Upon examining jurisdiction and any exposure, we next evaluate the settlement value of the case, and outline defense strategies to eliminate unnecessary depositions or needless discovery.

Our extensive trial experience permits us to rule out unnecessary discovery and expense.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Upon receipt of all new cases, we immediately and thoroughly analyze whether the plaintiff or petitioner has commenced the action within the applicable statute of limitations, obtained personal jurisdiction over the defendant, placed the action in the proper venue, and selected a convenient forum.

We have won many motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. Examples of such dismissals are Philogene v. Fuller Auto Leasing,^[*21] Hayles v. Durenda^[*22] (holding that the plaintiff failed to effect service of process either personally or pursuant to the Business Corporation Law or the Civil Practice Law and Rules); Sewell v. Jones^[*23] (holding that the plaintiff failed to serve and file the summons and complaint pursuant to New York Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 253 and finding that there was no basis for jurisdiction).

Whenever possible, we remove cases to the more conservative United States District Courts and have won many battles against remanding the action to State Supreme Court, conclusively establishing diversity-based jurisdiction or other grounds for federal jurisdiction.

In the case of Carlos Seales v. Panamanian Aviation Company Limited,^[*24] Seales sued the defendant airline for injuries arising from his arrest and detention in Jamaica for illegal deportation and possession of a firearm and ammunition. Marguerite Peck successfully obtained a dismissal of the action based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and forum non conveniens grounds, which was unanimously affirmed by the United States Courts of Appeals, Second Circuit.^[*25]

In Singh v. Maresco^[*26] we successfully moved to dismiss an action against the New Jersey driver of our client's vehicle who was never served with the summons and complaint, even though the driver had permission to use the vehicle and the owner was properly served with the summons and complaint.