While driving his car in Virginia, Carpe Diem, a resident of North Carolina, struck Butt,

a
Explanation
No, not unless Carpe Diem arrives in Alaska and is served. Butt could only obtain proper service on Diem for the purposes of suing Diem in an Alaska state court if Diem entered the state and Butt served him while he was inside the state. Butt could not obtain service under a long-arm statute because there was no real connection between the events leading up to the lawsuit and the State of Alaska. If the case could be tried in Alaska, the court would apply Virginia law under conflict of laws rules.

Reference

Spencer, A. B. (2019). The Territorial Reach of Federal Courts. Fla. L. Rev., 71, 979.

Answer
No, not unless Carpe Diem arrives in Alaska and is served. Butt could only obtain proper service on Diem for the purposes of suing Diem in an Alaska state court if Diem entered the state and Butt served him while he was inside the state.

b
Explanation
Since he spent a lot of money to cater for the medical bills then he should know that ,It's important to note that if your medical bills exceed a certain amount (or your injuries qualify as sufficiently serious) you'll be able to step outside the no-fault system and file a traditional liability claim against the at-fault driver, but this process will almost certainly take a while to resolve.

In any car accident there is a non-fault or at-fault circumstance, if there is no fault then he will not claim anything from Diem and his car insurance company is supposed to cover for the damages that has occurred until some point .But if Diem is found faulty then his car insurance company is supposed to pay for the damages and the medical bills refund . Failure for the insurance company from Diem company to pay for the damages will lead to Butt suing him to the Ninth circuit court of appeals even though it might take time , not less than one year to resolve the case.

c
Explanation
SOLUTION

From the information in the question above, we can analyze the scenario and solve the problem given as follows.

To begin with;

City V State trial court:

Driver B can only sue driver CP in City Vs State trial court if it has both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the driver CP. The City V's State trial court has subject matter jurisdiction through concurrent jurisdiction because driver B and driver CP are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

The City V State trial court could only have personal jurisdiction over driver CP if he is temporarily present in City V and driver B personally serves him while he is in City V or if a long- arm statute exists that would provide such jurisdiction. Under the facts provided, driver B could demonstrate that driver CP has sufficient contacts with City V to exercise jurisdiction over him because he committed an alleged tort (the accident) in City V.

Answer

From the information in the question above, we can analyze the scenario and solve the problem given as done below.