Final answer:
A plaintiff in Iowa might prefer a local court due to potential 'home court advantage', the convenience and cost of local proceedings, and the ability to present evidence to a jury that might share similar social or cultural views.
Step-by-step explanation:
A plaintiff in Iowa with a case against a New Jersey defendant might prefer to have the case heard in Iowa for several reasons. One key reason could be the concept of 'home court advantage', where the plaintiff may believe that a local Iowa jury and judge might be more sympathetic to their case. Additionally, it might be more convenient and less costly for the plaintiff to attend and manage the proceedings in their home state.
Another reason is related to the legal concept of 'diversity of citizenship', which involves parties from two different states, such as Iowa and New Jersey. Cases with diversity of citizenship can be heard by federal courts if the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000, but the plaintiff may opt for a state court if they think it offers a strategic advantage.
Also, the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the controversy exceeds twenty dollars. It's possible that in smaller disputes, a plaintiff might be more likely to opt for a judge trial in a state like Iowa rather than a jury, but in larger cases, they might prefer a jury of peers who are Iowa residents. The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff, so presenting evidence to a local jury, which might share similar social or cultural views, could work in the plaintiff's favor.