Michael Green's CivPro Blog

Easy Multiple Choice Question from 2006 Civ Pro Exam

6.            P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a citizen of New Jersey) for $80,000 under New York battery law in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning a brawl between P and D that occurred in New York City. D joins his insurer I (a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey) under Rule 14. Which of the following is most accurate?

a.     There is federal subject matter jurisdiction for both P’s action against D and D’s action against I.

b.     D’s action against I should be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. P’s action against D has federal subject matter jurisdiction and can remain in federal court.

c.     D’s action against I should be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, P’s action against D should also be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, since it is “contaminated” by D’s action against I.

d.     P’s action against D should be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction because P is an in-state plaintiff. Once P’s action is dismissed, D’s action against I will also have to be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

e.     P’s action against D should be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction because P is an in-state plaintiff. Once P’s suit is dismissed, the court may at its discretion choose to retain or dismiss D’s action against I.

Afrikan Spir and Josephine Meckseper

Recently I stumbled across a piece by the German artist Josephine Meckseper entitled "Afrikan Spir." Spir was an obsure Russian Neo-Kantian philosopher, who I've argued was an important influence on Nietzsche. I thought that no one outside a small circle of Nietzsche scholars knew about him at all. Why she chose to name the piece after him is a mystery.

Multiple Choice Question from the 2007 Civ Pro Exam

9.    P, an employee of the D Corp, is suing the D Corp in federal court concerning the damages P sustained from a large industrial accident at a D Corp plant. Many people were severely injured in the accident, which was apparently the result of the introduction of a new chemical into the fuel used by the plant’s machinery. Which of the following is least likely to be D Corp work product under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and/or Hickman?
    
a.    A memo drafted by the D Corp’s trial counsel for the D Corp’s in-house counsel concerning the strategy to pursue in the D Corp’s defense against P. 
b.    A tape recording of a witness’s recollections of the accident. The witness is now deceased. The tape was made by a private detective hired by the D Corp. soon after the accident.
c.    An account of the probable causes of the accident, drafted soon after the accident occurred by a D Corp engineer for the Chief Executive Officer of the D Corp.
d.    The minutes of a meeting, attended by the D Corp’s in-house counsel, during which it was decided to introduce the new chemical to the fuel. 
e.    A video of P gardening, clandestinely made by a private detective hired by trial counsel for the D Corp in the hopes of demonstrating that P’s injuries are less than P alleges in his complaint.

Older Video on Raz

Thought I would post this older video of a symposium I participated in at Princeton's James Madison Program on the 20th Anniversary of Joseph Raz's Morality of Freedom. 

Llewellyn and Legal Realism

My review of Karl Llewellyn, The Theory of Rules (edited by Fred Schauer) has just been posted on Jotwell: Jurisprudence.

Multiple Choice Question from the 2007 Civ Pro Exam

3.    Which of the following cases is most likely to have federal subject matter jurisdiction? In each case, the amount in controversy for each plaintiff’s claim against each defendant is $100,000.
    
a.    P is a French citizen admitted for permanent residency in the U.S. who is domiciled in New York. P sues D, a German admitted for permanent residency in the U.S. who is domiciled in New Jersey. P’s suit is for violation of New York negligence law.

b.    P, a French citizen domiciled in France, sues D, a German domiciled in Germany. P’s suit is for violation of federal securities law.

c.    P1, a New York citizen, and P2, a California citizen, sue D, a California citizen, for violations of New York negligence law.

d.    P, a California citizen, claims to be a beneficiary of the estate of X, a California citizen who recently died. P’s suit is under California law and names D, the executor of X’s estate, as the defendant. D is a citizen of Nevada. 

e.    P, a California citizen, sues D1, a New York citizen, and D2, a California citizen, for violations of New York negligence law.

Congratulations to the University of Chicago Law School!

Of all law schools with at least 5 graduates on the teaching market, Chicago's are...um...um...the best at trying to get an academic job only if they will succeed! A 58% placement rate! Still, why limit ourselves to schools with at least 5 graduates on the market? What about Empire College of Law (in my hometown of Santa Rosa, CA). No graduate looked for an academic job and no one got one! Beat that Chicago.

Multiple Choice Question from the 2007 Civ Pro Exam

2.    Which of the following complaints, all filed in federal court, is best described as improperly drafted? 
    
a.    A complaint for federal securities fraud that fails to state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.
b.    A complaint for negligence that fails to allege the evidentiary support for the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant acted negligently.
c.    A complaint that alleges facts that constitute a cause of action but that does not state what that cause of action is. 
d.    A complaint with legal contentions that are not warranted by established law.
e.    A complaint for fraud in connection with the purchase of a house that fails to allege the state of mind of the defendant with particularity.

Hard Essay Question from the 2007 CivPro Exam

Essay Question 4. [20 points]    

D is a British national domiciled in New York. D promised to give P (a citizen of New York) a $100,000 necklace, but failed to do so. P sued D for breach of contract in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. D made a pre-answer motion to dismiss on two grounds. The first was failure to state a claim, since P did not allege consideration. The second was lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the parties, D claimed, were not diverse. The court dismissed P’s action, without claim preclusive effect, on both grounds. In accepting that there was no subject matter jurisdiction, the court did not notice that D was not admitted for permanent residency in the United States. P did not appeal the dismissals. Soon afterward, P sued D in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. P's suit once again concerned the necklace, but P’s cause of action was not breach of contract, but promissory estoppel: P had reasonably relied upon D’s promise, resulting in damages of $100,000. D made a pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, D argued that P was issue precluded from relitigating whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Is D right? 

Multiple Choice Question from the 2007 Civ Pro Exam

7.    P sues D for negligence in federal court in connection with personal injuries that P sustained in a 3-car accident involving cars driven by P, D, and X. Which of the following is the most accurate statement about actions that may, may not, or must be joined to P’s action against D? (Do not take into account subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or venue in answering this question.)
    
a.    D may, but does not have to, join an action against X for damages that D sustained as a result of X’s negligence in the accident.
b.    P may, but does not have to, join an action against D for breach of an unrelated contract. 
c.    D may, but does not have to, join an action against P for the damages that D sustained as a result of P’s negligence in the accident.
d.    If P is suing D for the totality of damages that P sustained due to D’s and X’s conjoined negligence (that is, if P is suing D under the theory that D and X were joint tortfeasors), D must join an action against X for contribution.
e.    If P is suing D for the totality of damages that P sustained due to D’s and X’s conjoined negligence (that is, if P is suing D under the theory that D and X were joint tortfeasors), P may not join an action against X for P’s damages due to X’s negligence.