Reference no: EM133197270

Amended question previoiusly asked:

Patrick and Danielle were students together at a Southern California law school. After graduation, they both took and passed the California Bar Examination. Danielle then returned to her home state of Texas, where she decided to become an investment counselor in Dallas.

Patrick remained in Southern California. Several years later, Patrick contacted Danielle to let her know that he would be visiting Texas for a legal seminar and would like to get together. Patrick went to Dallas, met with Danielle at her office, and learned about her work as an investment counselor.

Over dinner in Dallas, Danielle convinced Patrick to invest in WellCo, a Texas corporation. Danielle told Patrick that she could almost guarantee that WellCo stock would double in value, and that several of their other former law school classmates still practicing in Southern California also purchased WellCo stock through Danielle.

After Patrick returned home, he purchased 50,000 shares of WellCo stock at $2.00 per share. The stock became worthless, but not before Danielle sold all of her shares at a profit. Patrick learned that Danielle was WellCo's primary shareholder.

Patrick filed a fraud suit against Danielle in federal district court in California. Danielle challenged 1) personal jurisdiction, 2) subject matter jurisdiction and 3) venue. How should the court rule? Analyze the issues and explain your answer.