Civil
Procedure I University
of Mississippi
Fall
2007 School
of Law
Final
Exam Michael
H. Hoffheimer
General instructions
This
is a closed book exam.
Do
not remove the exam, blue books, or any exam materials from this room while you
are taking the exam. When you have
finished and turned in your answers, you may take these questions with you.
Do
not speak with any person other than the faculty member who is administering
this exam until you have turned in your exam answers.
This
exam consists of two parts. You will
have three hours to complete the exam.
Answer all questions. Do not
answer a question by referring to an answer to a different question.
Identify
yourself on your blue books only by your exam number. By placing your exam number on your blue book
and by submitting your blue book for credit, you are agreeing to the following
pledge as required by law school policy:
"On
my honor I have neither given nor received improper assistance. And I will report any improper assistance
that I am made aware of."
I. SHORT
ANSWERS (suggested time two hours for this part or ten minutes for each
question)
Instructions. Answer each of the following questions in
your blue book. Each question in this
part can be answered adequately with a short well-written answer that is not
longer than one paragraph.
1. Bob Buyer, a citizen of Illinois, entered
into a written agreement with Sal Seller, citizen of Tennessee, to purchase a
house located in Mississippi for the amount of $175,000. Buyer has learned that Sal has offered to
sell the same property to someone else for $180,000. Buyer wants to file a lawsuit to specifically
enforce the contract and compel Seller to sell him the house. What court or courts would have jurisdiction
over such a civil action?
2. Mothra, a citizen of the state of Washington,
died on April 1, 2007. At the time of
her death, Mothra was renting a safe deposit box in San Francisco at the
California National Bank, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.
The contents of the safe deposit box include an envelop containing
$50,000 in cash.
Rodan,
a citizen of Japan admitted to permanent residence and domiciled in the state
of Washington, was a lifelong friend of Mothra.
Rodan claims that Mothra gave her the $50,000 before she died but
continued to hold it in the safe deposit box at Rodan’s request. Rodan has written a letter to the bank
demanding delivery of the cash.
Meanwhile,
Xavier, a citizen of California, is named executor of Mothra’s estate in her
will. Xavier claims title to all the
assets owned by Mothra at her death and has written a letter to the bank
demanding delivery of the cash.
The
California National Bank commenced an interpleader action in federal court for
the district of Washington where Rodan resides.
The bank deposited the money with the court.
The
parties filed answers setting forth their respective claims of ownership. They have not objected to the court’s
jurisdiction or venue.
You
are clerking for the trial judge. She is
unfamiliar with federal interpleader law and asks if there are any problems
with the case. Please advise.
3. Dobby Dobbers was charged by the state of
Mississippi with sexual battery in connection with a sexual assault on Vic
Patterson. Although Dobbers protested
his innocence, the case against Dobbers included Patterson’s testimony, expert
medical evidence and DNA evidence that an expert from the state crime lab
testified identified Dobbers conclusively as the assailant.
A
jury returned a verdict of guilty and Dobbers was sentenced to thirty years in
prison. His conviction was affirmed by
the Mississippi Court of Appeals and the Mississippi Supreme Court declined to
review the appellate decision by writ of certiorari.
Subsequently,
Patterson commenced a civil action against Dobbers in Chancery Court for
assault, demanding total compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of
three million dollars. Dobbers filed a
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Patterson filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the issue of liability, attaching a copy of the criminal
conviction, and arguing that under res judicata and collateral estoppel
Dobbers’s conviction of sexual battery conclusively establishes the elements of
the intentional tort of assault. Dobbers argues that res judicata and
collateral estoppel should not apply and that he has obtained new expert
evidence that categorically refutes the earlier DNA identification. Rule on both motions and explain.
4. Outraged by the long delays experienced by
persons attempting to collect back child support, state legislator Bub Varner
has introduced the Child Support Enforcement Bill. The bill if enacted would authorize a parent
owed child support to collect the amount due by commencing a special
enforcement action in Justice Court by filing a claim form stating the amount
owed. To enforce compliance, the bill
provides that if the amount owed exceeds $10,000, the sheriff may immediately
seize any motor vehicles owned by the debtor and sell them at public
auction. The proceeds of the auction
will be paid to the complaining parent to cover amounts past-due for child
support, and any excess will be held by the court for the debtor. The debtor may challenge the procedure at any
time by filing a motion in Justice Court.
You
are on the committee to which Varner’s bill has been referred. Explain if there are any problems with it.
5. In the winter of 2006, Missy, a citizen of
Mississippi, visited Colorado to ski at the Big Sky Ski Resort, Inc., a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Colorado. The
resort’s business had been lagging, and the management had discussed strategies
for increasing national awareness of the resort. They decided to target the emerging Xtreme
ski market of skiiers who seek perilous slopes and avoid the use of safety
gear. Accordingly, the resort modified
one of the slopes by removing guardrails and other safety features. Unfortunately, they did not mark the trail
with any warnings.
Missy
was badly injured when she slipped off the side of a cliff where a guard rail
had been removed. She commenced a civil
action in federal district court for the district of Colorado. Her complaint claims the defendant’s acts
were wanton, reckless and malicious, and she demands $50,000 compensatory
damages, $25,000 punitive damages, and attorneys fees and costs.
A
Colorado statute authorizes punitive damages when the defendant acted
recklessly or maliciously. But state law
specifically prohibits including a demand for punitive damages in the
complaint. Instead, state law requires a
party seeking punitive damages to later amend the complaint to insert a demand
for punitive damages. The purpose of the
prohibition is apparently to discourage plaintiffs from inflating their claims
and from seeking media coverage.
Attorneys fees are recoverable under state law only if punitive damages
are awarded by the jury.
The
defendant files a motion to dismiss arguing that the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. In addition the defendant
files a motion to strike the punitive damages claim pursuant to the Colorado
statute. Finally, the defendant files a
motion to strike the demand for attorneys fees.
Although Colorado state law may permit the recovery of such fees (when
punitive damages are recovered), the defendant argues that federal courts
should not permit parties to recover fees because neither the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure nor any Act of Congress provide for attorneys fees under these
circumstances.
Rule
on the motions and explain.
6. A number of religious groups believe that
scriptural prohibitions about taking blood mean that it is a serious sin to
draw blood samples for any purpose. As a
result, the state of West Dakota has enacted the Blood Freedom Liberty Act of
2006. The act provides: “Under no
circumstances, shall any person be required to provide a blood sample or submit
to any other medical examination as a prerequisite to securing any legal right
or privilege when doing so violates the doctrines of his or her faith.” The state constitution also provides, “The
state shall make and enforce no law that hinders any person in the free
exercise of his or her religion.”
Preston,
a citizen of West Dakota, brought a civil action in state court against Big
Hospital Corp., a West Dakota corporation.
Preston claims that the hospital violated various federal constitutional
rights when it gave Preston a blood transfusion without his permission while he
was unconscious. Preston also claims he
suffers various adverse affects from the blood transfusion.
The
defendant removed the action to federal court.
During discovery, the defendant moved the trial court to order Preston
to submit to a medical examination that will include the drawing of blood
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35: “When the mental or physical
condition (including the blood group) of a party. . .is in controversy, the
court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a
physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner. .
.”
Preston
opposes the motion. He cites two state
supreme court decisions that have refused to order plaintiffs to submit to
blood tests under provisions of the 2006 act and state constitution. Moreover, he argues that the reason he
commenced the action in state court was precisely to avoid the effects of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 and that the federal court’s refusal to
apply state law will provide a powerful incentive for forum shopping.
You
are the federal judge. Rule on the
motion and explain.
7. Under state common law, the state of X courts
have ruled that a party may no longer seek or recover nominal damages in an
action for libel or slander under state X law unless the defendant has refused
to apologize for the alleged defamatory statement prior to the commencement of
the action.
P
sues D in United States District Court for the Southern District of X for
libel. D moves to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, attaching an affidavit that
avers that “P has never asked for an apology.”
State X courts routinely dismiss under such circumstances, but P argues
that the state requirement is procedural and conflicts with the longstanding
practice of federal courts and the overwhelming authority from other state
courts.
Rule
on the motion and explain.
8. National Widget Company, Inc., a Mississippi
corporation with its principal place of business in Bruce, Mississippi,
commenced a civil action in Mississippi Circuit Court against Dodge Dodgerson,
a former bookkeeper employed by the corporation. The complaint alleged that Dodgerson
embezzled $7000 from the corporation.
Dodgerson served an answer, denying the allegations in the complaint and
also served a counterclaim alleging that National Widget Company discriminated
against him in violation of federal civil rights laws and demanding
compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $2,000,000. Within thirty days of receiving the
counterclaim, National Widget removed the action to federal court. Dodgerson filed a timely motion to
remand. Rule on the motion and explain.
9. Pat, citizen of New York, commenced a civil
action in federal court against Don, citizen of Connecticut, alleging that Don
negligently injured Pat in a car accident when Don’s car failed to stop. The complaint demands damages in the amount
of $200,000. Don denied liability and
also served a counterclaim on Pat. The
counterclaim contained two causes of action.
The first alleged that Pat negligently caused the car accident and
caused property damage to Don’s car in the amount of $500. The second alleged that Pat alienated the
affections of Don’s wife, causing emotional distress and damages in the amount
of $1,000,000.
Don
also impleaded Big Brake Co., a New York corporation with its principal place
of business in New York, alleging that the company had recently repaired his
brakes and if he is liable to Pat, then Brake Co. should be liable to him for
the amount of any damages.
Pat
moves to dismiss the counterclaims and the impleaded party. Rule on the motion and explain.
10. Paul, a citizen of Hawaii, went to Scotland
for a vacation. While traveling by bus
in Scotland, Paul was injured when a suitcase fell from an overhead rack and
struck him on the head. The bus was
owned and operated by Highland Fling Tours, a Scottish partnership owned by
Angus and Fergus McFarland. Paul was
hospitalized for two weeks in Scotland.
The local Scottish police investigated the accident and concluded that
the driver and bus company were not negligent.
Paul’s
insurance company, Big Insurer Co., a Connecticut corporation with its
principal place of business in Connecticut, paid $80,000 for various medical
expenses resulting from the accident.
After
attempts to settle out of court failed, Paul and Big Insurer commenced a civil
action against Highland Fling Tours in Hawaii state court. They served one of the partners while the
partner was vacationing in Hawaii.
The
defendant removed the action to federal court for the district of Hawaii and
then filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. Rule on the motion and explain.
11.
Pete, citizen of Mississippi, slipped and fell on a banana peel while shopping
at Big Mart Co., an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business
in Arkansas. Pete has sued Big Mart in
federal court demanding damages in the amount of $100,000. Big Mart’s local manager has explained to you
that the store carried liability insurance that will cover losses of up to one
million dollars. But he is convinced
Pete is lying about his injuries and he does not want Pete to learn about the
amount of the insurance coverage because he fears it will only encourage Pete
to increase his demand for damages. He
asks for your advice. Please advise.
12. Able and Baker were born and raised in
Mississippi. They lived next door to
each other as adults. In 2005 they went
on a car trip to Missouri. While Able
was driving in Missouri, Baker misread a road sign and told him to turn onto a
highway exit ramp where the car promptly collided with an oncoming tractor
trailer. The tractor trailer was driven
by Tom Trucker, a citizen of Tennessee.
Able, Baker and Trucker were all injured. Able and Baker each insist the other was
responsible for the accident.
After
the accident Able moved to Nevada where he got married, bought a house and
started a new job. In 2006 Able returned
to Mississippi temporarily in order to sue Baker. The lawsuit was quickly settled and dismissed
with prejudice. In 2007 Trucker
commences a civil action against Able and Baker in Mississippi state court. Baker moves to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Rule on the motion and explain.
Short
1. Courts with subject matter
jurisdiction include federal district court (based on diversity of
citizenship), Mississippi Chancery Court (equity), and County Court (concurrent
equity up to $200,000).
2. Federal court must dismiss sua
sponte because of no subject matter jurisdiction. Rule interpleader is not available because
the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, and statutory interpleader
is not available because there is no minimal diversity among the claimants
because the executor takes the citizenship of the deceased (Washington) and the
alien admitted to permanent residence takes the citizenship of the place of
domicile (Washington).
3. First, Chancery court lacks
subject matter jurisdicition, but this action at law for damages should be
transferred to Circuit Court, not dismissed. Second, collateral estoppel (or
issue preclusion) should apply because the same issue (the defendant’s identity
as the assailant) was actually determined in the criminal case; the issue was necessary
to the judgment; the party against whom it is now asserted had his day in
court; and the party had similar incentives and opportunities to litigate the
issue.
4. The proposed interim seizure of
defendants’ cars violates the rifght of persons to due process, which requires
notice and an opportunity for a hearing before a taking of property. The procedure also enlarges the jurisdiction
of Justice Court beyond what is currently authorized by statute.
5. Federal subject matter
jurisdiction is good. The amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 because attorneys fees can be counted (unless they
are not permitted as a matter of law).
The Federal Rules require an allegation of the basis of the court’s
jurisdiction and the amount of damages.
This rule regulates how issues are presented to courts and is thus
within the power of the courts to adopt rules of “procedure” under the Rules
Enabling Act. [Alternative: the federal
rules do not govern because they do not explicitly state what items of damages
must be included, and the state rule governs under Erie because it
significantly affects the outcome in a way that encourages forum
shopping?] The state law regarding fees
applies because there is absolutely no valad source of a contrary federal
practice, and there is no general federal common law authority to create a
different rule.
6. Rule 35 covers the issue and is
“really procedural” in that it regualtes how issues are presented to
court. Accordingly, it governs in
federal court.
7. The court will apply state common
law of libel and dismiss. There is no
general federal common law authoirity to develop a different libel law in
federal courts. The state practice is
substantive because it substantially affects the outcome and disregarding it
would encourage forum shopping.
8. Remand granted. Plaintiffs cannot remove.
9. The counterclaims and impleader
are all proper. The $500 counterclaim
arises from a common nucleus of operative fact.
It is compulsory and within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction. The $1,000,000 counter claim is unrelated to
the plaintiff’s claim so it is permissive and not within the court’s
supplemental jurisdiction. But the
counterclaim independently satisfies the requirements for diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction. The impleader
is authorized by Federal rules and because it arises from a common nucleus of
operative facts is also within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction regardless
of the lack of diversity.
10. Forum non conveniens is
denied. As stated in Piper Aircraft, a
plaintiff’s choice of forum is rarely disturbed. Here both the plaintiffs and the forum state
have powerful and legitimate interests in providing a convenient forum for the
plaintiffs without requiring them to travel to a foreign country. (The facts were different in Piper where the
real plaintiffs in interest were foreign parties seeking a legal advantage in a
U.S. forum.)
11. Federal rules require the
automatic disclosure of any insurance that may be available to satisfy any part
of the claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(D). The information must be
providied. Rules of Professional Conduct
prohibit a lawyer from making any false statement to a third person.
12. The defendant as a Mississippi
citizen is subject to general personal jurisdiction in that state.
Long
A good long answer would identify and fully discuss the following:
subject matter jurisdiction
The corporation’s citizenship (not residence or domicile!) is both
Tennessee and Delaware
The individual defendant’s citizenship is her domicile at the time of
commencement of the action
A person changes domicile by being phyiscally present at the new domicile
and concurrently having the intent to remain there indefinitely
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the federal court’s
jurisdiction and thus of proving facts necessary to show change of domicile
The defendant’s statement conclusively establishes that Mississippi is her
new domicile if it is true, but it may be self-serving, and nothing requires
the court to believe her
personal jurisdiction
The personal jurisdiction of the federal court is the same as a Mississippi
state court
The individual defendant will be subject to general personal jurisdiction
if domiciled in Mississippi
The corporation will be subject to personal jurisdiction if the long-arm
statute applies and does not violate due process
The long-arm may not apply: the tort was not in the state; the contract was
not to be performed in the state; and the defendant might not be conducting any
nature of work or service or business in state.
If the long arm applies, it is due to conducting business in state
(advertizing).
The cause of action does not arise out of the business that is the basis of
the court’s jurisdiction, so general jurisdiction is required based on
systematic and continuous business activity.
The quantity of the business is far less extensive than that found to
sustain general jurisdiction in the LL Bean case in California.
Service
Service on the individual is insufficient.
She did not voluntarily waive and no subsequent service was
attempted. Service on the corporation is
sufficient because it was waived validly.
Venue
The issue of venue was waived when no consolidated with other Rule 12
motions.
Forum selection clause
Mandatory forum selection clauses are valid and enforceable most places if
they are reasonable. The forum selected
in this clause is unreasonable. Its sole
purpose appears to be to increase the plaintiff’s difficulty in litigating.
II. Instructions. Consider the following problem carefully and
write a coherent, literate essay in your blue book that responds to it.
The Case of the Bungling Boutique’s Bad Back Business
(suggested time 60 minutes)
Pinky
Pinkerson is a lifelong resident of New Albion, Mississippi. New Albion is a town of 10,000 people in
northern Mississippi, 35 miles south of Memphis, Tennessee. On June 1, 2007, Pinky complained to his
neighbor, Flem Snopes, about back pain.
Flem urged Pinky to visit the Feelgood Wellness Boutique at the South
Memphis Mall in Memphis, Tennessee.
Following
this advice, Pinky traveled the next day to the South Memphis Mall and entered
the Feelgood Wellness Boutique. There
he met Denise Dolittle, who introduced herself as a certified wellness
coordinator. Dolittle asked Pinky
several questions about his back pain, his general health and his credit
rating. Then she asked him to fill out
several long forms. Pinky read the forms
quickly and signed them.
Dolittle
then took Pinky into a separate room.
She asked him to take off his shirt and lie on a mat on the floor. She massaged his back for several minutes and
then she stood on his back.
As
she stepped onto his back, Pinky heard a cracking sound and felt a sharp,
shooting sensation. He cried out in
pain. Dolittle jumped off his back,
laughed and said, “Don’t worry, sometimes that happens.” Dolittle then sold Pinky a small bottle of
vitamins and told him to return the following week.
When
the pain increased the next day, Pinky visited a physician and learned that he
suffers from a slipped disk. The doctor
informed Pinky that Dolittle’s acts probably aggravated his condition and may
well have caused him permanent pain and disability.
On
September 1, 2007 Pinky commenced a civil action in United States District
Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
The complaint names as defendants Denise Dolittle and Feelgood Wellness
Boutique, Inc. and alleges diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
After
filing the complaint, Pinky assembled copies of the complaint and waiver of
service forms as prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. He asked his nineteen-year-old cousin Bette
to personally deliver a copy of the complaint and waiver of service forms to
Dolittle while Dolittle was in the state of Mississippi. When Bette handed Dolittle the papers in
Mississippi, Dolittle tore them up and threw them in Bette’s face.
Pinky
also mailed a copy of the complaint and waiver of service forms to the
corporate defendant at its mailing address.
The corporation’s lawyer signed and returned the forms to Pinky in the
prepaid envelope provided.
Prior
to serving an answer, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the following
grounds: 1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 2) lack of personal
jurisdiction and 3) insufficient service
of process. The defendants also moved at
the same time to dismiss under a forum selection clause contained in the forms
Pinky signed when he visited the Wellness facility. The following language was contained in fine
print on the second page of the forms: “Parties to this contract agree that any
litigation must occur only in the Caiman Islands.”
At
the hearing on the motions to dismiss, the following facts were
established. The complaint alleges that
Dolittle is a citizen of Tennessee.
Dolittle was born in Tennessee.
In June 2007 Dolitte was living in Tennessee in an apartment near the
Feelgood Wellness Boutique. In July 2007
Dolittle became engaged to marry Stud Trainer, an employee of the Boutique who
lived in Desoto County, Mississippi. At
that time she started spending three to four nights a week at Stud’s home in
Mississippi. Pinky’s cousin Bette
delivered the papers to Dolitte at this location.
In
September 2007, Dolittle married Trainer and moved most of her belongings to
his house in Mississippi. She continued
to spend several nights a week at her apartment in Tennessee until her lease
expired at the end of September 2007. At
the end of September she moved all her belongings to Mississippi. Dolittle testified, “On the day Stud and I
got engaged, I considered Mississippi to be my main home, and I planned to
spend the rest of my life there.”
Nevertheless, exhibits document the fact that in late July Dolittle
renewed her Tennessee drivers license and continued to use her Memphis library
card..
The complaint alleges that Feelgood Wellness
Boutique, Inc. is a Tennessee citizen.
In fact, Dolittle is the sole
owner of all of the shares of stock in Feelgood Wellness Boutique, Inc., which
is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal
place of business at the South Memphis Mall in Memphis.
Feelgood
Wellness Boutique, Inc. solicits business by placing advertisements and
discount coupons twice a year in the Memphis Glider. The Glider is a free newspaper that is
distributed in the greater Memphis area, which includes northern
Mississippi. At least 100 copies of the Glider
are distributed every week at stores in northern Mississippi. The corporation also places radio
advertisements on a Memphis radio station that can be heard from any location
in northern Mississippi, and the business posts information on several Internet
sites that are accessible from northern Mississippi. Flem Snopes learned about the Wellness boutique
from his wife who had visited the boutique after reading an ad in a copy of the
Memphis Glider that was distributed in northern Mississippi. Approximately ten percent of the boutique’s
customers in 2006 and 2007 are residents of northern Mississippi.
Pinky
admitted that she signed the forms containing the forum selection clause, but
she testified that she did not recall reading the forms she signed, did not
understand the forum selection clause and did not know where the Caiman Islands
are located.
Based
on this information, the trial judge denied all motions. The case went to trial and resulted in a
judgment for plaintiff.
The
corporation’s attorney has come to you for legal advice about the possibility
of appealing and specifically asks you to discuss the following: 1) the trial
court’s subject matter jurisdiction, 2) the trial court’s personal jurisdiction
over each defendant, 3) sufficiency of service, 4) venue and 5) the validity of
the forum selection clause. Please write
a memorandum analyzing all issues.