Miscellaneous
Trent sues Wake Forest Law under the Federal Railing Height Act of 2025. Dean Klein, in an email conversation with WFU Counsel and Thomas Long regarding the law suit, admitted that the school intentionally built railings below the required height for the average student's center of gravity (36 inches).
Trent requests these emails during the discovery process. Are the emails discoverable?
What is the emails are discoverable?
Privileged matters are barred from discovery if they are (1) communications, (2) between privileged persons, (3) in confidence, and (4) for the purposes of obtaining legal advice.
Daniel sues Drew under North Carolina's Love Triangle Statute, claiming $78,000 for capturing Emma's heart. Both Drew and Daniel reside in North Carolina, but Drew plans to return to Wisconsin after school. Is subject matter jurisdiction appropriate?
What is no?
1. As per Boone, every time you see a emotional harm-based damage claim you should presume that damages are not legally cognizable/in good faith.
2. Drew always intending to return means he is probably domiciled in Wisconsin and not North Carolina.
Thomas Long sues Haley under the Federal Lighter Stealer Act in North Carolina. Thomas' process server serves Haley at Wake Forest on the first day of 2L classes.
What is the most effective way for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction?
What is transient jurisdiction?
Steven experienced severe emotional distress following Parker's school-wide resume email. Parker sent the email from Vietnam and Steven read the email in Canada. Steven wanted to sue Parker and JWP in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Parker was a resident of the Eastern District of Texas, JWP was a resident of the Western District of North Carolina, and Steven was a resident of the Central District of Florida.
Where is venue proper for Steven's lawsuit?
What is the W.D.N.C. or the E.D.Tex?
Harper sues Professor Robinson for negligent grading practices, failure to teach curriculum, intentional infliction of emotional distress by cold call, and professorial malpractice. Assume the claims are properly joined.
The trial court severs the negligent grading practices claim to promote judicial efficiency in litigating the remaining claims. Under what rule may the judge exercise this authority?
What is Rule 21?
Kathy sues Walt under the federal Margarita Spillers Tort Act. In her complaint, she alleges the following:
1. Walt owed a duty to Kathy to keep his hands to himself during Stir Fry.
2. Walt breached his duty to not spill margaritas during Stir Fry.
3. Walt caused Kathy to spill her margarita.
4. Kathy was harmed when Walt spilled her margarita.
How will the court evaluate and dispose of Kathy's complaint?
What is probably dismiss the complaint under Twiqbal after:
Take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.
Accept as true only well-pleaded factual allegations respecting those elements, discarding conclusory legal allegations.
Decide in light of judicial experience and common sense whether those well-pleaded factual allegations state a plausible claim for relief.
THANK GOD! Ian Vernon is suing his raw milk supplier in federal court for breach of contract after the milk was NOT raw. The complaint mentions that the supplier may raise a defense related to the federal Food and Drug Administration. Is subject matter jurisdiction appropriate?
What is: NO!
Under the well-pleaded complaint rule and the Holmes creation test, although a case arises under federal law if the federal issue appears in the well-pleaded complaint, a suit only arises under the law that creates a cause of action. The defense is not enough for federal question jurisdiction here.
Keith Robinson filed a breach-of-contract action in NC, where he lived. The defendant, his TA, was domiciled in Texas. The parties had entered the contract in Texas and had performed under the contract solely in Texas. However, the TA owned a small vacation property in NC, which Robinson attached to his claim. The TA's only contact with NC was ownership of the vacation home.
May a court in NC exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction?
What is: NO!
While this may work under the "definition" of quasi in rem type II jurisdiction, we know that under Shaffer v. Hefner, there still needs to be some minimum contacts with the state beyond the existence of the property.
Jordan Lee was injured by a nebulizer built by a corporation. The corporation was based in Texas and was subject to personal jurisdiction in the state at large. The company’s headquarters were in the Southern District of Texas and the factory where the nebulizer was made was in the Eastern District of Texas. A few of the corporation’s executives lived in the Western District of Texas. The corporation had no contacts with the Northern District of Texas. Lee wanted to file suit in federal district court in Texas based on diversity jurisdiction.
Where is venue proper for his lawsuit?
What are: the Southern District of TX and the Eastern District of TX
Zach sues Walt for telling him the incorrect answer in Civ Pro. Later, Zach finds out that Nate was in on the scheme and decides to add him as a party. Nate decides to bring a suit against Walt for erasing all of his book briefs in Civ Pro. Is joinder appropriate? Label the parties.
What is: Zach is a plaintiff, Walt and Nate are defendants, Nate is a crossclaim plaintiff, and Walt is a crossclaim defendant.
Zach's joinder of Nate is appropriate. For Nate's crossclaim, it would depend on whether a court would find that these suits arose out of the same transaction/occurrence. These facts don't make it clear (could be argued either way!)
EW sues Drew, alleging that he was negligent in driving his car; in Drew's Answer, he denies that he was negligent. Emma's lawyer has interviewed her, obtained copies of her medical and wage records, and has spoken with various other potential witnesses. Emma's lawyer intends to present a straightforward version of the case: Drew ran a red light and collided with Emma, who as a result lost wages and incurred medical expenses. A witness, Daniel, will testify that Drew ran a red light. Emma's lawyer learned that she has a poor driving record and has been cited for running red lights; her job situation is also precarious, and Emma thinks that her boss might testify that she was about to be fired (thus reducing potential damages for lost future wages).
What initial disclosures must Emma make during discovery based on these facts?
What is: witnesses in support, documents in support, damages computations, insurance agreements. Emma does not need to provide anything that does not support her claim.
Emma would need to provide Daniel's contact information as well as any other potential witnesses, Emma's medical and wage records, a calculation of her damage claims, and whether she has any insurance.
Chief, a citizen of New York, sues Kirkland and Ellis, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York, in federal court for discriminating against people who interview with wet hair. Her earnings if she were hired would far exceed $75,000. Can the court exercise diversity jurisdiction?
What is: NO!
Although K&E's state of incorporation is diverse from Chief's domicile, the fact that there is overlap in New York is enough to destroy diversity jurisdiction (and law firms are considered domiciled in every state where a partner resides). Maybe she could succeed on federal question though!
Stevo, a Florida resident, is sued in North Carolina for falling asleep too many times in class. Tang files a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim but does not raise lack of personal jurisdiction. After losing the motion, Steven attempts to raise lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense. How will the court rule?
What is: use it or lose it!
Stevo unfortunately did not raise lack of PJ in his first motion, effectively waiving it. The court will take no pity on his sleepy self.
Ian Iskra files suit in federal court in West Virginia against Kelsey, domiciled in North Carolina, alleging negligent voting practices which resulted in his loss of an Honor Council Seat. Kelsey voted in North Carolina and met both Ians in North Carolina. The parties stipulate that Ian had received the election results while he was home in West Virginia and was substantially harmed in West Virginia.
Kelsey moves to dismiss for improper venue, arguing that venue is improper under the 8th Circuit events and omissions test. Is Kelsey correct?
What is YES?
Venue is appropriate under the 8th Circuit test where the defendant's actions establish a point of dispute between the parties. Here, the parties agree that Ian was harmed in West Virginia and the real question at law is whether Kelsey negligently voted in North Carolina.
Virginia sues Josh under the Federal Bad Law School Boyfriend Act for not napping with her at the Gold Sox tournament. Josh counterclaims, alleging that Virginia (1) breached their implied agreement to "keep things casual," (2) caused severe emotional distress by limiting his beer intake at the tournament, and (3) made him block his mom on Instagram.
Label the claims under Rule 13(a) and (b).
What is #2 is mandatory under Rule 13(a) and #1 and #3 are permissive under Rule 13(b)?
Kate Irwin filed an action in state court, alleging that WFU Law had violated a provision of the state’s antidiscrimination law after they fired her after seeing her feet pics. WFU Law consented to the trial court’s jurisdiction and venue. The court dismissed the original action with prejudice, finding that Irwin failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Her motion for reconsideration and appeals were unsuccessful. She filed a new action in federal court, bringing claims under both federal and state antidiscrimination laws with the same factual allegations and regarding the same timeframe.
Will WFU be successful if it argues that claims in the federal action are barred by the doctrine of res judicata?
What is: yes
dismissals with prejudice are considered final adjudications on the merits. The fact that she is bringing the claim under a different law is irrelevant, because the claim is the same.
TROUBLE IN PARADISE? Greg's wife leaves him after the local United Autonomous Wives of America (UAW) chapter distributed anti-Greg literature at Law Prom. The UAW headquarters is located in New York. Greg, domiciled in North Carolina, sues the UAW in federal court, alleging numerous state-level tort and defamation claims totalling $76,000 in damages. Is the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction proper?
What is no?
Partnerships and unincorporated associations are considered domiciled in every state where a member resides. Although this is a nationwide union with a PPB in New York, because there is a local, NC chapter, at least one member is likely domiciled in North Carolina. Thus, subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity is destroyed.
UH OH! Chief decided that law school wasn't for her and started an alarm clock manufacturing business, Chief Corp. (designed to only ring 15 minutes after the scheduled wake-up time). Chief Corp is headquartered and incorporated in North Carolina. Chief sells the alarm clocks to a third-party distributor, USA Clocks, Inc., but doesn't ask where the clocks will be sold. USA Clocks sell in New York. Her old law school buddy, Ella, is fired from K&E when she arrives 15 minutes late to an important client meeting. Ella sues Kirsten in New York.
Does New York have personal jurisdiction?
What is probably not - but it depends on what test the court applies.
Under Brennan's Pure Stream of Commerce Test - Kirsten should know that USA Clocks might reasonably be sold across the US and thus, that her product might enter the stream of commerce.
Under O'Connor's Stream of Commerce Test - no, because intent is required and Chief would need to take additional steps to target the state.
Spencer, domiciled in ED TX, and Chief, domiciled in ND TX, decided to go on a LONG road trip for iced coffee and energy drinks together! They are each driving their own cars and talking out the window to each other on the highway (Chief had to ask chatgpt how to drive). While in Oklahoma (which only has one judicial district), both of their cars accidentally collide with Walt (who may or may not have a confederate flag bumper sticker). Walt gets mad and decides to sue. Which venues would be proper?
What are: ED TX, ND TX, and District of Oklahoma
under (b)(1), venue is proper in any district in which any defendant resides if they are all citizens of the same state.
under (b)(2), venue is proper in any district where a substantial part of the suit arose
FedSoc was incorporated in NC and had its principal place of business in Winston Salem. FedSoc sued the city in federal district court. The complaint alleged that Winston had violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by denying FedSoc a permit for a planned demonstration. While preparing the answer, Winston Salem's lawyer discovered that FedSoc had fraudulently failed to pay approximately $80,000 in city property taxes on its headquarters building. Based on this tax avoidance, the city wanted to assert a state-law counterclaim against FedSoc for fraud.
Can the city properly include the counterclaim for fraud in its answer?
What is: no because this is a permissive counterclaim (not the same transaction/occurrence) and the court would not have subject matter/supplemental jurisdiction for the same reason
Helen Grant files a negligence action in federal court against Elon University arising from a workplace injury. Grant does not seek to amend until eight months later, after discovery has closed and Elon has filed a motion for summary judgment. The proposed amendment would add a new theory of liability based on negligent supervision, relying on facts that were known to Grant at the time of the original complaint. Elon argues that allowing the amendment would require reopening discovery and significantly delay the case.
Does justice require the court to give leave to allow the amendment?
What is: probably not (weigh the factors)
Reason for amendment: new theory of liability, but the facts were known to Grant at the time of her original complaint.
Diligence in bringing amendment: weighs heavily against Grant.
Prejudice to opposing party: there is some preparation prejudice here; discovery has closed and Elon has already filed for SJ. However, if the facts are similar/common, the preparation prejudice wouldn't be exponential.
Futility: this amendment is probably not futile, but timeliness is an issue.
Prior amendments: none that we know of.
Walter, a citizen of North Carolina, files suit in federal court against New York Times, a citizen of South Carolina, seeking $120,000 in damages after his crossword puzzle malfunctioned and made noise during class. New York Times then impleads Apple, a citizen of North Carolina, under Rule 14, alleging that Apple is liable for contribution arising from the same accident.
After Apple is brought into the case, Walter asserts a direct claim against them for $50,000, alleging that their malfunctioning speakers also contributed to his injuries. At the same time, NYT asserts a separate claim against Apple for $30,000 in reputational damage arising out of the same incident.
Is supplemental jurisdiction appropriate for these claims?
What is: it is appropriate for NYT's crossclaim against Apple but not appropriate for Walt's claim against Apple (under 1367(b)).
Booney, a resident of North Carolina, was injured when her kitchen blender malfunctioned and exploded while she tried to make homemade frozen margaritas. The blender was purchased from a local retailer in North Carolina and was manufactured by HomeTech Corp., a U.S. company that distributes its products nationwide. One of the blender’s internal components—a pressure valve—was manufactured by ValveCo, a company based in Italy with no offices or employees in the United States. ValveCo sells its valves in bulk to HomeTech pursuant to a long-term contract, ships them to HomeTech’s assembly facility in Ohio, and works with HomeTech engineers to ensure the valves meet U.S. safety standards. ValveCo is aware that HomeTech sells finished products throughout the United States, including in North Carolina, but does not advertise, market, or directly sell its products in any particular state. Boone sues ValveCo in federal court in North Carolina.
Does the court have specific personal jurisdiction over ValveCo? Analyze under all three stream of commerce approaches.
What is: depends on the test!
Pure stream of commerce: likely yes, because ValveCo is aware that HomeTech sells products throughout the US, including in NC. This is enough under this test.
Stream of commerce plus: likely no, ValveCo doesn't do much "plus." There is room for an argument about ensuring that the valves meet US safety standards, but this doesn't pertain to any particular state, and probably is not enough.
Stevens approach: this one is closer, but I would go with yes. There is a very high volume of sales being done in the US, and we know that blenders tend to be particularly hazardous pieces of equipment. We don't know about the value/price, but I think this approach leans towards yes.
Jack, domiciled in North Carolina, and Abby, also domiciled in North Carolina, visit London to fulfil all their James Bond (sorry....Jack Bond) fantasies. While in London, Jack plays piano on Abby's back and causes severe nerve paralysis to her entire body. Abby sues Jack in the W.D.N.C., and Jack files a motion to dismiss.
Is the court likely to grant Jack's motion? Why?
What is likely yes under forum non conveniens?
Although venue is proper (both are residents of the same state - North Carolina), the U.K. has a greater interest in resolving the case, witnesses to the incident are not under subpoena power of the U.S. judicial system, all the evidence is located in the U.K., and the U.S. court would need to apply two forums laws.
WHOOPS! Someone found this Civil Procedure Jeopardy Game and showed it to Section 4. Section 4 brings a class-action against Haley for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Is joining Maddie required under the rules?
Assume subject matter jurisdiction is proper.
What is yes?
Maddie's own interests, as well as the plaintiffs, would likely be impaired by failing to completely adjudicate the claim with both parties and joinder would not destroy diversity.