• F – Facts: The relevant background information of the case, outlining what happened.
• I – Issue: The specific legal question that needs to be answered, derived from the facts.
• R – Rule: The applicable law (statute, precedent, etc.) that governs the issue.
• A – Analysis (or Application): The reasoning, explaining how the rule applies to the specific facts to reach a decision.
• C – Conclusion: The final outcome or holding of the case, answering the issue.

FIRAC Scenario

The End Zone Sports Bar (hereafter referred to as End Zone,) operates a restaurant and sports bar in Erie, Pennsylvania. They are famous for having the best wings in town, ice cold beer, and allowing patrons to place sports bets while various games play on a multitude of big-screen television sets. Because Erie, Pennsylvania is just a short drive along Lake Erie from Buffalo, New York, End Zone’s location places it within a larger Western New York metropolitan area. As such, End Zone actively directs its marketing campaigns at New York residents to attract customers to patronize its establishment.

End Zone advertises through print, radio, and television media in New York; it also engages in direct mailing campaigns targeted at New York addresses. End Zone also maintains business relationships with professional sports venues in New York and pays for a special area located inside Highmark Stadium (home to Buffalos beloved Buffalo Bills) known as the “End Zone Luxury Lounge” which features several rows of leather recliners from which to watch the game along with complimentary snacks. To facilitate the movement of customers between New York and Pennsylvania, End Zone operates a fleet of shuttle buses that ferry customers to and from Highmark Stadium. In the past, it has also donated large sums of money to political groups in New York that support its positions on sports betting and sports betting loss limit laws in New York.

Last year, Gregory Lemmon, a resident of Erie County, New York went to End Zone to relax, watch sports, and place football bets. He had previously seen and heard End Zone radio, TV, and print media advertisements in New York, and had also visited the End Zone Luxury Lounge while attending a Bills game at Highmark Stadium, having won access tickets after calling in to a local Buffalo radio show. Lemmon sat at a bar underneath the big screen televisions for several hours where he was served several alcoholic drinks. He had a good night placing bets and was pleasantly surprised to have won approximately $19,000.

End Zone offers patrons who win substantial amounts in sports bets a private room in the back of the facility in which to have their winnings counted, a security escort while the customer is still inside the establishment, and a security vehicle to follow his vehicle after it exits the parking lot to make sure the customer is not harassed or followed. It also offers to wire winnings directly to the customers bank. End Zone implemented this policy after several follow-home robberies. During those robberies, patrons had been targeted at End Zone, followed out of the establishment, and robbed after they had arrived at home.

Lemmon was visibly intoxicated when he cashed out his winnings and filled out the required tax form at a cashier station in public view. He then took a cab to back to his residence in New York. Two individuals who saw him cash out his winnings at End Zone followed Lemmon in a cab to his home in New York, where they beat and robbed him of all his winnings. He claims that the bar did not offer him any of its standard protections, even though End Zone was able to produce video surveillance footage from the bar floor showing Lemmon being followed by two individuals.

Lemmon sued End Zone in a New York court, alleging that the sports bar was negligent in not providing him with warnings of the prior robberies and for not protecting him from such activities. End Zone asserted that it offered to wire Lemmons winnings directly to his bank account.

In response to Lemmons lawsuit, End Zone filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the New York court did not have personal jurisdiction over the sports bar, a Pennsylvania corporation. Lemmon argued that New Yorks long-arm statute gave it personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant, End Zone.

Section 302 of New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR 302) is the states long-arm statute, which grants New York courts personal jurisdiction over non-residents (called non-domiciliaries in the statute) for certain specified acts, specifically where a non-domiciled defendant

1.transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state; or

2.commits a tortious act within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act; or

3.commits a tortious act outside the state causing injury to person or property within the state if he

(i)regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state, or

(ii)expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce;

You are the judge of the New York state trial court assigned to this case. How do you rule on End Zones motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction?

FIRAC Paper Directions

Because this is your first FIRAC paper, Im going to give you more guidance than youll receive later in the semester when you have more experience using the FIRAC model both to analyze the legal issues and to structure your paper.

While this paper raises many potential legal issues, I want you to concentrate exclusively on whether a New York state court has personal jurisdiction over End Zone, an out-of-state corporation. You’ll find all the legal rules you need to analyze the scenario in my lectures and other posted course materials — you do NOT and should NOT attempt to research this legal issue online. In addition,

Do NOT discuss whether Lemmon could also have sued in federal district court based on that courts diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
Do NOT discuss whether End Zone was properly served with notice of the lawsuit (service of process).
Do NOT discuss the legal standard for a court to grant a motion to dismiss (in New York state courts or anywhere else).
Do NOT discuss the negligence issues underlying Lemmons lawsuit against End Zone. You are not deciding whether Lemmon will win his lawsuit against the sports bar for the injuries he sustained in the robbery (including the theft of his winnings), only whether the New York state trial court has personal jurisdiction over End Zone, such that it may try Lemmons lawsuit.