Civil Procedure

Venue

100

Pete is from NM. Otto is from AZ. Rachel is from UT. Rachel is dating both Pete and Otto – who don’t know about each other. Both Pete and Otto decide to surprise Rachel at her home in UT on the same day. In the confrontation that resulted from the parties finding out about each other – Pete slugged Otto – sending Otto to the hospital and causing him to incur $100,000 in injuries. Otto brings suit against Pete in the Federal District Court of Arizona based on diversity. Arizona law requires the Arizona court to apply the law of the place of injury, limits a complaint to 20 pages, and requires service of process within 200 days of when the lawsuit was filed. Utah law allows a complaint to be 30 pages long, but says that service of process must happen within 100 days after the lawsuit is filed. The Federal District of Arizona allows complaints to be 40 pages long, and is bound by FRCP 4(m) that service of process must happen within 120 days. Pete raises the issue of whether Otto can prove the required intent. None of the states or the federal government have a statute that explicitly provides intent – but the common law of Arizona requires the plaintiff to prove premeditation to recover for battery. Utah and New Mexico require only a present intention. Federal Courts allow recovery whenever there is injury – even if it was accidental. What test should the Federal District Court of Arizona use to determine whether state or federal law applies to the number of days of service?

The court should ask whether the conflict is procedural or alters substantive rights Congress has delegated the power to create the rules of procedure for federal courts and so the federal court would apply the special rules for conflict of state-federal laws when congress has authorized the creation of the federal rule. The number of days of service is procedural in nature – and does not abridge, enlarge, or modify a substantive right.

200

What test should the Federal District Court of Arizona use to determine whether state or federal law applies to the number of pages permitted in a complaint?

The court should ask whether the conflict encourages forum shopping and is inequitable. The appropriate page length of a filing is determined by each court – and is not delegated by the Rules Enabling Act or any other act of Congress. Accordingly the federal court should use the forum shopping rule.

300

Resolve the conflict. What rule will the Federal Court apply regarding service of process?

Because we use the congressional authorization rules articulated in Hanna the question is whether the rule is procedural and whether it modifies an existing substantive right. How you complete service of process doesn’t alter the right of recovery only how you go about perfecting your filing in front of the court and so it is procedural. Courts can use their own procedural rules – so the federal court can apply federal law.

400

Resolve the conflict. What rule will the Federal Court apply regarding the page length of Otto’s complaint?

Courts can set their own procedural rules. We only have to defer to the state rule when the federal rule is not promulgated in response to a delegation from Congress and it doesn’t encourage forum shopping – The number of pages a party has in their filing doesn’t change which court a lawyer would file in and it doesn’t impact how much the parties can recover. Accordingly – it doesn’t encourage forum shopping. A court is allowed to applies its own procedural rules when those rules don’t encourage forum shopping – and so federal law applies.

500

What if Federal Rule 4(m), in addition to its 120 day requirement, limited recovery in personal injury cases to $1. What rule would the federal court apply?

Here we use the 2nd Hanna test for when Congress has explicitly authorized the creation of the common law because the Rules Enabling Act authorizes 4(m). Now the ability to recover isn’t changed (it doesn’t bar recovery and is thus procedural) but the amount of recovery is so limited that the substantive right to recover for injuries has been significantly modified. Since the federal rule fails this test – we apply state law.

Pleadings

100

Charles does appear. In his answer he admits that he trespassed, but claims that Ben fraudulently induced him to enter Annie’s property. He wants to bring a claim for fraudulent inducement against Ben as part of the same lawsuit. Can he?

Ben and Charles are co-defendants in the lawsuit filed by Annie. Ben is allowed to file a crossclaim related to the same transaction or occurrence. There is a common question of FACT (the trespass on the property), the same evidence supports both claims (the reason Charles is on the property with Ben is likely to both support fraudulent inducement and be relevant to the intent element of the tort). There is a logical relationship – but for the fraudulent inducement, Charles would not have trespassed.

200

Regardless of your answer in #1, assume Charles succeeds in bringing a claim against Ben. Ben still fails to appear in the suit and Charles wins a default judgment. Six months later, Ben brings a brand new lawsuit against Charles seeking contribution from him in the amount of $500. Charles objects. The Court will find:

Because Ben’s lawsuit for contribution is related to the same transaction or occurrence as the original lawsuit – it is barred by 13(a)(1)(A). (Same law (trespass), same evidence (physically present, intent), and a logical relationship (both are related to the pair trespassing together – Ben’s trespass and Charles’ trespass were simultaneous).

300

The City of Annapolis brings suit against building owner Ben for violating a city requirement that all buildings have 1 handicapped parking space for every 8 parking spaces. Ben’s building has only 1 handicapped space for every 14 spaces. Ben claims because the building is used by a private business (Ben’s Bakery) instead of for public or government services he does not have to comply with the law. After trial the court finds for Annapolis and Ben does not appeal. Two months later the City brings suit against Ben for failure to pay property taxes. Assume the complaint is well pled. Ben moves to dismiss. How will the Court rule?

It is a Permissive Counterclaim under 13(b) – and so it was not required to be brought in the first lawsuit.

400

Calvin brings suit against Donna for larceny. His complaint includes: 1. On September 2nd 2012 at the Taco Bell restaurant on 165th Street, Donna reached into Calvin’s pocket and took his wallet. 2. Donna then used Calvin’s credit card later that day to buy a new purse at Target and new shoes from Payless. 3. Both Target and Payless are also located on 165th street. 4. Claim: Donna stole Calvin’s wallet. 5. Claim for Relief: Calvin asks for $50 and the return of his wallet. In her answer, Donna files a motion to dismiss, claiming Calvin has failed to assert a claim upon which relief can be granted. If 3 days after filing his complaint, but before Donna has answered, Calvin wants to amend the complaint to reflect that the Taco Bell was actually on 163rd street – may he make the amendment?

Automatic right to amend once within 21 days information knowable at the time the lawsuit was filed

500

Under what Rule does Donna need to file her motion?

In the answer is specifically contemplated by rule 12(b)

Dispositions

100

On November 1st Alfred sues Bertha for intentional infliction of emotional distress. His claim seeks damages of $800. Bertha files a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which the court rejects. On November 15th Bertha files a counterclaim against Alfred alleging that he libeled her by filing the lawsuit. As a matter of law, a document filed with the court cannot by itself constitute libel. The trial is set for March 9th. If Bertha had failed to answer Alfred’s complaint, what would be the proper statement of law under Rule 55?

Because Bertha appeared, the court has to be the party to enter the default judgment. But because Bertha appeared the amount can be more than in the request for relief. Rule 55 requires a party be given 7 days’ notice before the judgment is entered against them.

200

If after being given notice, Bertha fails to appear can Alfred dismiss her counterclaim?

Yes – under 41(b). Rule 41(b) allows a claim to be dismissed for failure to prosecute. As long as the defendant is given notice the court’s decision to allow dismissal for failure to prosecute is reviewed only for abuse of discretion.

300

On October 24th 2011 Shaun and Hayden trespass on property owned in fee by Curtis. Trespass is an intentional tort that only requires the being physically present in order to owe nominal damages. During discovery Shaun and Hayden are unable to produce any facts which provide a legally justifiable reason for being physically present on Curtis’ land. Curtis moves for summary judgment, the court will

Grant the motion under Rule 56. A motion for summary judgment must be made at least 30 days before discovery closes. Here the facts indicate that we are still in Discovery when the motion is made but that no facts justify the defendant’s actions. Curtis has met his burden by proving that they are physically present, Shaun and Hayden have no facts to indicate a defense so summary judgment is appropriate.

400

8. Two weeks after filing his original claim for trespass against Hayden, Curtis amends his complaint to include a claim for breach of contract. Curtis claims that Hayden orally promised him $300 in exchange for his stuffed dragon animal, and that Curtis delivered the dragon but that Hayden never paid him. Hayden denies the existence of a contract. During discovery each presents a deposition of a witness to support their claim. Before discovery ends Curtis files a motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The court will:

Rule 56 allows both sides to use information gained from discovery to support their positions for summary judgment. Because Hayden claims there is no contract and has a witness to that effect there is a genuine dispute of material fact (does a contract exist) that can be heard by the jury.

500

10. In the original trespass case, Shaun fails to answer Curtis’ complaint in a timely manner and the court grants Curtis a default judgment. Four days after the default judgment is issued, Shaun appears and makes a motion for relief from judgment. He brings medical proof that he has been in a coma for three months and has only recovered 72 hours ago. He also claims that he was invited on to the property by Curtis and so as a matter of law he could not trespass. Can the court grant Shaun relief from judgment?

Rule 60 allows a party to request relief from judgment within 1 year of a judgment being issued inadvertently/mistake/cause. Shaun has good cause not to have appeared (coma with a doctor’s note). There hasn’t been even 1 trial yet, so you can’t give a new one. Instead the appropriate remedy is Rule 60(b)(1) – stay the summary judgment motion and allow the claim for trespass to proceed.

Preclusion and Appeal

100

New Carolina is the 51st state in the United States. Otto drives his Jeep across Ned’s property without permission. After getting back on the federal highway, he ignores a red light and gets in an accident with Penelope. At the scene, Otto fails a blood alcohol test. Penelope brings suit against Otto for negligence in New Carolina state court. The state court concludes that Otto was driving over the speed limit, was legally impaired (intoxicated), and was driving without a license – all of which are negligent behavior under state law. Otto does not appear to defend himself and the Court issues a default judgment in favor of Penelope. After Penelope wins, Ned brings suit against Otto for trespass. Ned argues that Otto is precluded from contesting his innocence based on res judicata. The Court will:

Find for Otto because Res Judicata isn’t relevant here. The trespass to Ned’s property has nothing to do with Otto’s negligence in hitting Penelope.

200

Because the accident took place on a Federal Highway, after Penelope wins her default judgment from New Carolina state court, she files a civil suit for negligence in federal court under a federal law. She wants to avoid trial by using her state court judgment to preclude relitigation of the issue. The Court will:

Allow Preclusion based on Res Judicata ONLY. The same transaction or same evidence would be used in either case – so no matter which standard of res judicata was used it would be barred by claim preclusion. BUT Issue preclusion requires that it be actually litigated. Here Otto didn’t appear.

300

It turns out Otto is from Vermont and has no assets in New Carolina. Penelope takes her judgment to Vermont court and asks for an order to garnish Otto’s wages. Now Otto wants to appear to contest the jurisdiction of the court. The Court:

Must allow Otto to contest jurisdiction. Because Otto did not appear in the first suit – he gets to contest the court’s jurisdiction.

400

Regardless of your answer to #3 – the Vermont court concludes that the New Carolina court had jurisdiction. Penelope argues that collateral estoppel allows her to avoid a new trial. The Court will:

Deny Collateral Estoppel because the finding that Otto was negligent was not actually litigated. Otto never appeared to defend himself – so while Res Judicata may be appropriate, Collateral Estoppel is not.

500

Assume Otto actually showed up and presented his defense in New Carolina, but the Court found him negligent anyway. After winning in New Carolina court, Penelope brings suit in Federal Court not for negligence, but under a new federal law that allows victims of car accidents to recover $5,000 from unlicensed drivers. Which is Otto’s best argument that the New Carolina judgment should NOT be entered against him?

The issue of whether he was licensed was not necessary to the judgment. Now he did show up and the facts say they decided he did not have a license, but to be negligent they did not have to conclude he had no license, could have used speeding OR intoxication.

Federal Question & Diversity Jurisdiction

100

Carrie and Curtis are domiciles of Canada, a foreign country. Sadie is a domicile of Minnesota. Maddix and Aria are domiciles of Wisconsin. Kaia is a domicile of Norway. Maddix is also a minor. He is the beneficiary of a trust and Curtis has been appointed as his guardian and the trust’s executor. Minnesota has a law that that requires payment on a contract for the provision of services within 30 days of the service being provided, Minnesota has also enacted the UCC covering the sale of any goods – both allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees. The United States Congress has passed a law that makes it illegal for anyone to use the chemical “Winnipeg Salt” in a residential area because, while it does keep the streets free of ice, it is also hazardous to domestic pets who may come into contact with it - like cats or dogs. Assume the court always has personal jurisdiction over all of the parties and that the law suits are always filed in the federal district court for the district of Minnesota unless otherwise explicitly stated. Sadie and Aria enter a contract where Sadie promises to keep Aria’s driveway clear of ice this winter. Sadie sprays Aria’s driveway (which is in the middle of a residential area) with Winnipeg Salt in order to keep ice from forming. Aria refuses to pay because her pet cat became very ill from exposure to the chemical. Sadie brings a claim against Aria seeking payment of $20,000 under the contract. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

The Federal Court has neither Federal Question nor Diversity Jurisdiction. Sadie’s right to recover her expenses is governed by state law. The fact that Sadie violated the federal law is not at issue in the suit between the parties. While they are diverse (Minnesota v. Wisconsin) the dispute fails the amount in controversy requirement.

200

Same facts as above, except Aria brings a claim against Sadie for the use of Winnipeg Salt on her driveway. She alleges $6,000 in vet bills and $100,000 in punitive damages. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

The Federal Court has both Federal Question & Diversity Jurisdiction Now the right to recover stems directly from the federal prohibition on Winnipeg salts for the protection of domestic pets. The parties remain diverse (WI v. MN) and the amount in controversy exceeds 75K (punitive damages can be included).

300

Sadie promises to deliver to Curtis 10,000 copies of Final Fantasy XV, a video game that retails for $60 each. Curtis provides a $100,000 down payment and Sadie never delivers the goods. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

The Federal Court only has Diversity Jurisdiction Contract for a sale of goods is not federal but governed by the UCC. However there is more than 75K in damages and the parties are diverse (Canada v. MN).

400

Same facts as above except Carrie made the promise to Curtis. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

The Federal Court has neither Federal Question nor Diversity Jurisdiction. There is no federal question (see above) and now the parties are both from Canada. Alienage jurisdiction does not extend to a dispute between two foreign parties.

500

Carrie is Sadie’s business partner. Carrie and Sadie eventually deliver 10,000 copies of Chrono Trigger, a video game that retails for $20 each to Curtis. Curtis refuses to allow the driver of the delivery van to leave. Carrie and Sadie join together to sue Curtis for the return of their van. They bring a claim under the 5th Amendment to Constitution, arguing Curtis has unconstitutionally taken their van. They allege $40,000 in damages for lost sales and $35,000 in punitive damages. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

The Federal Court only has Federal Question Jurisdiction. The 5th Amendment taking is obviously a federal question, and while this time 1332(a)(2) would extend diversity to Sadie v. Curtis it denies diversity to Carrie v. Curtis. Additionally the 75K does not exceed 75K in damages.