* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
L201919190161 ILKHOMOVA ODINABONU 1. HEADING US District Court (N.D.Cal. Trial court) Asante Technologies, Inc.v.PMCSierra,Inc 164F.Supp.2d 1142(2001) 2. STATEMENT OF FACTS Asante placed an order through Unique Technologies, located in California, and claimed that the goods did not meet its specification and filled suit in Califoria state court to have its claim decided under California law. A. The defendant’s confirmation states that the contract should be explained by the laws of Canada. B. The plaintiff’s choice of applicable law adopts California law. 3. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Asante filed suit in California state court to have its claim decided under California law . The Defendant removed the action to the ditrict court and now Asante requests that the case be remanded back to Superior Court of the county of Santa Clara 4. LEGAL ISSUE Which place had the closest relationship to this contract ( The plaintiff contends the United States did)? 2. Wheather the CISG is applicable to this case ( Plaintiff’s choice of applicable law generally adopts the “law of” the state of California)? 3. Should this case be remanded back to state court (wheather the federal court had jurisdiction over this case)? 1. 5.ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES Asante (plaintiff) PMC (defendant) Plaintiff argues that the The defendant’s two places of parties can “opt out” of the CISG by using a choice of the law clause business: Canada and the Oregan branch Canada is the place of business which has the closest relationship to the contract 6.RULE OF LAW 7.HOLDING OF THE COURT Yes , federal jurisdiction over claims governed by the CGIS exists, since the CGIS is an international convention ratifield by the US 8.REASONING OF THE COURT CISG applies to contracts between parties whose place of business are in different states In this case: Plaintiff’s place of business: California,USA Defendant’s place of business: Canada Article 10 of CISG:if a party has more than one place of business,the place of business is that which has the closest relationship to the contract. 9. ADDITIONAL COMMENT The federal court had concurrent jurisdiction over this case because the applicable law was the CISG, an international convention ratified by the United States.