The Ninth Circuit is in the West. With that geography comes a certain familiarity with various jurisdictions. Even lesser-known, far-flung places like Guam, the CMNI, and Montana. (Just kidding, Montana.)
One jurisdiction, however, that I haven't read much about in the Ninth Circuit is central to this morning's opinion, which begins with:
"Björn Paulsson appeals from the dismissal of his
counterclaim seeking damages under § 242 of the Alberta
Business Corporations Act for breach of fiduciary duties
owed by directors of an Alberta company. The district court
dismissed Paulsson’s claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), concluding it did not have subject matter
jurisdiction to issue a remedy because the Alberta Act vested
exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of the Queen’s Bench of
Alberta."
Alberta, eh?
At the risk of revealing the fact that I'm a prototypically ignorant American, I'll concede that I had to look up to make sure that I knew were Alberta was.
See if you're as lame as I am: Do you know whether Alberta touches any states in the Ninth Circuit?
Here's your answer.
As for the merits of the case, to the surprise of few, the Ninth Circuit agrees with the district court that “the right
created by § 242 of the [Alberta Business Corporations Act]
. . . can be enforced only in the designated tribunal—the
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta,” not the Central District of California.
So no sunny LA. beaches for the parties. Back to the frozen tundra of Calgary.
