Civil
Procedure I University
of Mississippi
Summer
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 or ten minutes each)
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. Pinky, a citizen of New Mexico, sued Dodie, a
citizen of California, and Dinky, a citizen of New Mexico, in California state
court, seeking damages from both jointly for breach of contract in the amount
of $100,000. The defendants removed the
action to federal court. Pinky filed a
timely motion for remand, and the trial court denied the motion. Your client asks you whether the trial court
ruling is erroneous or appealable.
Please explain.
2. Pat, a citizen of Alabama, and Preston, a
citizen of Arizona, were injured when the bus they were riding stopped
suddenly. The bus was owned and operated
by Big Bus Corp., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in New Jersey. The accident occurred in
Jackson, Tennessee.
Pat
sued Big Bus Corp. in state court in Tennessee alleging that the driver stopped
negligently. The bus company defended,
arguing that the driver was not negligent because it was forced to stop
suddenly when a young child darted out in the street in front of the bus. The case was tried to a jury, and the jury
found for the defendant. The trial judge
entered a judgment for defendant. Pat
appealed, but the judgment was affirmed by the state supreme court.
After
the decision became final, Preston commenced a civil action in federal court
for the district of New Jersey in which the corporation’s principal place of
business is located. The defendant filed
a motion to dismiss arguing that the Tennessee judgment is res judicata. Rule on the motion and explain.
3. The state of X has enacted an amendment to
its state constitution that provides that all cases of law and equity must be
tried to a jury. Accordingly, state
courts in state X may no longer grant motions for summary judgment.
You
are clerking for a federal judge for a district in state X. Before your court is a lawsuit arising from
an automobile accident. Able, a citizen
of state X, claims that Baker, a citizen of state Y, failed to stop at a red light
and caused the accident. Able’s
complaint demands damages in the amount of $100,000. Baker denies the allegations in the complaint
and claims that he had a green light.
After
the completion of discovery, Baker moves for summary judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Baker attaches affidavits and depositions from four eyewitnesses, all of
whom are prepared to testify that Baker had the green light. In response to the motion Able files an
affidavit that avers that he had the green light. But in Able’s deposition he testified that he
was color blind. Although he claimed to
be able to identify the color of the traffic signal from its location, he
admitted that he “might be mistaken.”
The
federal judge asks for your advice on two matters. First, must the federal court send the case
to a jury under the state constitution?
Second, if the federal court applies Rule 56, should it grant Baker’s
motion for summary judgment? Please
advise and explain.
3. Parker and Dottson are next door neighbors in
LaFayette County, Mississippi. Parker
claims that Dottson stole his dog Mutt, but Dottson denies the claim and says
Mutt came to him of his own free will and refuses to leave.
Parker
sues Dottson in Circuit court for the alleged theft and demands damages in the
amount of $100. Before the complaint has
even been served on Dottson, Parker moves for an injunction ordering Dottson to
return Mutt. In support of the
injunction, he files an affidavit that says, “Mutt is mine. I love him. I deserve to get him back and not
have to wait for over a year for a trial.”
You
are Judge Howorth’s law clerk. He asks
what he should do about the motion.
Please advise and explain.
4.
Phil commenced a breach of contract action against Dennis in federal court for
the district of Vermont. Jurisdiction
was based on diversity of citizenship.
Dennis moved do dismiss the action as time barred. Dennis pointed to Vermont state authority
that the case would be governed by the two-year statute of limitations of the
state of Ohio. Phil agrees that Vermont
courts would apply the two-year Ohio statute of limitations. But he argues that since Vermont would not
apply Vermont’s statute of limitations, the federal court should do what is
most equitable under the circumstances and permit Phil to have his day in
court. He further argues that the
federal preference for jury decision making should outweigh an state interest
in applying some other state’s statute of limitations.
You
are the federal judge. Rule on the motion
and explain.
5.
Drew is a citizen of Canada admitted to permanent residence in the United
States and domiciled in Memphis, Tennessee.
Drew owned real estate in northern Mississippi and sold the property in
2005 to Missy, a citizen of Mississippi, Allie, a citizen of Alabama, and
Mexie, a citizen of Mexico. The property
was worth $150,000.
At
the time of the sale Drew agreed to vacate a house on the land in which he was
living temporarily. In 2006 Drew had
still not vacated the house, so Missie, Allie, and Mexie jointly commenced a
civil action against Drew in federal court for the Western District of
Tennessee. Their complaint alleges that
Drew is trespassing on their land and has breached the terms of their purchase
agreement. The plaintiffs seek damages
in the amount of $100,000 and also a court order compelling Drew to leave the
house.
Drew
moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper
venue. You are the trial judge. Rule on the motion and explain.
6. Peters, citizen of Michigan, sues Dodge,
citizen of Illinois, for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident
in Illinois. Peters alleges damages in
the amount of $100,000. Peters commences
the action in federal court for the district where the accident occurred.
Dodge
denied liability but filed no counterclaim.
The case eventually resulted in a final judgment on the merits for
Dodge. After winning the federal action, Dodge suffered disabling back pain. His doctor informed him that the pain was the
result of a back injury sustained at the time of the accident with Peters. Accordingly, Dodge has commenced a civil
action in federal court against Peters demanding damages in the amount of one
million dollars.
Peters
has received a request for waiver of service of process in the lawsuit. He comes to you for legal advice and asks 1)
Must he waive service of process? 2) Will he need to defend? and 3) Does he
have any good defense? Please advise.
7. Frankie, citizen of Virginia, commenced a
civil action against Johnnie, citizen of North Carolina, in federal court
alleging breach of contract of marriage.
The complaint demands damages in the amount of $75,000 and also seeks an
injunction ordering Johnnie to marry Frankie.
As a matter of law, however, contracts to marry are not specifically
enforceable.
Frankie
moves for a preliminary injunction.
Johnnie moves to dismiss based on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The court denies both
motions. Explain whether the rulings are
erroneous and whether they are appealable.
8. Pam Plaintiff and Big Insco have jointly
commenced a civil action in federal court against Defendant. Pam Plaintiff is a citizen of Colorado; Big
Insco is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Big
Valley, Wyoming; and Defendant is a citizen of Wyoming. Their complaint states three claims, two by
Pam Plaintiff and one by Big Insco.
Plaintiff’s
first cause of action stems from a patent infringement action. Plaintiff claims he holds a valid patent for
crystalizing widgets. Plaintiff claims
that Defendant infringed the patent by using the patent process to crystalize
widgets in 2004. The plaintiff demands
damages in the amount of $50,000 for patent infringement.
Plaintiff’s
second cause of action stems from an automobile accident that occurred in 2005
in the parking lot of the post office.
Plaintiff demands compensatory damages in the amount of $70,000.
Big
Insco’s cause of action states a claim for $15,000 for money it has paid on
behalf of Plaintiff to Plaintiff’s doctors for medical expenses incurred as a
result of the 2005 accident.
Defendant
moves to dismiss both Plaintiff’s and Big Insco’s claims for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Rule on the motion
and explain.
9. In what kinds of cases do federal courts
still actively engage in common law making after the adoption of the Erie
doctrine?
10. Jane gave Tom a ride to the Senior Prom and
injured him when she collided with a school bus. Tom has sued Jane in federal court. You are representing Jane, who is furious and
feels betrayed. She says she wants to
teach Tom a lesson and instructs you to deny all the allegations in his
complaint. She also instructs you to
file an interrogatory asking Tom to identify all the persons with whom he has
had sexual intercourse. What do you tell
Jane?
11. A state statute provides that an executor of
an estate may bring an action to discharge all debts and liabilities of the
decedent by publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation. Under the statute, the published notice must
clearly identify the decedent as well as any persons named as beneficiaries in
the will. The notice must identify the
court and the date scheduled for the discharge hearing, thus giving all
claimants an opportunity to appear and present any claims against the
estate. If claimants do not appear and
object, the state court is authorized to enter a discharge order that
discharges the executor and the estate from any and all liability to creditors..
A
trade association representing lending institutions has retained you and asks
whether the statute is valid. Please
advise.
12. Paul sued Donald, an alien admitted to
permanent residence domiciled in New Jersey, for copyright infringement,
demanding damages in the amount of $75,000.
The alleged infringing activity took place in New York city. Paul commenced the action in federal court
for the district of Hawaii. Donald had
never visited Hawaii and had no contacts with the state.
Donald
moved to dismiss for improper venue. After
the court denied that motion, Donald moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Please rule on the motions and explain.
II. Instructions. Consider the following problem carefully and
write a coherent, literate essay in your blue book that responds to it.
A. The Case of
the Sales Rep’s Bad Rep Rap (suggested time 60 minutes)
The
Harvest Fruit Farm Family (HFFF) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Maine. The corporation sells fruit baskets and dried
floral arrangements. Formed in 2002, HFFF has grown from a two-person business
serving the local Maine market into a business with twelve employees that makes
most of its sales to mail order and
Internet customers outside of Maine.
HFFF
today distributes 100,000 catalogues through the US mail. Customers can order its products through a
toll-free 1-800 telephone number. HFFF
also maintains an interactive Internet site through which customers can
identify different sales items and complete purchases by using credit cards.
In
2003 HFFF interviewed Tiffany Patterson for the position of telephone sales
representative. At the time of the
interview Patterson lived in Maine.
Impressed by her performance at the interview, HFFF offered Patterson
the job. She filled out the necessary
forms, quit her old job at Big Burger restaurant, and prepared to begin her
duties at HFFF in November 2003.
When
Patterson arrived for work, she was informed that her services would not be
needed. Patterson asked why she had been
fired, and the Human Resources manager showed her a letter from the owner of
Big Burger. The letter accused Patterson
of lying to her employer and stealing.
The letter also said Patterson constantly used the “F” word and treated
customers and coworkers disrespectfully.
Patterson
protested that the letter was inaccurate, but HFFF refused to relent. The Human Resources manager offered to pay
Patterson for two weeks work if she signed a release form agreeing not to sue. Patterson replied, “I’m not going to sign
this and I’m not going to say the ‘F’ word, but I might be thinking it.”
Unable
to find work in Maine, Patterson relocated to Oxford, Mississippi in 2005. In December 2006 she commenced a civil action
against HFFF in federal court for the Northern District of Mississippi where
she lived. Her complaint alleges
diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and asserts one claim for breach of
contract and one claim for defamation.
She seeks damages for each claim in the amount of $50,000.
HFFF
moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal
jurisdiction, and improper venue. The
trial judge ordered limited discovery on the issues raised in the motion to
dismiss. This discovery revealed that
HFFF engages in some business in Mississippi.
It mails 5,000 catalogues to residents of the state, and it has filled
76 telephone orders between 2002 and 2006 from catalogue recipients. In addition, it maintains an active Internet
site accessible from any location in Mississippi. From 2002 to 2006 HFFF filled 253 Internet
sales to purchasers in Mississippi. The
total income HFFF derived from sales to Mississippi purchasers was $17,108.00. This comprised one percent of HFFF’s income
for the period.
Margot
Marker, HFFF’s Marketing Director, testified in a deposition that she was fully
aware of sales to Mississippi purchasers.
She testified that she hoped HFFF would sell even more of its products
to Mississippi customers in the future.
When asked whether she was aware that HFFF might be subject to
jurisdiction in Mississippi, Marker replied, “Huh? What does that mean?”
You
are the trial judge. Please rule on the
motions and separately discuss the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction,
personal jurisdiction and venue.
I. SHORT ANSWERS
1. The federal court committed error when it
refused to remand because it is not removable because there is no complete
diversity and because one of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which
the action was commenced. But the ruling
is not appealable now because it is neither a final decision nor the kind of
interlocutory decision that is appealable.
2. The motion to dismiss must be denied. Claim preclusion is not available because
there is no identity of parties, and issue preclusion (or collateral estoppel)
is not available because the party against whom it is being asserted did not
have his day in court on the issue.
3[a]. The federal court must follow Federal Rule 56
under Hanna v. Plumer. The rule clearly
applies to the issue and is procedural in the sense of really regulating
procedure–the way issues are presented to and decided by courts. But the Rule 56 motion should be denied
because there is a genuine issue of material fact (even if the evidence is weak
and inconsistent).
3[b]. Judge Howorth should not grant the motion for
an injunction. First, the motion
requests provisional relief without any notice or opportunity to be heard to
the adversary in violation of the defendant’s due process rights under Fuentes
v. Shevin. Second, the Circuit Court may
lack subject matter jurisdiction to grant equitable relief since the state
constitution vests equity jurisdiction in Chancery Court.
4. Under Guaranty Trust v. York, the federal
court must apply the law that the state court where its sits would apply to the
issue of whether the action is time barred, whether the state finds that law in
statutes or judicial. decisions.
5. Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is granted. The presence of
aliens as both plaintiffs and defendants destroys alienage jurisdiction. Motion to dismiss for improper venue is
granted under the local action rule.
6. 1) Defendant is not required to sign the
waiver of service form but will bear the costs of subsequent service if he does not do so. 2) Defendant will need to raise defense or
will risk entry of default judgment. 3)
He has a good defense because the counterclaim was compulsory, as it arose from
the same transaction or occurrence, and was waived when it was not raised in
the first action.
7. The motion for the preliminary injunction was
correctly denied but is appealable, because interlocutory decisions denying
injunctions are appealable. The motion
to dismiss was erroneously denied because the amount in controversy is less
than the statutory amount to a legal certainty.
The denial of the motion is not appealable now because it is not a final
decision.
8. The motion to dismiss is denied with respect
to the patent infringement action. There
is federal question jurisdiction over that claim. The motion is also denied with respect to the
other claims. There is diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction over the claims by Plaintiff because a plaintiff can
add together unrelated claims against a single defendant to satisfy the amount
in controversy. While there is no
diversity jurisdiction over Big Insco’s claim, that claim is part of the same
constitutional case as Plaintiff’s second cause of action because it arises
from a common nucleus of operative facts and is thus within the federal court’s
supplemental jurisdiction. [If there is no diversity jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s second claim because the diversity claims must separately satisfy
the amount in controversy irrespective of the federal question claim, then
Plaintiff’s second cause of action must be dismissed, and Big Insco’s claim
must be dismissed, too, because there would not be supplemental jurisdiction.]
9.
Federal courts retain special common law making authority in a number of areas
including interpreting federal statutes and Constitutional provisions,
admiralty cases, disputes between states, international relations, and cases
involving government rights and liabilities in cases in which the U.S.
government is a party.
10. Tom’s sexual history has nothing to do with
this case and is not information that might lead to the discovery of relevant
information, so it is not discoverable.
The Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct require a lawyer to exercise independent professional judgment
and do not permit a lawyer to do whatever a client demands. Moreover, the rules of conduct and Rule of
Civil Procedure 11 prohibit a lawyer from controverting an issue without a good
reason. The pleading rules likewise
prohibit general denials. The Rules of
Professional Conduct expressly prohibit a lawayer from using means that have no
substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person.
11. Applying the proposed discharge statute to
creditors that are either known to the estate or whose identities could
reasonably be ascertained would violate the notice requirement set forth in
Mullane.
12. Motion for lack of personal jurisdiction is
denied. Although there would not have
been personal jurisdiction at the outset, Donald waived that defense when he
omitted it from his motion to dismiss for improper venue. The motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction was not waived but is denied. Since copyright infringement is a federal
question, the court has proper subject matter jurisdiction regardless of the
amount in controversy. [The court properly denied the motion to dismiss for
improper venue because the defendant is an alien, and venue is, accordingly,
proper in any district.]
II. ESSAY
A good essay would address the following issues:
Subject matter jurisdiction
jurisdiction determined at time of filing
party’s citizenship is determined by domicile
[so there is diversity between the parties]
the amount in controversy is determined by the amount
claimed in the complaint unless the court can say the amount is less to a legal
certainty
one plaintiff can add the amounts of different claims
against a single defendant to satisfy the amount in controversy
[so the amount in controversy is also satisfied]
Personal jurisdiction
the only part of the Mississippi long arm statute that
might apply is the provision that establishes jurisdiction over a defendant who
conducts any business in the state
the application of the long arm must also satisfy Due
Process
Specific jurisdiction does not apply because the claim
does not arise from any of defendant’s business in the state
General jurisdiction requires continuous and
systematic activity
The Internet cases adopt a sliding approach, finding
interactive Internet sites establishing more contacts
But the general jurisdiction cases based on Internet
activity in the case book (like the LL Bean case) all involved far more
extensive contacts, and those courts observed that the finding of jurisdiction
was close
Venue
Venue in cases based on diversity is proper in a
jurisdiciton where defendant resides
A corporation resides where it is subject to personal
jurisdiction
Venue is also proper where a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, but no such events or
omissions occurred in any district in Mississippi
Accordingly, venue will be proper in only if there is
personal jurisdiction in Mississippi