Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Marten v. Godwin: A Defamation Suit and Jurisdictional Issues

Plaintiff brought a defamation and constitutional violations action against defendants.

3 Pages513 Words498 Views
   

Added on  2022-11-16

About This Document

This article discusses the defamation suit filed by Craig Marten against Harold Godwin and others, and the jurisdictional issues that arose in the case. It also analyzes the court's decision on the matter.

Marten v. Godwin: A Defamation Suit and Jurisdictional Issues

Plaintiff brought a defamation and constitutional violations action against defendants.

   Added on 2022-11-16

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
Surname 1
[Name]
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Marten v. Godwin
Craig Marten, Plaintiff in this case and a resident of Pennsylvania filed a defamation suit
against Harold Godwin, Jack E. Finchuam, Ronald Regan, David Scholewburger, the University
of Kansas, and James Kleoppel who he named as defendants. Whereas the defendants are
domiciled in Kansas, this tortious claim was filed at the District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Reuters). The classification of the case therefore falls under torts law.
The plaintiff was a student at the University of Kansas, the first defendant being the
professor, the second dean of the program, third director, and fifth an associate clinical professor.
After his admission to the program, the plaintiff received expulsion letter on account of a
complaint forwarded by Regan; the complaint centered on plagiarism on the part of Plaintiff. The
plaintiff alleged that he had initially complained about the grades he scored and time limit for
completing the coursework. According to him, his expulsion from the school was borne out of
acts of retaliation by the defendants as a consequence of his earlier complaints about the program
they offered. He alleged that his accusations were not only defamatory but also ran afoul to the
First Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In response, the defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on ground that court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.
After considering the motion the court rightly held that it lacked jurisdiction and held that
the Plaintiff did not evidence the jurisdiction as he had the burden of proof in that regard
Marten v. Godwin: A Defamation Suit and Jurisdictional Issues_1

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.