Paula sues Daniel, a New York domiciliary, in Hawaii state court Paula sues Daniel, a New York domiciliary, in Hawaii state court. Daniel challenges jurisdiction in Hawaii, but the trial judge erroneously (that is, incompatibly with the doctrine of International Shoe and its confusing progeny) denies Daniel’s motion to dismiss. Daniel takes no further action in the case, and the court enters a judgment of $30,000 against him. Paula, unhappy with the amount of the judgment, brings a new action on the same claim in New York, seeking $150,000. On Daniel’s motion to dismiss, the court should

A. deny the motion because Hawaii had personal jurisdiction over Daniel.

B. deny the motion because if Paula prevails in New York, the court will set off the $30,000 to account for the Hawaii judgment, thus preventing double recovery.

C. grant the motion because Paula’s original action in Hawaii prevents her from claiming that New York is a proper forum in which to sue on this matter.

D. grant the motion because Paula is precluded from seeking $150,000 damages from Daniel.

Pythagoras, a resident of Arizona, goes to New Mexico, where he negotiates and executes a contract for the sale of some Arizona real property with Demosthenes, a New Mexico resident. Pythagoras subsequently asserts that Demosthenes breached the contract of sale and instructs you, as his attorney, to commence an action immediately against Demosthenes in New Mexico state court for $85,000 in damages. You discover a New Mexico statute that purports to deprive the New Mexico courts of personal jurisdiction over any individual in cases involving out-of-state real property. If you nonetheless follow your client’s instructions and file the action, and if Demosthenes’ counsel subsequently moves to dismiss the action, the court will most likely

A. grant the motion because New Mexico controls the jurisdiction of its own courts, and the state is not compelled to exercise constitutionally permissible jurisdiction.

B. grant the motion because the courts of one state cannot exercise jurisdiction or control over real property located in another state.

C. deny the motion jurisdiction is clearly proper as a Category 1 case since Demosthenes is a New Mexico resident and the cause of action arises out of his in-state activities.

D. deny the motion because that Demosthenes’ execution of the contract in the state of New Mexico waives any jurisdictional protection that New Mexico law might otherwise have given him.