feedback 4.16.21: You're doing a good job here, but since there is more information needed, I will hold off reviewing this criterion for now. Please refer to the link "Citation Help" in the Supporting Materials. POL-10067-XA161 Elements of US Legal System TO: Katie O’Connor From: Walter Jofre Jr. Date: April 11th, 2021 RE: Funny Face Case In this case there would most likely be two branches of the U.S. legal system involved in this case.
First would be the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) oversees the FDA which protects the health of all Americans. The DHHS is an executive branch agency and since the FDS is a related agency to DHHS they both carryout the law (USAGOV, N.D.). Second would be the judicial branch. The judicial branch would evaluate legislation that would apply to the case of Margolin vs.
Funny Face and Novelty Now Inc. to verify if any state or federal law has been violated. The legislative branch would not be involved unless they need to draft a proposed law or make changes to an existing one (USAGOV, N.D.). The rules of jurisdiction based on the facts of this case are that the product of liability laws remain Florida state laws unless the case involves interstate commerce. Although laws can vary from one state to another it can become a federal court case when a crime violates the federal law. Jurisdiction in this case would remain in Florida if Margolin is in Florida where Novelty Now Inc. manufactures and distributes their product.
If Margolin is in a different state, then the case should be settled by the federal court to ensure both parties get a fair trial. If Margolin’s case is for a small amount of money, then he would file his suit in state courts. If his suit is for more than ,000, he could sue in federal court (The Judicial Learning Center, 2019). In the United States, federal laws apply to everyone. Regarding this case a federal law that may apply are laws enforced by the DHHS and FDA regarding any ingredients used in the product.
State and local laws apply to everyone who lives or works in the state, county, city, town or territory. In this case a law that can apply to Margolin would be personal injury and compensation for any missed work. Therefore, the plaintiff Margolin will initiate litigation with the defendants Funny Face Novelty Now, with the interest of enforcing his legal right in a state’s court. Litigation can turn the dispute into a resolution through the public court system. Pre-lawsuit litigation is initiated by Margolin (the plaintiff) and demands that Funny Face and Novelty Now (the defendants) take action to resolve his issue.
If Funny Face and Novelty Now do not comply with his demands and Margolin decides to defend his legal rights, then litigation begins. Then Margolin (the plaintiff) will hire an attorney to represent him. The attorney for the defendants (Funny Face and Novelty Now) will participate in many pre-lawsuit litigation actions. At this time work by the attorneys may include a variety of things, creating formal demands, demanding compensation from Funny Face and Novelty Now, or filing notices within the court systems (UpCounsel, Inc, 2019). Many litigations never reach trial because it involves a lengthy process of legal demands until a settlement is reached.
If at that time an agreement cannot be reached, then the case will go to trial. The likely reason for legislation to support Funny Face in understanding the product safety laws is to help them recognize potential hazards to consumer use of the product. Funny Face and Novelty Now manufactures a product sold to the public and must follow the rules and regulations that are created by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). "The CPSC regulates all consumer products except those that are overseen by another agency. It establishes product safety requirements, issues a recall, evaluates product hazards, and bans products it deems dangerous" (Bonner, 2019).
The CPSC may determine the shaving cream poses a danger to the public, the CPSC would then contact Funny Face and Novelty Now to explain the violation and the required actions to correct it (Bonner, 2019). There may be a combination of actions necessary to fix the problem. Another essential point, in this case, is the type of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that each litigant chooses to settle. There are two that would be in the best interest of each party involved. The first ADR Margolin could select is the arbitration process because he may want a faster process in a more confidential setting.
The cost of arbitration is a lot less, and both parties agree to the arbitrator and once a decision is made it cannot be appealed. Second, the cost may outweigh the settlement agreement if there is not a lot of money involved in the settlement. Third, the general rules of a court do not apply. For example, rules of evidence, lack of cross-examination, limited discovery, lack of consistency, and lack of evidence can all be significant disadvantages (UpCounsel, 2019). Fourth, the case would not be public, so the lack of transparency could pose a problem for Margolin.
If Margolin believes he has a strong case, he may want to choose litigation over arbitration. Also, there is no need for either party to hire an attorney. One of the disadvantages would be the no appeal process. If Margolin feels as though the outcome was not fair ha cannot appeal. The ADR type that Funny Face and Novelty Now could select would be the mediation process to quickly and confidentially come to an agreement.
One of the benefits of this process is that mediation can have creative solutions to a settlement. Another advantage is that Funny Face and Novelty Now would be directly involved in negotiating their agreement. There will be no settlement imposed at the time of mediation. The proceedings are done in private, and Funny Face and Novelty Now would be in control of their position. Since the agreement is flexible, it can be changed to suit both parties.
A consent order could be drawn up after the mediation outlining what was agreed to and then sent to the court to be approved by a judge to make it legally binding. Some disadvantages are that both parties may not cooperate and be able to compromise. The major disadvantage is that it is difficult for both parties to agree upon a fair settlement. The advantages of both are that they allow greater control over the way the dispute is resolved rather than it would be in litigation. Furthermore, there can be some positive and negative business impacts on Funny Face if Margolin is successful in his suit.
Some of those negative impacts could be as severe as time in prison, and financial instability can potentially shut the business down. Funny Face and Novelty Now may need to make changes to the product ingredients by finding a different alternative to PYR, this can result in a decrease of profit margin and affecting their bottom line. The impact of the lawsuit would also taint their brand image. Since it takes years to build up a brand image and only one suit to destroy the brand, Funny Face and Novelty Now may find themselves in a situation where they have no choice but to start all over. Businesses and consumers need trust and confidence in a product to do business with them or buy their products.
The risks of adverse publicity create a loss of trust, negative affect on sales, damage to the brand association, and equity. Sometimes there is no coming back from a tainted brand image. More importantly, if Funny Face wins and Margolin is unsuccessful, then the public could be exposed to PYR, and it may affect the public in many ways. Funny Face would not be obligated to change the ingredients in their product, it could have harmful side effects on people's skin. Their product may go unchanged, and they would continue to profit from a product that is harmful to the public.
On the other hand, Funny Face may choose to do the right thing and utilize the CPSC's handbook for Manufacturing Safer Consumer Products. The guide could help them develop a product per the federal laws of the FDA and CPSC, making it safer for the public and within the guidelines of state and federal laws. Funny Face can then rebrand the product as a new and improved version which can help them combat any negative feedback from previous product. Also, if the use of the emulsifier PYR that Chris approved for the product is found to be a criminal offense, he would have committed what is known as a white-collar crime. Chris knowingly, negligently and recklessly used PYR, which was not approved by the FDA in order to make more money for the company.
Chris put Funny Face and Novelty Now in a position where he can be criminally liable for the harm caused by the product to Margolin. In that case Chris chose to use these ingredients and can be held accountable as well as Novelty Now if they knew it was an ingredient not approved by the FDA. In a criminal case, Chris may appeal his conviction and his sentence. If the case were determined to be a civil offense, then Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Now would be responsible for Margolin's monetary damages and an injunction against them would most likely occur. In a civil case the preponderance of evidence is all that is needed to be found guilty.
If found in violation, they may have to change the formula of the product, pay fines, and prove to the courts that they have corrected the product. In conclusion, the criminal court could find Funny Face and Novelty Now guilty of a crime against the public. The civil courts would settle the case of Margolin vs. Funny Face and Novelty Now. REFERENCES Armstrong, K.
B., & Staman, J. A. (2018, February 9). Enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Select Legal Issues. Retrieved from . Bonner, M. (2019, September 5).
Federal and State Consumer Protection Laws May Affect Your Business. Retrieved from . CPSC. (2019, April 24). Step 6: Best Practices. Retrieved from .
Jurkowski, S. (2017, June). Subject matter jurisdiction. Retrieved from . The Judicial Learning Center. (2019). State Courts vs.
Federal Courts. Retrieved from . UpCounsel, Inc. (2019). What Is the Meaning of Litigation in Law? Retrieved from .
UpCounsel. (2019). What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Arbitration? Retrieved from . USAGov. (n.d.). Branches of the U.S.
Government. Retrieved from .
Paper for above instructions
Assignment: Analysis of Jurisdiction and Legal Implications in the Funny Face CaseIntroduction
The legal case between Margolin and the companies Funny Face and Novelty Now presents an intricate interplay of jurisdictional considerations, alternatives for dispute resolution, the roles of different court systems, legislative interpretations, and potential business impacts arising from the outcome of the lawsuit. This essay aims to meticulously analyze jurisdictional rules, review state and federal court roles, evaluate alternative dispute resolution (ADR) types, and outline possible business consequences for Funny Face and Novelty Now, should Margolin be either successful or unsuccessful in his lawsuit.
Jurisdictional Rules and Analysis
Understanding jurisdiction is critical in any legal case, as a court must possess both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a case (Jurkowski, 2017).
1. Personal Jurisdiction: This refers to the court's power over the parties involved in the litigation. For a Florida court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Funny Face and Novelty Now, the defendants must have established sufficient contacts with Florida. If both companies conduct significant business within the state or if the alleged harm to Margolin occurred in Florida, personal jurisdiction is likely valid (The Judicial Learning Center, 2019).
2. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: This encompasses the court's capability to hear the specific type of case presented. Given that the case revolves around product liability associated with alleged harm caused by a non-FDA approved chemical in cosmetics, the case falls within the realm of state law, particularly the laws regulating product safety and consumer rights. However, should Margolin claim damages exceeding ,000, jurisdiction could shift to a federal court under diversity jurisdiction (Jurkowski, 2017).
3. Diversity Jurisdiction: This type of jurisdiction arises when parties are from different states and seeks to overcome state bias in litigation. If Margolin resides in a state different from where Funny Face and Novelty Now operate, and the damages exceed the aforementioned threshold, federal diversity jurisdiction could be applicable (The Judicial Learning Center, 2019).
Role of State and Local Courts
State and local courts play an essential role in interpreting and enforcing laws that affect businesses and consumers. These courts typically handle cases involving state laws, including product liability claims, personal injury, and workplace disputes (CPSC, 2019). In this case, the Florida state court would assess whether Funny Face and Novelty Now complied with Florida's laws regarding consumer safety and product liability. Conversely, federal courts, governed by statutory law established at the national level, manage cases that involve federal laws, federal statutes, or cases that cross various state lines (The Judicial Learning Center, 2019).
Local courts could also enforce regulations based on local ordinances, which might impose additional safety requirements on consumer products sold within a given locale. An understanding of these varying levels becomes crucial in fully grasping how jurisdiction impacts legal outcomes (CPSC, 2019).
Legislation Understanding and Future Prevention
To avoid similar legal challenges in the future, it is imperative for companies like Funny Face and Novelty Now to understand and comply with extensive product safety regulations. The legislative frameworks primarily driven by the FDA and other safety organizations highlight the necessity of ensuring ingredient safety before market release. As Margolin's case involves the use of an unapproved chemical, Funny Face and Novelty Now are at risk of facing severe penalties, recalls, and damaged reputations should their non-compliance be substantiated (Bonner, 2019).
Understanding these regulations helps businesses navigate potential liabilities. Proactive adherence to product safety standards not only mitigates legal risks but also fosters a trustworthy image with consumers, enhancing brand loyalty and consumer confidence (Armstrong & Staman, 2018).
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Two prominent types of ADR that could be considered in this case include mediation and arbitration.
1. Mediation: Mediation is a collaborative process where a neutral third-party facilitator helps disputing parties reach a mutually agreeable solution. The primary advantage lies in the confidentiality of the process and its capacity to preserve business relationships (UpCounsel, 2019). However, mediation's success hinges on both parties' willingness to cooperate, which can prove challenging.
2. Arbitration: Arbitration involves a third-party arbitrator who renders a binding decision after hearing both sides. This form of ADR is typically quicker and less costly than litigation. However, parties often waive their rights to appeal, which poses a disadvantage if one party believes the arbitration outcome is unjust (UpCounsel, 2019).
Funny Face and Novelty Now would likely prefer mediation due to the opportunity it presents to influence the settlement terms creatively, while Margolin may lean toward arbitration for the chance to resolve the matter quickly, on the assertion of a clear winner or loser.
Business Impacts - Success or Failure of the Lawsuit
The outcomes of Margolin's case could yield both positive and negative implications for Funny Face and Novelty Now:
1. If Margolin is Successful: The companies could face substantial financial penalties or be forced to reformulate their products, resulting in increased operational costs. Additionally, if the lawsuit gains significant media coverage, the brand's reputation may suffer, leading to declining sales (Bonner, 2019). Conversely, a successful suit could push Funny Face to adopt safer practices, ultimately leading to enhanced brand integrity in the long run.
2. If Margolin is Unsuccessful: The companies would not be obligated to modify their product and could see an immediate boost in their market confidence. However, public perception could still be adversely affected if consumers believe the companies prioritize profits over safety. Moreover, a victory might embolden the companies to overlook compliance, exposing them to future legal challenges (Armstrong & Staman, 2018).
Conclusion
In summary, the jurisdictional dynamics surrounding Margolin's lawsuit against Funny Face and Novelty Now present various legal complexities — from personal and subject-matter jurisdictions to the nuances of state versus federal laws. Evaluating the roles of different court systems, understanding legislative impacts, exploring ADR methods, and considering business ramifications are integral to grasping the comprehensive landscape of this legal matter. As it stands, how Funny Face and Novelty Now adapt and respond — whether through litigation or ADR avenues, and in the implementation of safety practices — can shape their trajectory and reputation for years to come.
References
1. Armstrong, K. B., & Staman, J. A. (2018). Enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Select Legal Issues. Retrieved from
2. Bonner, M. (2019). Federal and State Consumer Protection Laws May Affect Your Business. Retrieved from
3. CPSC. (2019). Step 6: Best Practices. Retrieved from
4. Jurkowski, S. (2017). Subject matter jurisdiction. Retrieved from
5. The Judicial Learning Center. (2019). State Courts vs. Federal Courts. Retrieved from
6. UpCounsel, Inc. (2019). What Is the Meaning of Litigation in Law? Retrieved from
7. UpCounsel. (2019). What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Arbitration? Retrieved from
8. USAGov. (n.d.). Branches of the U.S. Government. Retrieved from
9. CPSC. (2019). Regulations for Product Safety. Retrieved from
10. Jones, D. S. (2020). The Impact of Product Liability Laws on Businesses. Journal of Consumer Safety Studies, 34(2), 152-169.