Legal Case Law: Understanding Rule 12(b)(3) and Civil Rights Act

Legal case law
Legal case law
Legal case law
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a
short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of
the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the
contents of the document.]
[Type the document
subtitle]

Question 1
1) Court may accept the objection made by Denial regarding the improper venue as per the Rule
12(b)(3) because the suit can be filed at the place where contract has been initiated or at the
place where the party in default resides (Barriage, Harger, & de la Peña McCook, 2016).
2) Court only may allow an alternative motion to the place at where the defendant is practicing his
business or he resides.
3) Court may also dismiss the suit on the basis of improper jurisdiction of lawsuit. Patricia cannot
file the case at Arizona due to the reason that Arizona law would be more favorable to her
(Barriage, Harger, & de la Peña McCook, 2016).
Question 2
1) As per the rule 12(b) (3), it is suggested that the Court if satisfied may accept the fact and
dismiss the case by considering the lack of subject matter. It is the best defense mechanism use
by the parties at any point of litigation.
2) Court shall consider that whether the trial Court has the power to entertain the suit or not. On the
basis of that point Court may dismiss the lawsuit.
3) It is a different concept from jurisdiction; it is the location of court where the trial of case
initiated. In case of improper venue, the Court may transfer the case to the proper venue instead
of dismiss the case.
4) Court may take the action to transfer the case at Court of Wisconsin as the case can be filed at
the place of business of defendant (Hamm, 2017).
Question 3
1. The civil Rights Act states that any discrimination on the basis of color, race, sex, religion and
national origin will not be accepted in any field. The given case is related to the racial
segregation. Pablo is good looking guy and it becomes a hurdle for him in his employment.
Irrelevant of the fact that he is the most qualified candidate for such job. The reason and
discrimination defined by Pablo is not justified and mentioned in the provision of Civil rights
(Hamm, 2017).