Confusion: Trailer Hitches Facts: The State of

¶ … Confusion: Trailer Hitches Facts: The state of Confusion enacted a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use its highways to use a B-type truck hitch, which is manufactured by only one manufacturer in confusion. As a result, truckers either have to avoid Confusion or have the hitch installed. The federal government has not attempted to regulate truck hitches on the nation's highways. Tanya Trucker, a trucking company owner in the state of Denial, intends to file suit against Confusion to overturn the statute.

What court has jurisdiction over the dispute? Is the Confusion state statute Constitutional? Reasoning: Determining the court of original jurisdiction is a matter of examining the applicable statutes. Under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332(a)(b), the federal courts have original jurisdiction over lawsuits where the parties are citizens of different states, if the amount in controversy is at least $75,000. Under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1331, the district courts have original jurisdiction over all actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

However, Tanya's lawsuit is against the state. U.S. Const. amend. XI prohibits lawsuits by citizens against states in federal court without a waiver by the state. The stripping doctrine permits those suits if they are against a named official, rather than against the state itself. Therefore, determining jurisdiction is actually very complex. Turning to the constitutional issue, one must look at whether the state has the right to require those trailer hitches. Under U.S. Const. art.

I, § 8(3), commonly known as the Commerce Clause, states' rights to enact laws are limited if those laws would impact commerce. The clause specifically provides that The Congress shall have Power, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes" (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8(3). Furthermore, in Southern Pacific Co. v Arizona, the Court determined that state laws could violate the Commerce Clause even if they did not treat state citizens differently than non-citizens.

That lawsuit involved the legality of Arizona prohibiting freight trains with more than 70 freight cars from crossing the state, which would require railroads to disassemble their trains before coming into Arizona. The Court determined that the law interfered with the travel that is at the heart of interstate commerce, and, therefore, violated the Commerce Clause. Analysis: Although three courts could possibly exercise jurisdiction over the dispute, depending on the underlying facts, it is impossible to determine the answer from the factual scenario given.

First, Tanya is in Denial and it is a Confusion state law, so that the federal court for the jurisdictions of both Denial or Confusion could probably exercise diversity jurisdiction if the amount in question is $75,000 dollars, the amount in controversy established by 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332(a)(b). It would depend on the wording of Tanya's lawsuit, and comes down to a question of whether her damages in installing the truck hitches would meet that monetary amount.

Not knowing the size of Tanya's fleet, this is an impossible question to answer, but it seems unlikely that her suit could reach that dollar amount. Tanya could also choose to bring suit in a Confusion state trial court; this is her most secure option because she can bring suit against a state in its state court and will not have to meet the amount in controversy burden. The Commerce Clause gives the Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce between the states.

Interstate transportation, particularly transportation like trucking, which involves taking items for sale between the states, is one of the areas where the courts critically examine statutes to see if they would impair interstate commerce. This statute would require Tanya to either change her trucks or avoid going through Confusion in order to engage in her trucking business. This could impact the import/export of goods into and out of Confusion.

It could also require Tanya to take a longer route to deliver or pick up items from states other than Confusion. Therefore, it would obviously impact interstate commerce. Moreover, it does not appear that it would matter if the state had a rational basis for the law. The state law in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona was designed to reduce the likelihood of a particular type of railroad accident, but was still considered unconstitutional.

The Court seems to make the assumption that, if a regulation were required for health and safety, the Congress would enact it, and, if that has not occurred, a state law that impacts commerce, even if enacted for health and safety purposes, will not pass constitutional muster. Conclusion: A Confusion trial-level court will have jurisdiction over the lawsuit, and Tanya could bring suit in any jurisdiction through which she would travel for business. The Confusion state statute is unconstitutional.

Stages of a civil suit: According to attorney Damien Bosco, there are six stages to a civil lawsuit: pleadings, discovery, motions, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial. During the pleadings stage, the plaintiff files a complaint alleging the facts supporting the claims, and the defendant files an answer to the complaint, asserts any affirmative defenses and files any counterclaims. In stage two, discovery, the parties are entitled to get information from the other party, including depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and subpoenas. In stage three, motions,.