Analysis of Marten v. Godwin: Defamation and Jurisdiction

This case study analyzes Marten v. Godwin, a defamation lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania against defendants domiciled in Kansas. The plaintiff, a former University of Kansas student, alleged defamation and First Amendment violations, stemming from his expulsion following plagiarism accusations and prior complaints about the program. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, focusing on personal jurisdiction. The court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction, citing the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate the necessary jurisdictional basis, distinguishing the case from Calder v. Jones. The analysis examines the legal arguments, the application of relevant case law, and the court's reasoning in dismissing the case due to lack of personal jurisdiction. The conclusion supports the court's legally sound judgment, emphasizing the importance of establishing jurisdiction and the proper application of legal precedents.

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

Surname 2
pursuant to a finding in Gen. Elec. Co. v. Deutz AG. This was despite the Plaintiff’s relied on
Calder v. Jones; in which case it was held that a plaintiff can only demonstrate existence of
personal jurisdiction by satisfying the effects test. He had to establish that the alleged tortious
acts by the defendants were expressly aimed at Kansas, the state which domiciles the forum
where the case was filed. In that regard the court was not directed based on material before it that
the defendant discharged the burden of proof that is required.
In conclusion, it is inevitable that the court made a legally sound judgment on jurisdiction
which judgment I agree with. It was not only based on consideration of cases by the apex court
but also distinguishing inapplicable authorities. Furthermore, evidence was analyzed in light of
obtaining circumstances.

Surname 3
Work Cited
Reuters, Thomson. “Marten V. Godwin”, Findlaw for legal professionals. 11th September 2019
< https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1338838.html >.
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Deutz AG, 270 F.3d 144, 150 (3d Cir.2001).
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984).