Quiz One
Arthur sues Beatrice in the appropriate federal court for negligently inflicted injuries. Both Arthur and Beatrice are diverse and the amount in controversy is met. Beatrice's lawyer believes that Arthur's suit suffers from several flaws. For example, Arthur's complaint fails to allege that Beatrice's negligence caused his injuries. What motion should she make to raise this issue?
12(b)(6)
Which of the following voluntary dismissals (with the indicated effect or conditions) is authorized by Rule 41(a)?
After having voluntarily dismissed, plaintiff brings the same claim again and then files a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice signed by all the parties.
Consider, then, this scenario. DiMento sues Bashad for injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The parties exchange required initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). Bashad's disclosure of witnesses under Rule 26(a)(1)(A) does not include Patrick, who was present at the time of the accident. Patrick told Bashad's lawyer that Bashad ran a red light before he hit DiMento. Later DiMento's lawyer learns from his own investigation that Patrick witnessed the accident. Which, if any, of the following is correct?
After required initial disclosures, DiMento's lawyer should send Bashad an interrogatory asking for the names of all witnesses to the accident.
Fortes sues Berrier for breach of an alleged oral contract to share Berrier's winnings at all his poker tournaments during a given year. He claims that Berrier won $50,000 at the Vegas Texas Hold'Em tournament that year, but refused to pay half to Fortes.Berrier raises several defenses: He argues that he did not make the contract. He also claims that the contract was an illegal contract for the division of gambling winnings and therefore void. Last, he argues that he did not agree to split his winnings for any tournament if Fortes failed to provide the "stake" (funds needed to enter) and that Fortes had failed to stake him for the Vegas tournament.Before trial, both parties move for summary judgment on the first two defenses, that the parties did not make the contract, and that the contract is illegal. The judge grants summary judgment to Fortes on these two defenses, finding as a matter of law that they did make the contract and that the contract is valid. The case goes to trial, and Fortes loses, because the jury finds that Fortes had agreed to provide the stake but failed to do so.Subsequently, Fortes sues Berrier for a later breach of the same contract, claiming that Berrier won $100,000 at the World Series of Poker, but failed to split the winnings with him. Berrier argues as a defense that they never made the contract and that the contract is illegal. Which of the following statements is correct?
Berrier is not precluded from relitigating either issue, since neither was essential to the judgment in the prior case.
Snooki, a citizen of NJ sues Angelina a citizen of CA in the appropriate US Federal Court for giving her the evil eye - after Snooki came home with Brad Pitt one night. Angelina files 12(b)(6) motion and also Rule 11 Sanctions against Snooki. What result?
Both motions will be granted
Billy Builder is putting a huge garage right on his property line, and his excavation equipment crosses the line, leaving big ruts in Neil Neighbor's property and knocking down Neighbor's ornamental Japanese maple. Neighbor sues Builder, alleging that Neighbor owns the damaged property and that Builder entered the property and did serious damage to it. Builder answers. Which of the following should be pled as an affirmative defense?
Builder had permission from Neighbor to enter the property.
Now suppose it sues him again for non-payment of later installments, and he defends on the same ground, as well as on the ground that the Bank procured the loan agreement by fraud. Which of the following is true?
Bulger is issue-precluded only from raising the non-disclosure defense.
Plaintiff sues defendants Abbott and Costello. Assuming that only the events listed in each answer have occurred in the lawsuit, in which of the following instances may the plaintiff voluntarily dismiss without order of the court? Reread Rule 41(a)(1)(A) first.
Check Book
These standards give us very little to go on, but try to apply them—with a dollop of common sense—to the following comments. Which is improper?
Check Book
Which issues must the jury have decided to reach the following general verdicts, assuming that all relevant issues were actually litigated?
Check Book
Buyer enters into a contract with Husband and Wife to purchase a ranch. Husband and Wife fail to convey the ranch at the appointed time and Buyer sues Husband only seeking a decree of specific performance. Assume that the jurisdiction in question requires the signature of Both Husband and Wife to convey ordinary clean title. Husband files a 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss. What result?
Court will grant the motion because Wife is a party to the contract and her interest will be impaired by relief granted absent her participation
Which of the following responses by the defendant to service of the complaint and summons constitutes a default? (There is more than one.)
Defendant herself brings a paper to the clerk saying that she plans to defend, and then shows up in court on the twenty-first day saying she is ready to go to trial.
Which of the following responses by the defendant to service of the complaint and summons constitutes a default? (There is more than one.)
Defendant's lawyer files an appearance within twenty-one days by submitting a paper to the clerk (called a praecipe in many courts) giving her name, address, and bar number, and stating that she is appearing for the defendant.
Which of the following responses by the defendant to service of the complaint and summons constitutes a default?
Defendant's lawyer files an appearance within twenty-one days by submitting a paper to the clerk giving her name, address, and bar number and stating that she is appearing for the defendant.
John and Craig are in their respective cars driving down center street. They are at a red light with John in back of Craig's car. Suddenly, Susan speeds out of nowhere hitting John's car which in turn hits Craig's car. Craig sues John for negligence and seeks to recover for damages sustained to his car. John alleges that had it not been for Susan's negligent driving, John would not have struck Craig's car. Therefore, John asserts that Susan should be held liable for some or all of the damages imposed by Craig's lawsuit against John. Which of the following is correct?
FRCP 14 would permit John to implead Susan into the lawsuit.
Flavor Flav is a claims adjuster for Gecko Insurance Company a private GA corporation. Jamie Casion, Flavor Flav's attorney filed a complaint against Gecko in the Southern District of GA. The complaint alleged that Flavor Flav's worked for Gecko but he had recently provided adverse testimony in a civil action involving Gecko. The complaint further alleged that Gecko terminated Flavor Flav in retaliation for that testimony. Flav argued that this was a violation of 42 USC § 1983. § 1983 claims require that the claims be made against a party acting under the color of state law. Gecko moves for dismissal of the case under 12(b)(6) ground. What result?
Gecko will prevail because § 1983 claims require that the claims be made against a party acting under the color of state law.
Plaintiff has filed an unduly broad and burdensome production request, targeting, inter alia, thousands of documents, vast electronic databases (including some that cannot be accessed without great expense), and some ostensibly privileged communications between defendant and its lawyer. When defendant fails to produce any documents in response, and a telephone conference with defendant's lawyer makes no progress, plaintiff files a motion for sanctions along with a certification that it made a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute with defendant. Defendant opposes the motion, filing a brief arguing that the request is overbroad and the requested e-discovery would be too costly and invoking the lawyer-client privilege. The only supporting document defendant files is a "privilege log" supporting the invocation of the lawyer-client privilege as required by Rule 26(b)(5)(A).Which of the following actions should the court take?
Grant the motion because defendant failed to respond.
Reis Robotics (Plaintiff) has sued Concept Industries (Defendant) for a breach of contract. Defendant answers the complaint and asserts several affirmative defenses including contributory negligence. On Plaintiff's Rule 12(f) motion to strike this defense as insufficient how should the court rule?
Grant the motion because the defense is immaterial.
Insure Co., an insurance company supplies insurance coverage to people across the country. Mona, an elderly woman had a life insurance policy under Insure Co. She became ill and died. Insure Co., attempted to distribute the proceeds of the policy and notified all of Mona's family members of the impending distribution of funds. Carla, Mona's eldest daughter who was named as the beneficiary had died in a car accident. There was dispute among Mona's surviving family members. Charlie, Mona's son argued that he should receive the policy proceeds. Jackie, Mona's youngest daughter argued she was the appropriate beneficiary. If you were Insure Co.'s lawyer and a whiz kid in FRCP you would advise Insure Co. to
Have the defendants Charlie and Jackie settle their dispute in an interpleader action before finalizing the proceeds distribution
Assuming a jurisdictionally sufficient complaint with a sufficient statement of proximately caused injuries and a prayer for relief, which of the following allegations fails under the Conley pleading standard or Rule 9?
In a suit for defamation, which requires "publication"—communication of the defamatory matter to third parties—an allegation that "Defendant caused his security personnel to remove the plaintiff from defendant's restaurant, loudly telling them to 'throw that pimp out!'"
Giving Rule 12(f) a common sense interpretation, which, if any, of the following allegations could be stricken?
In an action for missed child support payments, that defendant was consorting with a prostitute. or In a breach of contract claim against a stock broker, that the brokerage house for which he worked had been sanctioned by the Securities and Exchange Commission for unrelated conduct two years ago. *depends on the context
Which, if any, of the following options are available to a party who, like the defendant in Flores, wants to hold back insurance agreements from its initial disclosures?
It could ask the plaintiffs to stipulate to delay the required disclosure of the insurance agreements until after the court ruled. It could object to the disclosure during a discovery conference with plaintiffs and then state that objection in the resulting proposed discovery plan. It could move for a court order postponing this disclosure until after the court ruled on the dispositive motion.
Mamita, a real estate agent, sues Pablito, who owns the real estate agency where she worked. She sues in federal court for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). She claims that Pablito discharged her from the agency because of her age, and seeks $100,000 in money damages. She also asserts in the same complaint against Pablito, a claim that she and Pablito were informal partners in a venture to buy a large piece of land, and that Pablito took title to the land in his own name only, in violation of their contract. She seeks specific performance of the contract-through an order to convey half interest in the property to her. She also seeks compensatory and punitive damages from Pablito for breach of his fiduciary duty as a partner in the land deal. Which of these claims is/are proper?
Joinder of all three claims is proper as long as the court would have a basis for exercising jurisdiction over the state law claims.
In 2007, A-Rod awoke to a sharp pain in his left hip. He consulted Dr. Dre about the pain. Dr. Dre recommended hip replacement surgery which, in this case, meant installing a prosthetic device in A-Rod's hip. After the surgery, A-Rod was taking batting practice when he collapsed due to extraordinary pain in his hip. X-ray examination at the emergency room revealed that the prosthetic device had fractured. A-Rod brings an action against Dr. Dre for medical malpractice. A-Rod alleges that as a result of Dr. Dre's malpractice, his hip has lost 20% of its mobility. A-Rod commences the action in January 2008. In January 2011, judgment is entered for A-Rod in an amount consistent with the evidence submitted. A month later, Dr. Dre moves for a new trial on the ground A-Rod failed to mitigate because a medical procedure had been developed by another doctor in 2010 that would have corrected A-Rod's physical injuries, therefore, the damage award should be decreased. What result?
Motion denied, because the new medical procedure was in existence at the time of the trial, the newly discovered evidence is not therefore material.
In response to a summary judgment motion, you offer an affidavit your investigator obtained a few months earlier from a third-party witness whom you had identified by name in your Rule 26(a)(1)(A) witness disclosure. Your opponent nonetheless moves to strike the affidavit on the ground that the affidavit is plainly a relevant "document" that has been in your possession for months and which supports your claims or defenses, but was never disclosed in your Rule 26(a)(1)(A) document disclosure. You argue that the affidavit constituted work product until you decided to use it. What result?
Motion to strike granted because you failed to disclose information required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A) or amend a prior response to discovery.
M.D is a well known elderly surgeon. Zsa Zsa underwent hip surgery performed by M.D. After the surgery, Zsa Zsa was unable to use her right leg. Zsa Zsa has filed a suit against M.D in a federal district court. In her complaint against the M.D., she has only alleged negligence. Zsa Zsa also believes that the doctor has a problem with his vision. Her attorney motions the court to order a physical examination of M.D. for discovery purposes. Should the court grant this motion?
No because in Zsa Zsa's complaint, she has not alleged that M.D.'s eyesight is at issue.
Tony Soprano, a member of the Gambino crime family, submits a bid for a garbage collection contract with the city of Raleigh. the contract is eventually awarded to Waste Management Inc., of Florida. Miffed, Soprano tells his lawyer Denny Crane to call the Mayor of Raleigh on the phone and threaten her with a lawsuit. Both Tony and Crane know the lawsuit to be groundless. The mayor of Raleigh moves for Rule 11 sanctions against both Tony and Crane. May either Tony or his lawyer Crane be sanctioned under Rule 11?
No, because Rule 11 is inapplicable here.
Nick files a negligence action against Jess to recover compensatory damages for injuries sustained in a car accident. Jess believes that Nick's key witness, Schmidt, often says offensive or cocky things, as a consequence of which he must put money in the "********* jar" of the apartment and has such poor eyesight that he could not possibly have seen the things that he claims to have seen. May Jess require Schmidt to undergo an eye exam as part of discovery under FRCP 35?
No, because Schmidt is not a party to the action.
Suppose that, instead of standing near the "hump," Bainbridge had stood a few feet from the location where the alleged collision occurred. He subsequently testifies at trial that, from this vantage point, he actually saw a collision. Assume that the rest of the evidence is largely the same—six employees with a clear view of what happened testify that there was no collision. Should a federal court grant the defendant's motion for a directed verdict (Rule 50(a) motion) at the close of all of the evidence?
No, because a reasonable jury could render a verdict for the plaintiff.
Vin Diesel buys a car from The Rock's Discount Cars based in part on The Rock's warranty that the car would run properly for one year and in part on the The Rock's representation that the car had only been driven by a little old lady on Sundays to church. Six months later, the car stops running, The Rock refuses to fix it and Diesel files a breach of warranty action in federal court. Diesel believes that the car was not driven only on Sundays by a little old lady to church, but has no evidence to support such an accusation yet. Can Diesel serve discovery asking for The Rock's proof that the car was only driven by a little old lady on Sundays to church?
No, because discovery about the little old lady's driving habits is not relevant to the cause of action
Little Johnny is injured on a scout outing when he trips on a wire after returning from a late night "raid" on another camp site. He sues the Boy Scouts of America Inc., organizers of the scout outing on negligence theory. A young boy tells defense Counsel he saw four other boys trip over the same wire. Little Johnny serves a notice to Defendant to admit that four boys tripped over the same wire. Must defendant admit that fact?
No, because this information is not within Defendant's knowledge and it cannot truthfully admit or deny it.
Which of the following events can have issue-preclusive effects, in light of the central requirement that an issue must have been "actually litigated"?
None of the above.
Reread the Conley standard quoted in the last note. Could it possibly mean what it literally says? Which of the following allegations is sufficient to state a claim under the notice pleading standard quoted from Conley? Which is best?
On August 5, 2010, at the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Adams Street in Arlington, Virginia, defendant David Dupont negligently drove a car against the plaintiff Paul Pollmer. As a result, plaintiff was physically injured, lost wages, suffered physical and mental pain, and incurred medical expenses of $42,200.
Which, if any, of the following materials could the court properly consider as part of the record for deciding summary judgment in Slaven, if Federal Rule 56 applied?
Pages of the log maintained at the jail in which the jailor inventories the possessions and clothing of a prisoner when he is first received for confinement. A security videotape of the cellblock where the deceased was confined, bearing the date and time at which he was led to his jail cell. --> authentication
Based on Hays and the preceding notes, which of the following pre-filing inquiries, without more, would most likely comply with Rule 11? Assume you are considering filing a complaint in a proper federal district court for negligence arising out of an accident in Massachusetts.
Same as C, but you have Dewey fax you copies of the medical reports, if any, and the repair invoice indicating that the car was totaled.
Plaintiff Peter Pint's complaint asserts a single claim against the defendant for violating a federal statute, although every circuit to have considered the statute has found that it does not apply to the fact pattern alleged in the complaint. Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim and the court grants the motion. In which of the following circumstances would Rule 11 sanctions be proper?
Same facts as D, but before Pint's lawyer filed the complaint, she sent a copy to the defendant with a cover letter threatening to file, which she said would generate "reams of terrible publicity," unless defendant paid Pint a large sum of money for his alleged injuries. When defendant ignored the threat, Pint's lawyer filed the complaint.
Suppose Toyota has made an extensive study of the precise defect that it believed caused Painter's accident, in which its accountants concluded that it was less costly to pay occasional damages for resulting accidents than to fix it.This is obviously a smoking gun. (Or what amounts to the same thing—it can be made to look that way to a jury.) Toyota would hope never to have to produce it. Which, if any, of the following options is open to it?
Silently withholding the study, if Painter has asked for all documents related to design or manufacture of this product defect, on the theory that the study does not directly relate to design or manufacture of the defect.
Batman sues Robin alleging that Robin executed a promissory note for one million dollars that is now due and unpaid. Robin files for summary judgment under Rule 56, with her affidavit contending that she did not sign the note. Batman's lawyer responds with his own affidavit that says "my client told me he watched the defendant personally sign the note." What result?
Summary judgment granted because Batman's lawyer has no personal knowledge of the Defendant signing the note.
In July 2000, a week before the three-year statute of limitations passes, Carson sues Herrera in federal court for breach of a contract to design a computer system for his store in Calpurnia, Illinois. In July 2001, he moves to amend his complaint to add a claim for violation of the state Consumer Protection Act, based on the same dispute. The Consumer Protection Act has a two-year statute of limitations, which accrued at the same time as the three-year statute. Which of the following is correct?
The amendment will be barred, even if it relates back to the filing of the original complaint.
Suppose plaintiff's spouse, Pierre, was killed in an automobile accident five minutes after he had the last of several drinks at a bar. Plaintiff sues both the other driver (for speeding) and the bar owner (for serving Pierre so many drinks that Pierre was drunk at the time of the accident). Plaintiff also pleads that Pierre was not negligent in causing the accident, because his contributory negligence would bar her recovery from the other driver. Under applicable law, a driver who is legally drunk at the time of an accident is contributorily negligent per se. Which of the following is correct, in light of Rule 8(d)?
The complaint is sufficient and both theories can be submitted to the jury, but if the jury returns a logically inconsistent verdict against both the other driver and the bar owner, the court must set it aside.
The plaintiffs' claims against Lacey were for unliquidated damages (not for a predetermined "sum certain," Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), but for an indefinite amount to be determined by the court after weighing the evidence), and for injunctive relief as well. The statute did not prescribe a specific penalty either, but instead sets a range. In that case, which of the following statements is correct? See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).
The court can enter a default judgment without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Penny, a New York citizen, believes that Demotion, Inc. (a company incorporated in New York and with its principal place of business there) fired Penny because of her gender and age. Penny sues Demotion in the federal court for the Northern District of New York, alleging a federal law gender discrimination claim and a state law age discrimination claim. The court grants Demotion's motion to dismiss the federal law claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because Demotion does not have the requisite number of employees to be subject to the federal statute. At the same time, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and thus dismisses that claim as well.Penny subsequently files a new lawsuit against Demotion in New York state court. She raises the same federal gender discrimination claim and the same state law age discrimination claim as the earlier suit. Demotion asserts that the suit is barred by claim preclusion and makes a motion for summary judgment on those grounds. Assuming the transactional definition of a claim applies here, how should the court resolve the motion?
The court should grant the motion only as to the federal claim. The motion should be denied as to the state claim because the federal court's judgment on that claim was not on the merits.
Assume the same facts, except that the house burned down while Kelleher and Nashoba were both working on it. Cardena sues Nashoba in federal court for the damage to the house, claiming that its negligence caused the fire. Nashoba moves to dismiss for failure to join Kelleher, arguing that negligence of Kelleher's plumbers may have caused the fire instead, or the plumbers' negligence may have contributed to the fire along with Nashoba's, so it must also be made a defendant.
The court should not order Kelleher joined under either Rule 19 or Rule 20.
Tom, a citizen of Kentucky entered into a contract to sell a car to Jerry, also a citizen of Kentucky. However, when Jerry was late in tendering a prepayment, Tom advised Jerry that he was no longer bound to complete the transaction. Jerry unequivocally informed Tom that the contract was still binding. Prior to the due date for delivery of the car under the original agreement, Tom entered into a new transaction with Andy, whereby Tom agreed to sell the vehicle to Andy for a higher amount than had been agreed to by Jerry. Andy is a citizen of Ohio. Andy was aware of the outstanding contract that Tom had with Jerry but was assured that Jerry's right in the car had been lawfully terminated. Tom subsequently repudiated his contract with Andy contending duress. Andy commenced an action against Tom in the appropriate U.S. District Court for specific performance and breach of contract. Tom moved to dismiss upon the grounds that Jerry was an indispensable party under FRCP 19 a. What result?
The court will deny the motion because ancillary jurisdiction will permit the court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Jerry
Which, if any, of the following showings would defeat defendants' summary judgment motion?
The prisoner kept repeating, "I can't stay the night here. I won't make it to morning." The Massachusetts Department of Corrections had published a report drawing a profile of prison suicides, which matched Slaven's brother in several respects.
During a deposition upon oral examination, a party's counsel may instruct a deponent not to answer a question for which of the following reasons?
The question asks for evidence protected by a privilege
Harris's car is struck by a train at a poorly marked railroad crossing, and he is seriously injured. He sues the railroad for negligence and seeks discovery of all documents of any kind concerning the crossing accident. The railroad requires the engineer of any train involved in an accident to file an immediate report of the incident, providing details not only on the accident, but on the speed of the train, observed condition of the crossing, health of the engineer, reasons why the engineer thought the accident happened, and what he thinks could be done, if anything, to avoid such accidents in the future. The reports are prepared on a form designed by the railroad's lawyers, and copies go to the chief of the railroad operating division (usually a senior engineer), its insurance department, and its general counsel. Lawsuits about accidents at railroad crossings are common, and the railroad expects to be sued whenever there are serious injuries. The railroad objects to discovery of the accident report on grounds that it is work product. Which of the following is true?
The report is not work product because it was prepared for the ordinary business purpose of running the trains more safely.
Plaintiff sued Dr. Dre alleging that Dr. Dre negligently performed an operation on Plaintiff causing Plaintiff permanent injuries to his legs. Dr. Dre was personally served in the action. Shortly before trial, and after the statute of limitations had run, Plaintiff learned that his injuries were due to improper postoperative care by Dr. J, who shares Dr. Dre's office and who does all the follow-up care after Dr. Dre's surgery but was not served with notice of trial. Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to allege that his injuries were due to negligent postoperative care. Dr. Dre argues that the amendment is untimely. Which of the following is correct?
Under FRCP 15(c) plaintiff may successfully amend this complaint to allege that his injuries were due to negligent postoperative care because it arises from the same transaction or occurrences
When deposing a lay witness in a negligence lawsuit, which of the following questions is unobjectionable?
What facts do you contend to show that Campbell Law School did not properly treat you?
Jess, a California citizen is involved in a three car crash with Nick and Schmidt, both Illinois citizens. Nick's car hit Jess' car first. Jess sues both Nick and Schmidt for $100,000 in Federal District Court. Nick files a cross claim against Schmidt for $80,000 alleging that Schmidt's car hit him first, propelling his car to hit Jess'. Schmidt was busy talking to Cece on his cell phone. Is Schmidt's cross claim proper?
Yes, because it arises from the same occurrence or transaction and § 1367 (a) grants supplemental jurisdiction.
if a party fails to plead appropriately, the opposing counsel or party can do which one/s of the following?
all of the above (file a motion to dismiss, file a motion for more definite statement, file a motion to strike)
Suppose that, a year after the suits in Grutter were filed, the individuals and advocacy groups who originally intervened in Grutter were granted the right to intervene. Twenty-three more potential applicants to the University, living in New York, learn of the action from an article about the intervention decision published in the New York Times. They quickly file applications to intervene as defendants under Rule 24, to argue in support of the University's affirmative action programs. The second application should be
allowed, since they satisfy the standards for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2).
The following are affirmative defenses under FRCP 8(c) except:
answer and denial
Angelina Jolie files a diversity complaint in the appropriate Federal Court in Florida, against Snooki for injuries sustained during a catfight. The complaint alleges; "on or about April 4, 2018, in Miami, FL, Nicole Polizzi aka Snooki, a resident of NJ without provocation pulled plaintiff's hair, causing plaintiff physical injury, pain and suffering, medical bills and lost wages. Plaintiff demands judgment in the amount of $1,000,000. Snooki denies she ever pulled Angelina's hair. She files a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. This motion will be
denied because the correct responsive pleading is denial
Perriwinkle collided with another vehicle while driving a co-worker, Parra, home from work. Perriwinkle sued Drazen (the driver of the other vehicle), alleging that Drazen caused the accident. The jury concludes that Drazen was not negligent, and the court enters a judgment in favor of Drazen. Subsequently, Parra sues Drazen for his own injuries from the accident. Drazen raises the affirmative defense of claim preclusion and moves for summary judgment on these grounds. The court should
deny the motion because Parra was not a party to the first case.
Derek Jeter, a citizen of NY is suing Money-R-US, a bank in Pennsylvania for embezzlement. He is alleging over $95,000 in damages. the bank then impleads the ex-bank manager, a citizen of NY under FRCP 14(a) stating that the manager raised Jeter's interest in order to personally embezzle money. the manager moves to dismiss contending that he is improperly impleaded since he is a non-diverse defendant. He argues that 28 USC § 1367(b) provides that in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on § 28 USC § 1332 the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the FRCP. The bank responds that under FRCP 14, the defendant may bring in a person who may be liable to the defendant for all or part of any recovery the plaintiff obtains in the main claims and that § 1367(b) is inapplicable. The court should?
grant the impleader since § 1367(b) is inapplicable to the case.
Phillip sued Danko Corp., alleging that Danko Corp. constructed a facility that was located partially on Phillip's land. The dispute turned on the precise boundaries of Phillip's property. The court granted summary judgment in Danko's favor, concluding that the facility was built entirely on Danko's property. Phillip subsequently sold his land to Bob, and Bob now sues Danko Corp., alleging that the same facility that was at issue in Phillip's case was built on Bob's (formerly Phillip's) property. Danko raises the affirmative defense of claim preclusion and moves for summary judgment on those grounds. The court should
grant the motion, because all of the elements of claim preclusion are satisfied.
Recall Penny's case against Desmond. Imagine that Penny offers eyewitness testimony from Widmore, a bystander who says that Desmond's light was red. In rebuttal, Desmond offers video footage from a nearby security camera, which shows him passing through the intersection when his light was green. Assume that Penny does not impeach the video's reliability or the accuracy of what is depicted in it. If Desmond moves for judgment as a matter of law after he offers this evidence and if the court adopts the federal standard for assessing the motion, the court should
grant the motion, because no reasonable jury could render a verdict for the plaintiff in light of this evidence. or deny the motion, because a reasonable jury could render a verdict for the plaintiff. -- depends on argument
Penny believes that Demotion, Inc. fired her because of her gender, so she brings a federal law gender discrimination claim in the federal court for the Northern District of New York. Demotion wins the case at trial, and the court enters judgment in favor of Demotion. Penny subsequently files a state law age discrimination claim against Demotion in New York state court, alleging that her firing was due to her age. Demotion's answer raises the affirmative defense of claim preclusion, and Demotion later moves for summary judgment on that basis and includes a copy of the prior judgment. If the court applies the transactional definition of a claim, the court should
grant the motion.
Mike "the Situation" lives in the same house with Snookie and DJ Pauly. Snookie drives a black Toyota Prius. Sooki has a drinking problem. On November 1, 2018, the Situation is driving on the Jersey Turnpike and his car is hit by a black Toyota Prius. The Situation does not see the driver's face or the car's license plate number. He does, however, see that the driver is drinking out of a bottle in a brown paper bag. The Situation sues Snooki. His complaint alleges that: 1. on November 1, 2018, plaintiff the Situation's car was negligently hit on the Jersey Turnpike by a black Toyota Prius. 2. Defendant Snooki drives a black Toyota Prius 3. Therefore, Defendant Snooki negligently hit Plaintiff the Situtation's car. 4. Plaintiff suffered $100,000 worth of damages Does this complaint state a plausible claim for relief?
no because of factual insufficiency
Which of the following pre-filing inquiries without more would most likely comply with Rule 11? Assume you are considering filing a complaint in a proper federal district court for negligence arising out of an accident in Massachusetts
same as c, but you have Dewey fax you copies of the medical reports if any and the repair invoice indicating that the car was totaled.
Pierre and his siblings are left a substantial amount of money to be held in trust. Dean is named the trustee, the person who is in charge of looking after the money for the benefit of Pierre and his siblings. One day, Pierre learns that Dean has been embezzling money from the trust. Pierre personally sues Dean for embezzlement and in his prayer for relief asks for monetary damages and to be named the new trustee. Dean first tries and fails to have the suit dismissed for insufficient service of process under 12(b)(5). After having the 12(b)(5) motion denied, Pierre decides to file a motion under 12(b)(7) asking the court to dismiss the case because Pierre had failed to join his siblings, who are required parties under Rule 19. How should the court rule?
the court should grant the motion because it would not be fair to resolve what to do with the trust funds unless the beneficiaries of the trust are parties in the suit.
Tom, a citizen of KY, entered into a contract to sell a vintage car to Jerry also a citizen of KY. However, when Jerry was ate in tendering a prepayment, Tom advised Jerry that he was no longer bound to complete the transaction. Jerry unequivocally informed Tome that the contract was still binding. Prior to the due date for delivery of the car under the original agreement, Tom entered into a new transaction with Andy, whereby Tom agreed to sell the vehicle to Andy for a higher amount that had been agreed to by Jerry. Andy is a citizen of Ohio. Andy was aware of the outstanding contract that Tom had with Jerry but was assured that Jerry's right in the car had been lawfully terminated. Tom subsequently repudiated his contract with Andy contending duress. Andy commenced an action against Tom in the appropriate US District Court for specific performance and breach of contract. Tom moved to dismiss upon the grounds that Jerry was an indispensable party under FRCP 19(a). What result?
the court will deny the motion because it can proceed in equity and good conscience with the case, because it can accord complete relief without Jerry's presence
