David, an Alabama resident, files suit in an Alabama court against QuickAds, an internet company based in Georgia that provides advertising services. QuickAds only contact with persons in Alabama has been through QuickAds passive advertising. The Alabama court is
a) likely to have jurisdiction if the claim David brings is based on QuickAds advertising scheme in Alabama.
b) not likely to have jurisdiction over the case because QuickAds is based in Georgia.
c) likely to refer the case to a higher district court.
d) likely to refer the case to an appellate court.

b) not likely to have jurisdiction over the case because QuickAds is based in Georgia.

Explanation:

The Alabama court only has jurisdiction in actions that were performed within the boundary of the state of Alabama. Although David is a resident of Alabama, his law suit is likely due to actions carried out in Georgia where QuickAds the internet company is based.

Also QuickAds only contact with persons in Alabama has been through QuickAds passive advertising.

In this scenario the case can be tried in federal court because it can handle cases across state borders.

B) not likely to have jurisdiction over the case because QuickAds is based in Georgia.

Explanation:

Before a state court can serve an out of state defendant, it must have jurisdiction over the out of state defendant. In order for the court to be able to exercise jurisdiction, the defendant must have minimum contacts with the state.

Minimum contacts refers to :

Since QuickAds doesn't qualify as having minimum contacts, it cannot be served by an Alabama court.

answer///the factor market;