Civ. Pro. Clicker ?'s

"Crash for Fun, Inc." operated a bumper car ride at a local fairgrounds. After a couple of customers complained that the bumps had hurt them, Jill Smith, the company president, asked the ride supervisor, Mark Speck, to prepare a written report on whether the bumper cars were going too fast for safety and whether the maximum speed should be reduced. Mark prepared a memo analyzing the situation, with pros and cons on limiting speed, giving the only copy to Jill. Subsequently, Phil Phragile was injured on the bumper cars. After Phil sued, his attorney asked for all memos or communications regarding the safe speed of the bumper cars. Crash for Fun, Inc. -- A. Probably may withhold the memo as work product B. Probably may withhold the memo as work product, unless Mark has left the company and is no longer available to be deposed C. Probably may not withhold the memo as work product D. Probably may not withhold the memo as work product, unless the memo contains legal analysis

C. Probably may not withhold the memo as work product

P v. D & B (both individuals) for breach of contract. D resides in SDNY; B resides in NJ, conducting considerable related business in SDNY. Subject of contract is a machine manufactured and delivered in Japan. Venue probably would lie in: A. Only SDNY B. Only NJ C. SDNY and NJ D. Japan

C. SDNY and NJ - As a matter purely of venue, because at least one defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in each, then this appears to be the best answer, but without PJ over D in NJ, venue there won't actually get the lawsuit there

A party to a federal civil case involving a serious matter is constitutionally entitled to a jury (upon request): A. Never B. Always C. Sometimes D. Depends on the judge's mood

C. Sometimes 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. . . ."

3. When Baxter deposes Arthur, her lawyer interposes numerous objections, with the result that almost nothing is accomplished after many hours. What should Baxter's lawyer do? A. Arthur's lawyer is fully entitled to interpose objections of any kind during a deposition B. Arthur's lawyer may make objections on any basis as long he doesn't prevent the witness from answering the questions C. Stay cool, make a clear record of the behavior of opposing counsel in obstructing the deposition, and then notify opposing counsel that you will seek a ruling from the court D. Turn-about is fair play - start insulting the witness and swearing at opposing counsel

C. Stay cool, make a clear record of the behavior of opposing counsel in obstructing the deposition, and then notify opposing counsel that you will seek a ruling from the court

Which of the following statements is most correct? A. Summary judgment is used more often in the decades after Celotex but still is relatively rare B. Because it is expressly provided for as a motion in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment does not implicate the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment C. Summary judgment is not a disfavored procedural shortcut D. Given the availability of discovery to gather evidence in preparation for trial, summary judgment is of lesser importance today than during earlier historical periods

C. Summary judgment is not a disfavored procedural shortcut

3. In federal district court, Prof. Gregorious Fisk (U. St. Thomas, MN) sues Prof. Billy Borrower (Mitchell-Hamline Law, MN) for copyright infringement under the federal Copyright Act in borrowing several pages from Prof. Fisk's article which were included without attribution in Borrower's own article. Borrower files a counterclaim for defamation under state tort law, based on Fisk's blogging on various internet sites and accusing Borrower of plagiarism. A. The counterclaim is not permitted under Rule 13 B. The counterclaim is permitted under Rule 13(b), but probably is only permissive and thus lacks jurisdiction C. The counterclaim is permitted under Rule 13(a), and because it probably is compulsory, also falls within supplemental jurisdiction D. What's a counterclaim?

C. The counterclaim is permitted under Rule 13(a), and because it probably is compulsory, also falls within supplemental jurisdiction A good argument can be made that the counterclaim is compulsory, because both episodes trace back to and directly involve the plagiarism incident, in which case supplemental jurisdiction would exist

Plaintiff files a complaint against Defendant police officer for a federal civil rights violation, alleging excessive use of force. Defendant answers. The statute of limitations runs. Plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to add a state-law assault and battery claim against Defendant. What result? A. Claim definitely may not be added because of the statute of limitations B. The court may deny the amendment if the court believes plaintiff waited too long to ask for amendment C. The court may grant the amendment and it will relate-back D. Both B and C

D. Both B and C

Alice sues Centerville Village, claiming that its police officers assaulted her during a political demonstration. Alice's complaint alleges the police officers "severely injured her leg." Centerville finds photo of Alice, taken the night of the incident, showing her participating enthusiastically in a local dance contest. During discovery, Alice requests to examine all relevant documents, but Centerville does not reveal existence of photo. A. Centerville can withhold photo, since Alice didn't allege inability to dance. B. Centerville can withhold photo because it will be used "solely for impeachment" of Alice. C. Centerville can withhold photo at risk of its exclusion from evidence. D. Centerville must disclose photo and is subject to sanctions if it does not.

D. Centerville must disclose photo and is subject to sanctions if it does not.

2. Amy Clark had an abortion performed by Dr. Kildare at Thomas Jefferson Hospital. She has filed a malpractice suit against both the doctor and hospital, claiming that negligent treatment rendered her sterile and for severe mental depression. Clark asks the hospital to identify prior patients who have undergone abortions and information about their post-operative results. The hospital objects and asks for a protective order. What is the court most likely to do? A. Order the hospital to produce the names and information B. Deny any discovery about prior abortion patients C. Permit discovery about prior abortion patients but protect against disclosure of their names D. Leave it to the patients to object based on physicianpatient privilege

C. Permit discovery about prior abortion patients but protect against disclosure of their names information about other abortion patients may be relevant to show a pattern of malpractice, indicate problems with procedures especially in cases of difficulty, etc. While the information would be protected by the physician-patient privilege, note that the patients (who are unlikely to be aware of the discovery request) must rely on hospital to assert it A protective order might direct that such information be provided anonymously and not made public

Purposes of Discovery

1) Preserve Evidence 2) Ascertain Issues in Controversy 3) Investigate for Information and Compel Disclosure From Adverse Parties and Witnesses 4) Simplify Presentation of Evidence at Trial

What are the Two Questions Under Minimum Contacts Test?

1. Are the Defendant's Contacts With the State Continuous and Systematic or Isolated and Sporadic (Amount of Contact)? 2. Is the Cause of Action Related or Unrelated to the Defendant's Contacts With the State (How Strong is the Relationship Between the Claim and the Contact)?

A truck driver from Wisconsin and a bus driver from Minnesota were involved in a collision on the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin that injured the truck driver. The truck driver filed a diversity of citizenship suit in federal court in Minnesota alleging negligence by the bus driver and seeking $100,000 in damages. What law of negligence should the federal court apply? A. The federal court should determine which state's negligence law would be applied by a state court in Minnesota and apply that law to the action. B. The federal court should apply the federal common law of negligence. C. The federal court should evaluate the negligence law of both Wisconsin and Minnesota and apply the law that the federal court thinks most appropriate D. The federal court should apply the negligence law of Wisconsin as the truck driver's state of citizenship.

A. The federal court should determine which state's negligence law would be applied by a state court in Minnesota and apply that law to the action.

2. John is seriously injured in an automobile accident. He is taken to Coral Hospital for emergency care. In the emergency room, he is examined by Dr. House, who subsequently operates on his back. Three months later, after John has hired a lawyer, John's back is examined by Dr. Welby, an orthopedic expert, at the lawyer's request. John brings suit against Mary, the driver of the other car. Dr. Welby is hired by John's lawyer and has prepared a report on John's condition. John's lawyer expects to call both doctors to testify at trial. Can Mary's lawyer depose these physicians? A. Yes, may depose both B. No, may depose neither C. Only Dr. Welby D. Only Dr. House

A. Yes, may depose both

P v. D, breach of contract claim. D resides in SDNY. The subject of the contract is a machine designed in NM, assembled in ND-IL, from parts made in OH, CA, PA. Venue probably would lie in: A. Only SDNY B. SDNY, NM, and ND-Il, but probably not OH, CA, and PA C. SDNY, NM, ND-Il, OH, CA, and PA D. What?

B. SDNY, NM, and ND-Il, but probably not OH, CA, and PA - Yes, SDNY does work under Option 1, and NM and ND-Il probably work under Option 2 because they likely are districts where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; but OH, CA, and PA probably are not districts where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred as they are merely the source of parts and the contract probably focuses on the end-product

Plaintiff alleges personal injury by reason of negligent driving of a U.S. Postal Service truck and sues the United States government for $50,000 in damages. A. Plaintiff has the right to a jury trial B. Plaintiff does not have the right to a jury trial

B. Plaintiff does not have the right to a jury trial Claims against the sovereign government were not recognized at common law absent waiver of sovereign immunity, which then fell on the equity side

Plaintiff and defendant have signed a software development agreement, in which defendant promised to sell its software exclusively to plaintiff. Plaintiff sues defendant in federal court alleging that defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations during negotiations and seeking to have the contract rescinded. Plaintiff demands a jury trial. A. Plaintiff has the right to a jury trial B. Plaintiff does not have the right to a jury trial

B. Plaintiff does not have the right to a jury trial Fraud was a defense to a contract claim at common law, but even if the court found for defendant it could not issue an order rescinding the contract; only the equity courts could order rescission

Plaintiff and defendant have signed a software development agreement, in which defendant promised to sell its software exclusively to plaintiff. Plaintiff sues defendant in federal court alleging $100,000 in harm (but not seeking damages) and seeking an order prohibiting defendant from selling the software to a competitor, demanding a jury trial. A. Plaintiff has the right to a jury trial B. Plaintiff does not have the right to a jury trial

B. Plaintiff does not have the right to a jury trial There is no right to a jury trial because there was no common law action for this remedy in 1791; it is similar to specific performance which was on the equity side

2. Plaintiff files a complaint against Defendant for breach of contract. Plaintiff's attorney realizes that Plaintiff also has a claim for negligence. Defendant has answered and 21 more days have passed. What may the attorney do now? A. Amend the complaint as a matter of course B. Seek the court's permission to amend the complaint C. Both A and B D. Contact his malpractice insurance carrier to warn that he is about to be sued for malpractice

B. Seek the court's permission to amend the complaint

1. Arthur sues Beatrice in federal court for negligently inflicted injuries. What may Beatrice's attorney do if he believes Arthur's complaint fails to allege Beatrice's negligence? A. Move to dismiss for failure to state a claim under R. 12(b)(6) B. Note the absence of a negligence allegation in the answer C. Both A and B D. Neither A nor B

C. Both A and B

Alice sues Centerville Village, claiming that its police officers assaulted her during a political demonstration. Alice's complaint alleges the police officers "severely injured her leg." Centerville finds photo of Alice, taken the night of the incident, showing her participating enthusiastically in a local dance contest. In the initial mandatory disclosures -- A. B. C. D. 0% 0% 0% 0% A. Centerville can withhold photo, since Alice didn't allege inability to dance. B. Centerville can withhold photo because it will be used "solely for impeachment" of Alice. C. Centerville can withhold photo at risk of its exclusion from evidence. D. Centerville must disclose photo and is subject to sanctions if it does not.

C. Centerville can withhold photo at risk of its exclusion from evidence.

2. Arthur sues Beatrice in federal court for negligently inflicted injuries. What may Beatrice's attorney do if he believes Beatrice's contacts with Illinois are too meager to support personal jurisdiction? A. Move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under R. 12(b)(2) B. Object to personal jurisdiction in the answer C. Either A or B D. Neither A nor B

C. Either A or B

2. Baxter Corp. serves a subpoena to take a deposition of Alice Arthur, the president of Arthur Corp. On the appointed day, Alice Arthur simply doesn't show up. As attorney of Baxter, what sanctions may be sought? A. Baxter's attorney must first conduct a discovery conference with Arthur's lawyer before seeking sanctions B. Failure to appear at a deposition is immediately sanctionable, with the penalty being exclusion of the witness who failed to appear for the deposition from testifying C. Failure to appear at a deposition is immediately sanctionable, usually assessed as the cost to the party for the deposition (i.e., attorney time, the cost of the court reporter, etc.) D. A party's highest corporate officer may not be deposed because much of her knowledge would constitute work product

C. Failure to appear at a deposition is immediately sanctionable, usually assessed as the cost to the party for the deposition (i.e., attorney time, the cost of the court reporter, etc.)

Is there Supplemental Jurisdiction? Plaintiff (NY) Federal Antitrust Federal Securities Defendant (PA) State Contract A. Supplemental Jurisdiction: Yes? B. SJ: No? C. Federal Jurisdiction for other reasons?

C. Fed. Jur. for other reasons

Albert suing Barbara for negligently inflicted injuries in an automobile accident, has disclosed medical records for his injuries as part of mandatory disclosure. Later on, he receives a new and substantial additional medical bill for his treating surgeon. What must Albert do? A. Because he fully complied with mandatory disclosure earlier, he may raise additional evidence at trial, as long as it was truly subsequent B. As long as Barbara asks for it in discovery, he is not obliged to supplement the earlier disclosure C. If he wishes to claim the additional medical expenses at trial, he must supplement the original disclosure D. Because it was not included in the original mandatory disclosure, the subsequently-billed expenses are outside the scope of this lawsuit

C. If he wishes to claim the additional medical expenses at trial, he must supplement the original disclosure

If a party to a federal civil case timely requests a jury trial, the party is entitled to a jury -- The Supreme Court has interpreted the 7 th amendment as "preserving" the right that existed as of the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 A. If the case is important B. If it is the kind of case in which we want to account for the sense of the community C. If it is the type of case that would have been tried to a jury in 1791 D. If the judge determines that the issues would be understandable to ordinary people on a jury

C. If it is the type of case that would have been tried to a jury in 1791 The Supreme Court has interpreted the 7th amendment as "preserving" the right that existed as of the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791

The law of personal jurisdiction . . . A. Is derived from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure B. Is based mostly on principles of federalism C. Is based mostly on the due process clause D. Requires the court to measure the defendant's presence in a state

C. Is based mostly on the due process clause Correct: It's been grounded on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a limitation on state power

2. This involves a car purchase and repair gone sour. Buyer sues Dealer. It is a proper diversity action in federal district court, alleging Buyer was injured in an accident caused by a failure of the brakes on a new car after Dealer repaired them. Dealer wants to assert a counterclaim against Buyer for an unpaid repair bill on a different car. May Dealer join this counterclaim? A. Yes B. No C. Only if the repair bill is for more than $75K D. Only if Buyer consents to the claim

C. Only if the repair bill is for more than $75K Rule 13(b) allows assertion of unrelated counterclaim, there's already diversity here, and if the counterclaim exceeds $75K it will have an independent basis for jurisdiction, which will be required because the claim doesn't arise out of the same case or controversy/ common nucleus of operative fact.

2. This involves a car purchase and repair gone sour. Buyer sues Dealer. It is a proper diversity action in federal district court, alleging Buyer was injured in an accident caused by a failure of the brakes on a new car after Dealer repaired them. Dealer wants to assert a counterclaim against Buyer for an unpaid repair bill on a different car. May Dealer join this counterclaim? A. Yes B. No C. Only if the repair bill is for more than $75K D. Only if Buyer consents to the claim

C. Only if the repair bill is for more than $75K

1. John is seriously injured in an automobile accident. He is taken to Coral Hospital for emergency care. In the emergency room, he is examined by Dr. House, who subsequently operates on his back. Three months later, after John has hired a lawyer, John's back is examined by Dr. Welby, an orthopedic expert, at the lawyer's request. John brings suit against Mary, the driver of the other car. Dr. Welby is hired by John's lawyer and has prepared a report on John's condition. John's lawyer expects to call both doctors to testify at trial. What information about these physicians likely must be disclosed as part of disclosure on expert witnesses under FR 26(a)(2)? A. Nothing about either physician need be disclosed at this stage B. The names of and a full report prepared by both physicians must be disclosed at this stage C. The name of and a report prepared by Dr. House must be disclosed, but not for Dr. Welby D. The name of and a report prepared by Dr. Welby must be disclosed, but not for Dr. House

D. The name of and a report prepared by Dr. Welby must be disclosed, but not for Dr. House

Anne buys a can of soup at Bob's Grocery Store and suffers food poisoning. Anne sues Bob's Grocery. May Bob's Grocery implead the soup company, saying that the soup company is responsible for any poison in the soup and should indemnify Bob's Grocery against any liability? A. Yes B. No

Yes, provided that Bob's Grocery is asking for reimbursement or indemnification for liability to Anne.

Plaintiff and defendant own adjacent tracts of land. Plaintiff has developed the land for residential use, defendant for industrial purposes. Plaintiff sues in federal court, alleging that defendant's violation of environmental regulations diminished the sales value of his housing by more than $5M and wanting compensation. Defendant demands a jury trial. A. Defendant has the right to a jury trial B. Defendant does not have the right to a jury trial

A. Defendant has the right to a jury trial Still a nuisance-style suit, but now the plaintiff is seeking a damages remedy that could have been granted by a court of common law 1791—so the parties have a right to trial by jury

Assume that if the light was red for Plaintiff, Plaintiff can recover nothing from Defendant for the car accident under applicable law. Assume also that if the light was red for Plaintiff, then it had to be green for Defendant (and vice-versa). In which of the following situations would a court be most likely to grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment? 1. Four eye witnesses swear by affidavit that the light through which Plaintiff traveled was red; Plaintiff swears by affidavit that the light was green 2. Eight eyewitnesses swear by affidavit that the light through which Plaintiff traveled was red; Plaintiff swears by affidavit that the light was green 3. Four eyewitnesses swear by affidavit that the light through which Plaintiff traveled was red; one eyewitness swears that the car in the parallel lane next to Defendant had stopped at the intersection, while Defendant's vehicle continued into the intersection; Plaintiff and Defendant have amnesia and do not remember the color of the light 4. No eyewitnesses saw the color of the light through which Plaintiff traveled; one eyewitness swears that the car in the parallel lane next to Defendant had stopped at the intersection, while Defendant's vehicle continued into the intersection; Plaintiff and Defendant have amnesia and do not remember the color of the light

3. Four eyewitnesses swear by affidavit that the light through which Plaintiff traveled was red; one eyewitness swears that the car in the parallel lane next to Defendant had stopped at the intersection, while Defendant's vehicle continued into the intersection; Plaintiff and Defendant have amnesia and do not remember the color of the light

3. John is seriously injured in an automobile accident. Let's talk now just about Dr. Welby, an orthopedic expert, who examined John three months later at the lawyer's request. John brings suit against Mary, the driver of the other car. Dr. Welby is hired by John's lawyer and has prepared a report on John's condition. John's lawyer decides not to ask Dr. Welby to testify at trial. Which of the following is most likely correct? A. Mary's lawyer may obtain Dr. Welby's report and take Dr. Welby's deposition B. Mary's lawyer may obtain Dr. Welby's report, but may not depose Dr. Welby C. Mary's lawyer may not obtain Dr. Welby's report, but he may depose Dr. Welby D. Mary's lawyer may not obtain Dr. Welby's report, and he may not depose Dr. Welby

4. Mary's lawyer may not obtain Dr. Welby's report, and he may not despose Dr. Welby Because Dr. Welby was retained in anticipation of litigation but will not testify, he is a consulting witness and is not subject to discovery unless Mary's attorney can establish exceptional circumstances and it is impracticable to obtain facts or opinions on the subject by other means. (Presumably Mary's attorney can hire own expert to prepare such an opinion on John's injuries - as we'll discuss with FR 35 on medical examinations.)

1. Plaintiff files a complaint against Defendant for breach of contract. Before Defendant has time to answer, Plaintiff's attorney realizes that Plaintiff also has a claim for negligence. What may Plaintiff's attorney do? A. Amend the complaint as a matter of course B. Seek the court's permission to amend the complaint C. Both A and B D. Contact his malpractice insurance carrier to warn that he is about to be sued for malpractice

A. Amend the complaint as a matter of course

5. Arthur sues Beatrice in federal court for negligently inflicted injuries. Beatrice files a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The motion is denied. Can Beatrice now wait and raise the defense of personal jurisdiction in her answer? A. Yes B. No

No, the failure to raise personal jurisdiction in the pre-answer motion results in waiver — Rule 12(h)(1)

Having sustained injuries from a household appliance, Cora sues Acme, Inc. for failing to include an automatic shut-off. Acme defends the product as nondefective, saying that its studies of an automatic shut-off showed it would be prohibitively expensive. By interrogatory Cora asks Acme to specify the cost of designing, developing, and testing the product. In response, Acme provides a flash-drive with all relevant cost documents. Cora believes it will take her expert weeks of expensive work to extract the information from these documents. A. If Acme's personnel would take the same amount of time to extract the cost information as would Cora's expert, Acme is not obliged to do more than provide the specific documents. B. Even if Acme could more readily extract the information, it has no duty to assist Cora beyond providing the documents. C. Because Cora asked for production of documents, she cannot complain when she gets what she asked for. D. Cora should be sanctioned under Rule 11 by filing a complaint before she knew about the costs for the product she claims is defective.

A. If Acme's personnel would take the same amount of time to extract the cost information as would Cora's expert, Acme is not obliged to do more than provide the specific documents.

Jane, fired by GrowCo, moves from Wisconsin, where GrowCo is incorporated and has its offices, to Minnesota. In Minnesota, she files suit in federal court for employment discrimination. A. If GrowCo objects to personal jurisdiction, it is likely to succeed on these facts. B. If Jane has changed domicile to Minnesota, personal jurisdiction will be found in Minnesota. C. Because the case is in federal court, the issue is one of subject matter jurisdiction only and personal jurisdiction limitations do not apply. D. If Jane changed domicile to Minnesota before the suit was filed, the Minnesota federal court will have subject matter and personal jurisdiction

A. If GrowCo objects to personal jurisdiction, it is likely to succeed on these facts. Yes, because nothing on the facts shows that GrowCo has made any contacts with Minnesota to subject it to personal jurisdiction there

4. John is seriously injured in an automobile accident. Let's talk now just about Dr. House, who treated John and performed surgery when John was taken to Coral Hospital for emergency care. John's lawyer decides not to ask Dr. House to testify at trial. Which of the following is most likely correct? A. Mary's lawyer may take Dr. House's deposition B. Mary's lawyer may not take Dr. House's deposition

A. Mary's lawyer may take Dr. House's deposition Because Dr. House was a treating physician - and thus is regarded as an ordinary fact witness under the rules - he may be deposed like any other fact witness

1. Amy Clark had an abortion performed by Dr. Kildare at Thomas Jefferson Hospital. She has filed a malpractice suit against both the doctor and hospital, claiming that negligent treatment rendered her sterile and for severe mental depression. Defendants seek discovery from Clark on the name of the putative father and Clark's social relationships. Clark objects and asks for a protective order. What is the court most likely to do? A. Permit discovery on both subjects B. Deny discovery on either subject C. Permit discovery on the name of the putative father but deny discovery on her social relationships D. Deny discovery on the name of the putative father but grant discovery on her social relationships

A. Permit discovery on both subjects Information about the putative father and social relationships may be relevant on other causes of all or part of her mental harm A protective order may limit the questions or information and keep it confidential to the lawsuit (although if the matter goes to trial, it may be publicly revealed)

Plaintiff and defendant signed a software development agreement, in which defendant promised to sell its software exclusively to plaintiff. Plaintiff sues defendant in federal court for $100,000 damages to his business, alleging the software doesn't work, demanding a jury trial. A. Plaintiff has the right to a jury trial B. Plaintiff does not have the right to a jury trial

A. Plaintiff has the right to a jury trial There is a right to a jury trial because an action for damages for breach of contract could have been brought in a court of common law—which would have used a jury to decide questions of disputed fact—in 1791 (on a writ of debt, assumpsit, or covenant).

Plaintiff accuses Defendant City Police Officer for using excessive force arresting Plaintiff in violation of her constitutional rights, asking for $50,000 in damages. A. Plaintiff has the right to a jury trial B. Plaintiff does not have the right to a jury trial

A. Plaintiff has the right to a jury trial obviously no constitutional claims existed at common law, the claim is similar to a tort claim (i.e., "constitutional tort") and seeks damages, which is the same remedy for tort claims

A protester brought suit in federal court against a police officer, alleging that the officer's use of force in arresting the protester violated civil rights. During the jury trial, eyewitnesses gave conflicting testimony about what happened during the arrest. At the close of the evidence, the protester moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied. The court then submitted the case to the jury, instructing the jury that the protester's burden of proof was clear and convincing evidence rather than preponderance of the evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the officer, and the court entered judgment on the verdict. What is the protester's best option for challenging the judgment? A. Seek a new trial, because the jury instruction was erroneous. B. Seek a new trial because the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. C. Seek judgment as a matter of law because the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find for the officer. D. Seek judgment as a matter of law because the jury instruction was erroneous.

A. Seek a new trial, because the jury instruction was erroneous.

Is there supplemental jurisdiction? (Y/N) Plaintiff (IL.) Defendant (IL.) 1. (Claim) Fed. Employment Discrimination 2. (Claim) State Law Tort (parking lot incident)

No, unless the tort was a result of the employment claim.

1. Arthur Corp. files a complaint against Baxter Corp. for breach of contract. Arthur Corp. then sends Baxter interrogatories asking about routine corporate information, such as company organization, corporate officers responsible for certain aspects of corporate affairs, etc. Baxter refuses to answer any of these, saying only that these matters are not relevant. Arthur believes the information is plainly relevant in deciding which corporate officers to depose and thus plainly permitted under Rule 26(b)(1). How should Arthur's lawyer proceed and can Arthur's lawyer seek sanctions? A. Given the unreasonableness of the refusal, Arthur's lawyer should move immediately to compel and should ask for sanctions B. Arthur's lawyer should contact opposing counsel for a discovery conference to discuss the matter before moving to compel and asking for sanctions C. Arthur's lawyer should try to work it out with opposing counsel in a discovery conference but not bother the court with motions D. Arthur's lawyer should conduct a discovery conference with opposing counsel and then move to compel, but sanctions are not available

B. Arthur's lawyer should contact opposing counsel for a discovery conference to discuss the matter before moving to compel and asking for sanctions lawyer is obliged to conduct a discovery conference with the opposing lawyer before approaching the court with a motion to compel Under Rule 37, sanctions are available if Baxter fails to comply with a discovery order, and a sanction may be imposed to the initial refusal if it is clearly unwarranted (as appears to be true here)

1. In federal district court, Plaintiff (Minnesota) sues Acme Towing (Minnesota), a towing company, under federal statute Title VII for wrongful discharge in firing him for his race. Plaintiff also joins a claim against Acme for damaging his car when it was towed from the parking lot when he was shopping downtown. A. Both claims cannot be joined under Rule 18(a) B. Both claims can be joined under Rule 18(a), but there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the towing claim C. Both claims can be joined under Rule 18(a) and there is supplemental jurisdiction over the towing claim D. Both claims can be joined if Acme Towing consents

B. Both claims can be joined under Rule 18(a), but there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the towing claim

1. In federal district court, Plaintiff (Minnesota) sues Acme Towing (Minnesota), a towing company, under federal statute Title VII for wrongful discharge in firing him for his age. Plaintiff also joins a claim against Acme for damaging his car when it was towed from the parking lot when he was shopping downtown. A. Both claims cannot be joined under Rule 18(a) B. Both claims can be joined under Rule 18(a), but there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the towing claim C. Both claims can be joined under Rule 18(a) and there is supplemental jurisdiction over the towing claim D. Both claims can be joined if Acme Towing consents

B. Both claims can be joined under Rule 18(a), but there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the towing claim Rule 18(a) permits joinder of related and unrelated claims - but there is neither independent nor supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim between nondiverse parties

Greg is injured on a scout outing when he stumbles on a tent wire after returning from a late night raid on the campsite of another troop. He brings suit against the Boy Scouts of America, Inc. A young boy tells defense counsel he saw four other boys trip over the same wire. Plaintiff serves a Rule 36 notice to admit that, prior to this incident, four boys had stumbled on the same wire. A. If properly requested, Boy Scouts must admit that the other boys had stumbled over the wire. B. Boy Scouts can properly refuse to admit (that is, deny) that the other boys stumbled. C. If Boy Scouts admit that other boys stumbled over the wire in Greg's suit, they are bound if the other boys also sue later. D. If Boy Scouts simply refuse to respond to the request for admission, that refusal will be treated as a denial.

B. Boy Scouts can properly refuse to admit (that is, deny) that the other boys stumbled.

In the Centerville litigation, Alice asks for a copy of the police report on the incident. While early drafts of the police report contained language suggesting the officer had used excessive force, the final draft had removed that language. A. Centerville will be sanctioned unless it provides all drafts of the police report. B. Centerville will not be sanctioned for providing only the final draft, unless Alice specified she wanted early drafts. C. Centerville is not required to disclose the earlier drafts under any circumstances, as the final draft is the official police report. D. Centerville need not disclose earlier drafts even if requested by Alice if those drafts were sent to the city attorney afterward, as it is then privileged.

B. Centerville will not be sanctioned for providing only the final draft, unless Alice specified she wanted early drafts.

Bob and Lisa, students at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, have an altercation in the hall. Charges are brought under the honor code against Lisa. During the hearing, Dean Vischer tells Lisa that she should testify freely in her own defense, as all testimony at the hearing will be confidential and privileged. If you were Lisa's attorney, how would you advise her? A. Dean Vischer is right - testify away! B. Dean Vischer is wrong - nothing you say at the hearing is privileged. C. Dean Vischer is partially right - if you only respond to specific questions, the Dean's promise of confidentiality makes the testimony privileged. D. I have no idea and the question is unfair.

B. Dean Vischer is wrong - nothing you say at the hearing is privileged.

Plaintiff and defendant own adjacent tracts of land. Plaintiff has developed the land for residential use, defendant for industrial purposes. Plaintiff sues in federal court, alleging that defendant is violating environmental regulations and seeking an injunction ordering compliance. Defendant demands a jury trial. A. Defendant has the right to a jury trial B. Defendant does not have the right to a jury trial

B. Defendant does not have the right to a jury trial One could bring a similar action for nuisance at common law, but only a court of equity could grant an injunction

P (a citizen of Minnesota) is suing D Corp. (incorporated in and having its manufacturing plant in Missouri) for injuries P suffered while hunting in Montana when a rifle manufactured by D Corp. recoiled and the butt of the rifle cracked him in the head A. P definitely may not hold D Corp. to PJ in Montana if P took the rifle there from Minnesota, but he certainly could assert PJ in Minnesota if he bought the rifle there B. If D Corp. sells rifles in Montana, it is probably subject to PJ in Montana, even if P bought his rifle in Minnesota C. Because a rifle is an end-product, and not a component-part, D Corp. is subject to PJ in Minnesota if it knows that its rifles are being distributed to Minnesota in the stream of commerce D. Because D Corp. is an American company, unlike the foreign companies in Asahi and Nicastro, D Corp. is plainly subject to PJ in Minnesota

B. If D Corp. sells rifles in Montana, it is probably subject to PJ in Montana, even if P bought his rifle in Minnesota - Yes, probably because even though the particular rifle P purchased came from Minnesota, D Corp. has made a purposeful contact with Montana by selling the same rifle there and a claim based on a rifle injury is probably sufficiently related to that contact generally defined as marketing that particular rifle, yet it is not certain because the relationship between the claim and contact is not as tight as it would be if the rifle had been purchased in Montana; the Supreme Court in Bristol-Meyers v. Superior Ct., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) denied personal jurisdiction in a state even if the product was sold there unless the plaintiff had either bought the product in the forum state or at least been injured by it there

For purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, a college student who moves to a new state to attend college . . . A. Always remains a citizen of the state where she or he grew up. B. Is more likely to be recognized as retaining domicile in the state where he or she grew up. C. Would automatically become a citizen of the state where the college is located if he or she married a person who grew up in that state. D. Loses domicile in the state that he or she came from (grew up in) if he or she has decided never to return to that state.

B. Is more likely to be recognized as retaining domicile in the state where he or she grew up.

A woman from Minnesota filed an action in Wisconsin state court against a retail store that is incorporated in Iowa and has its principal place of business in Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that the retail store has not delivered $100,000 in goods for which the woman had paid. The retail store has filed a notice to remove the case to federal court in Wisconsin. Was the action properly removed? A. No, because there is no complete diversity for federal subject matter jurisdiction. B. No, because the retail store is a citizen of Wisconsin. C. Yes, because there is complete diversity and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000 D. Yes, because the retail store is a citizen of both Wisconsin and Iowa.

B. No, because the retail store is a citizen of Wisconsin.

Paul Plaintiff brought a federal diversity action against his insurance company, alleging that the company had breached its duty under his insurance policy by refusing to pay for his medical expenses resulting from a mountain-biking accident. At the jury trial, the plaintiff presented evidence that he had paid all premiums on the insurance policy and that the policy covered personal-injury-related medical expenses arising from accidents. After he rested his case, the company presented evidence that a provision of the policy excluded payment for injury-related expenses resulting from an insured's "unduly risky" behavior. The company also presented a witness who testified that the accident had occurred in an area where posted signs warned bikers not to enter. The plaintiff did not cross-examine the witness. After resting its case and before submission to the jury, the company moved for judgment as a matter of law. Should the court grant the motion? A. No, because a motion for judgment as a matter of law must first be made at the close of the plaintiff's case-in chief. B. No, because whether Paul's behavior was unduly risky is a disputed question of fact for the jury to resolve. C. Yes, because the company's uncontradicted evidence of Paul's unduly risky behavior means that no reasonable jury could find that the policy covers his injuries. D. Yes, because Paul waived his right to rebut the company's evidence by not addressing the "unduly risky" policy provision in his case-in-chief.

B. No, because whether Paul's behavior was unduly risky is a disputed question of fact for the jury to resolve.

Ted's Tennis Shop entered into a contract with Bouncing Balls, Inc. to deliver tennis balls for its annual big sale. No tennis balls were delivered by Bouncing Balls, which forced Ted's Tennis Shop to cancel the sale (at considerable loss of money). After a lawsuit was filed by Ted's for breach of contract and discovery was complete, Bouncing Balls moved for summary judgment, admitting it had not delivered any tennis balls but arguing it was legally excused from performance because it decided instead to contribute the tennis balls to a charity tennis tournament. Which of the following is most likely-- A. The court should grant BB's motion for summary judgment B. The court should deny BB's motion for summary judgment, but nothing more C. The court should deny BB's motion for summary judgment and, if properly sought by Ted's or on the court's own motion, grant sanctions against BB under Rule 11 D. Whether BB should be granted summary judgment depends on the identity of the charity (leaving it to the judge's discretion)

C. The court should deny BB's motion for summary judgment and, if properly sought by Ted's or on the court's own motion, grant sanctions against BB under Rule 11

Public official is libeled in two separate books investigated and written separately by two different reporters for unrelated newspapers. Both books say that the public official took the same bribe from the same industrialist. A. The public official's claim to relief does arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and there is a common question of law or fact (so joinder is permissible) B. The public official's claim to relief does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and there is no common question of law or fact (so joinder is impermissible) C. The public official's claim to relief does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence but there is a common question of law or fact (so joinder still is impermissible) D. The public official's claim to relief does arise out of the same transaction or occurrence but there is no common question of law or fact (so joinder still is impermissible)

C. The public official's claim to relief does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence but there is a common question of law or fact (so joinder still is impermissible)

Paula sues Denise for injuries arising out of an automobile collision at an intersection. Paula alleges that Denise failed to stop for a red light. At her deposition, Denise says that she was knocked unconscious by the accident and does not remember the color of the light. Paula's lawyer asks Denise whether anyone else that was in the car with her has since told Denise that the light was red. A. The question is improper because it asks Paula for hearsay information about what another person said. B. The question asks for irrelevant information because Paula's response about what someone else has said could not be entered into evidence at trial. C. The question is proper and relevant because, although the hearsay answer is not directly admissible at trial, the information could lead to admissible information. D. The question is proper because relevance matters only at trial and not in discovery.

C. The question is proper and relevant because, although the hearsay answer is not directly admissible at trial, the information could lead to admissible information.

Is a party to a federal employment discrimination case alleging denial by the employer of a promotion based on gender entitled to a jury? A. Yes, because employment discrimination claims were tried to a jury at the common law in 1791 B. Yes, because employment discrimination claims seek damages which is a remedy similar to cases tried to a jury at the common law in 1791 C. Yes, but only when the federal employment discrimination statute provides for a jury trial D. No, because employment discrimination claims seek equitable relief (reinstatement with back pay) which was not tried to a jury in 1791

C. Yes, but only when the federal employment discrimination statute provides for a jury trial

After Phil Phragile filed suit, Crash for Fun, Inc. hired Aaron Arrow as their attorney to handle the suit. Aaron interviewed Mark Speck, the bumper car supervisor, asking for details about Phil's injury as well as the complaints by customers on those earlier occasions. Aaron prepared a written statement about what Mark said about the injury to Phil and had Mark sign it. As for Mark's comments about complaints by earlier customers, Aaron simply took notes in his journal. Subsequently, Mark was fired, left the state, and is no longer available. In discovery, Phil's attorney asks for a copy of Mark's signed statement and a copy of Aaron's notes on his interview with Mark. Assuming Mark was the only witness to these events, which of the following is most likely -- A. Crash for Fun may withhold both documents as work product B. Crash for Fun may withhold Aaron's journal notes, but not the written statement signed by Mark C. Because Crash for Fun fired Mark and thus is responsible for his absence, it may not assert work product protection D. Crash for Fun likely must produce both documents, but Aaron may be allowed to redact his own evaluative comments

D. Crash for Fun likely must produce both documents, but Aaron may be allowed to redact his own evaluative comments

Following an automobile accident, plaintiff's attorney conducted an interview with Jerry, who said that he and his girlfriend, Elaine, saw everything that happened. Plaintiff's attorney prepared a written statement, which Jerry then signed. Subsequently, defendant sent an interrogatory to plaintiff, asking for the names of all persons known to plaintiff who may have been witnesses to the accident. Plaintiff refuses to respond. Defendant moves to compel discovery. The trial court likely will: A. Deny the motion to compel, because defendant can conduct its own investigation to determine the identity of witnesses B. Grant the motion to compel as to Jerry, if plaintiff's attorney prepared a written statement for Jerry to sign; but deny the motion as to Elaine, because plaintiff learned of Elaine's existence through an interview conducted in anticipation of litigation, making this information protected work product C. Grant the motion to compel if defendant can show a substantial need for the information and that it would be an undue burden to obtain the information in another way D. Grant the motion to compel because there is no shield against discovery of the facts that a party has learned, provided the question asks for specific factual information

D. Grant the motion to compel because there is no shield against discovery of the facts that a party has learned, provided the question asks for specific factual information

Plaintiff files a complaint against Defendant police officer for a federal civil rights violation, alleging excessive use of force. Defendant answers. The statute of limitations runs. Plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to add a defamation claim, alleging Defendant told lies to newspaper reporter that Plaintiff was drunk at the time of the incident. What result? A. Claim definitely may not be added because of the statute of limitations B. If the amendment is permitted, the claim definitely would relate-back C. If the amendment is permitted, the claim definitely would not relate-back D. If the amendment is permitted, reasonable people could disagree whether the claim would relate-back

D. If the amendment is permitted, reasonable people could disagree whether the claim would relate-back

If a party to a state civil case timely requests a jury trial, the party is entitled to a jury -- A. If the case is important B. If it is the kind of case in which we want to account for the sense of the community C. If it is the type of case that would have been tried to a jury in 1791 D. If the state chooses to allow a jury trial for that type of case

D. If the state chooses to allow a jury trial for that type of case Supreme Court has not applied the 7th amendment to the states, so the right to a jury in a state court case depends on the state constitution

Which of the following statements is most correct? A. If defendant is convinced that plaintiff has no evidence, defendant would be within his procedural rights to move for summary judgment immediately after serving his answer to the complaint B. If plaintiff is convinced that defendant has no evidence, plaintiff would be within her procedural rights to move for summary judgment immediately after filing and serving the complaint C. A party that has not sought any information in discovery from the opposing party may not later move for summary judgment D. None of the above

D. None of the above

1. John is seriously injured in an automobile accident. He is taken to Coral Hospital for emergency care. In the emergency room, he is examined by Dr. House, who subsequently operates on his back. Three months later, after John has hired a lawyer, John's back is examined by Dr. Welby, an orthopedic expert, at the lawyer's request. John brings suit against Mary, the driver of the other car. Dr. Welby is hired by John's lawyer and has prepared a report on John's condition. John's lawyer expects to call both doctors to testify at trial. What information about these physicians likely must be disclosed as part of disclosure on expert witnesses under FR 26(a)(2)? A. Nothing about either physician need be disclosed at this stage B. The names of and a full report prepared by both physicians must be disclosed at this stage C. The name of and a report prepared by Dr. House must be disclosed, but not for Dr. Welby D. The name of and a report prepared by Dr. Welby must be disclosed, but not for Dr. House

D. The name of and a report prepared by Dr. Welby must be disclosed, but not for Dr. House For Dr. Welby, as it appears he was retained only in anticipation of litigation, he is covered by FR 26(a)(2) and thus the disclosure must include a full report For Dr. House, who was a treating physician, he is not an expert witness under the rules and thus is not required to prepare a full report (but his existing notes may be subpoenaed as part of medical records)

In which of the following situations would the judge most properly grant summary judgment? A. The judge is convinced that the only eyewitness is not telling the truth in her affidavit in support of the plaintiff B. The judge is convinced that the only eyewitness is telling the truth in his affidavit in support of the defendant C. The plaintiff can support her case only by circumstantial evidence, while the defendant presents his own eyewitness testimony by affidavit to support his case D. The plaintiff offers evidence supporting a factual theory of causation which is absurdly implausible

D. The plaintiff offers evidence supporting a factual theory of causation which is absurdly implausible

Peter is suing his employer Debnet Corp. alleging that he was denied a promotion on the basis of his race. Peter's lawyer asks for copies of all internal complaints filed by other employees alleging racial discrimination. A. The question asks for irrelevant information because the suit is about whether Peter was the victim of racial discrimination, not whether others were. B. The question asks for improper information because it invades the privacy of Debnet's employees by revealing their complaints. C. The question is relevant because proof of discrimination against other employees may be admitted into evidence to prove that Peter was also a victim. D. The question is relevant because it may produce information about which supervisors have been repeatedly accused of racial bias so that Peter's lawyer knows who to ask about racial attitudes in general and behavior toward Peter.

D. The question is relevant because it may produce information about which supervisors have been repeatedly accused of racial bias so that Peter's lawyer knows who to ask about racial attitudes in general and behavior toward Peter.

Is there Supplemental Jurisdiction? Plaintiff (IL.) Defendant (IL.) 1. (Claim) Fed. Employment Discrimination 2. (Claim) State Law Discrimination Claim 1 is dismissed early, should you keep or decline the supplemental claim?

Decline

Erie Doctrine

General Rule: A Federal District Court in Diversity -- Hearing a State Law Claim Because the Parties are Diverse -- will Apply the State Law of the State in which that Federal District Court Sits Exceptions: Certain Federal Rules, Including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)

5b. Defendant properly moved for JAML before submission to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff. Defendant moves for both JAML and New Trial. Trial court grants JAML. If the trial court grants JAML, must it automatically grant New Trial as well? A. Yes B. No

No. To be sure, a trial court often will conclude that if the evidence was so weak that no rational jury could rely on it for a verdict, then any such verdict is also against the great weight of the evidence. Still, the trial court could conclude that while the evidence was too weak to submit to jury, the case otherwise was well tried and no purpose would be served in a second trial.

9. Andrea sues Bob in federal court for negligently inflicted injuries. Bob files a pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and insufficient service of process. The motion is denied. If Bob fails to raise subject matter jurisdiction in a motion or the answer, but the judge discovers the subject matter jurisdiction problem, may the judge raise the issue? A. Yes B. No

Yes. Judge may raise subject matter jurisdiction on the judge's own motion (indeed the judge is obliged to do so), because subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable — Rule 12(h)(3)

Examples of Discovery Devices

Interrogatories (Written Questions Answered in Writing) • Depositions (Generally Oral Testimony That is Transcribed) • Examinations of People and Documents • Requests for Admission

Is there Supplemental Jurisdiction? Plaintiff (IL.) Defendant (IL.) 1. (Claim) Fed. Employment Discrimination 2. (Claim) State Law Discrimination Claim 1 is dismissed close to trial, should you keep or decline the supplemental claim?

Keep ? (Sisk has this as an answer question mark)

Is there Supplemental Jurisdiction? Plaintiff (IL) Defendant 1 (WI) Defendant 2 (IL) P brings Breach of Contract against D1 P brings Inducement to Breach of Contract against D2 Jurisdiction on both claims (Y/N)?

No

P (FL) v. D (NJ) & E (NY) in NY state court; personal injury claim. Removal Jurisdiction (Y/N)?

No

P (FL) v. D (NJ) in NJ state court; personal injury claim. Removal Jurisdiction (Y/N)?

No

P sues for defamation in State Court. D invokes First Amendment protection. Removal Jurisdiction (Y/N)?

No

Hypo: Plaintiff claims that Newspaper has libeled her. Newspaper's defense rests on a body of law that the courts have extrapolated from the First Amendment. Specifically, it relies on a body of U.S. Supreme Court cases holding that media defendants in libel cases may prevail — even if they have published false and injurious information — so long as they have not been negligent in, for example, checking their sources. Newspaper concedes the inaccuracy of its article but nevertheless believes that it has such a First Amendment defense here. What issues will be contested? Does Federal Question Jurisdiction lie? (Y/N)

No, Because Federal Law (the First Amendment issue) arises only as a defense.

Alphonse is the victim of a battery in a building. Police arrive immediately and find only two other people in the building (and videotape shows no one has left): Bart and Clyde. One of the two committed the battery. Alphonse sues Bart. May Bart Implead Clyde? A. Yes B. No

No, because Clyde is not liable to Bart; rather Clyde is another person who may be liable to Alphonse. • Bart may argue that Clyde is the actual culprit, but that is a defense to Alphonse's suit against Bart, not a basis for holding Clyde liable to Bart.

6. Arthur sues Beatrice in federal court for negligently inflicted injuries. Beatrice files a pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion is denied. Can she now file a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim? A. Yes B. No

No, because only one pre-answer motion is allowed — Rule 12(g) (although the failure to state a claim may be raised by postanswer motions, such as a motion for judgment on the pleading under Rule 12(c))

2a. Defendant properly moved for JAML before submission to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff. Defendant moves for both JAML and New Trial. The trial court denies JAML, but grants new trial. May Plaintiff appeal? A. Yes B. No

No, because there is no a final judgment in federal court (as the new trial will now proceed). Note: Some states, including Minnesota, allow immediate appeal of the grant of a new trial

4. Arthur sues Beatrice in federal court for negligently inflicted injuries. Beatrice files a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The motion is denied. Can Beatrice now move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction? A. Yes B. No

No, both because only one pre-answer motion is permitted and because the failure to raise personal jurisdiction in the first pre-answer motion results in waiver — Rule 12(h)(1)

P v. D & B (both corporations) for breach of contract. D is located in SDNY; B is located in NJ, but conducts substantial related business in SDNY. Subject of contract is a machine manufactured and delivered in Japan. Venue probably would lie in: A. Only SDNY B. Only NJ C. SDNY and NJ D. Japan

Option 1 now works (probably) because a corporation as a defendant is treated for venue purposes as residing in any state where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, so it looks like B Corp. is subject to personal jurisdiction in SDNY and thus is treated as residing there, just as does D Option 2 still fails because it appears that the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred outside of the United States Option 3 as a fall-back cannot be used if Option 1 works A. Only SDNY - SDNY is now probably a choice under Option 1, because D obviously is located in NY and because B may be subject to personal jurisdiction in NY, which for a corporation is treated as residing there; thus, as corporations, both defendants are now treated as residing in NY for venue purposes, so SDNY is a district where a defendant resides and all defendants reside in the same state

2c. Defendant properly moved for JAML before submission to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff. Defendant moves for both JAML and New Trial. The trial court denies JAML, but grants new trial on the basis the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. If Plaintiff wins the verdict at the second trial, should the judge grant a New Trial again? A. Yes B. No

Probably should not (probably would be an abuse of discretion). If the second jury reaches the same conclusion, the judge should humbly reconsider his or her conclusion that the great weight of the evidence goes the other way.

2b. Defendant properly moved for JAML before submission to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff. Defendant moves for both JAML and New Trial. The trial court denies JAML, but grants new trial. If Defendant wins the verdict at the second trial and the trial court grants judgment on the verdict, may the Plaintiff appeal the grant of a new trial at the first trial? A. Yes B. No

Yes, in theory -- although the Plaintiff's argument that the evidence was not against the great weight of the evidence is difficult to maintain so late and after a different outcome at the second trial

4. Defendant properly moved for JAML before submission to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff. Defendant moves for both JAML and New Trial. Trial court grants a JAML but denies a New Trial motion by Defendant. May the Plaintiff turn around and ask for a new trial now? A. Yes B. No

Yes, now the plaintiff may move in the trial court for a new trial within 28 days after entry of judgment on the JAML.

Well Pleaded Complaint Rule Means?

When the plaintiff's claim could be stated as either a state or federal cause of action, then the plaintiff may choose and the plaintiff's choice will determine whether there is federal question jurisdiction in federal court or instead only state court jurisdiction.

Is there Supplemental Jurisdiction? Plaintiff (IL) Defendant (IL) 3rd party D (IL.) P brings Federal Employment Discrimination D brings State Tort/Contract law claim against harasser Jurisdiction on both claims (Y/N)?

Yes

Is there supplemental jurisdiction? Plaintiff (IL) Defendant 1 (IL) Defendant 2 (IL) Claim against D1 is Federal Employment Discrimination Claim against D2 is State Tort Law Claim against harasser Jurisdiction on both claims (Y/N)?

Yes

Is there supplemental jurisdiction? (Y/N) Plaintiff (IL.) Defendant (IL.) 1. (Claim) Fed. Employment Discrimination 2. (Claim) State Law Discrimination

Yes

P (FL) v. D (NJ) in FL state court; personal injury claim. Removal Jurisdiction (Y/N)?

Yes

P (FL) v. D (NJ) in NJ state court; personal injury claim + federal civil rights. Removal Jurisdiction (Y/N)?

Yes

P alleges violation of rights under 14th Amendment of U.S. constitution in State Court. Removal Jurisdiction (Y/N)?

Yes

Hypo: Worker contends that Employer has violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, establishes a minimum wage for certain employees. Employer does not contest the applicability of the statute or the amount of the minimum wage but instead asserts that Worker has overstated the number of hours he has worked and is for that reason not entitled to the pay he seeks. Consider what issues will be contested? Does Federal Question Jurisdiction lie? (Y/N)?

Yes, Because Federal Law (a Federal Statute) is an Essential Part of the Plaintiff's Claim.

5a. Defendant properly moved for JAML before submission to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff. Defendant moves for both JAML and New Trial. Trial court grants JAML. Given that entry of JAML brings about a final judgment, must the trial court also rule on the New Trial motion? A. Yes B. No

Yes, Because Rule 50(c) requires it (and it is more efficient if the matter is appealed, as the court of appeals will not need to remand to get the district court's view on the new trial).

3. Arthur sues Beatrice in federal court for negligently inflicted injuries. Can Beatrice combine both a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under R.12(b)(6) and a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under R.12(b)(2) in the same pre-answer motion? A. Yes B. No

Yes, Rule 12(g)(1)

Alex asks Bob to sign promissory note for money that Alex borrows from Bank. Alex defaults on the loan. Bank sues Bob on note. May Bob turn around and implead (file a third-party complaint) against Alex, asking for Alex to reimburse Bob for any liability of Bob to the Bank? A. Yes B. No

Yes, because A is liable to B for amount by which B is liable to bank

8. Andrea sues Bob in federal court for negligently inflicted injuries. Bob files a pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and insufficient service of process. The motion is denied. Can Bob file a second pre-answer motion that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction? A. Yes B. No

Yes, because subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable — Rule 12(h)(3); and because the limitation in Rule 12(g)(2) on number of motions has an exception for subject matter jurisdiction

3. Defendant properly moved for JAML before submission to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff. Defendant moves for both JAML and New Trial. Trial court denies both JAML and New Trial. If on appeal, the court of appeals affirms denial of JAML, may the court review the denial of New Trial as well? A. Yes B. No

Yes, because the case is properly up on appeal from the final judgment on the verdict after the trial court denied the motions.

1. At the close of all the evidence, Defendant moves for JAML. The motion is denied, the case is submitted to the jury, and judgment is entered on the verdict for the Plaintiff. May the Defendant now renew the motion for JAML? A. Yes B. No

Yes, because the motion had been made before submission to the jury.

7. Andrea sues Bob in federal court for negligently inflicted injuries. Bob files a pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and insufficient service of process. The motion is denied. Can Bob include in his answer the defense that Andrea's complaint fails to state a claim? A. Yes B. No

Yes, because this defense is not waived by not being included in pre-answer motion or answer — Rule 12(h)(2)