Previous month:
February 2013
Next month:
April 2013

March 2013

Essay Question from 2008 Civ Pro Exam

Question 4.

P (a domiciliary of Mississippi) and D (a domiciliary of Nevada) met on a cruise that started in Miami and ended in the Bahamas. On the cruise, D agreed to ship a rare widget to P’s home for $100,000. P mailed D the check from P’s home in Mississippi, but D failed to ship the widget.

P brought suit against D in Mississippi state court for breach of a contract. Although D was served with a summons and complaint in hand in Nevada, D defaulted. Prior to P’s suit, the state of Mississippi passed a statute which states that any defendant who receives actual notice of a lawsuit in Mississippi state court and fails to take advantage of a special appearance to challenge the personal jurisdiction of the court over him will be taken to have waived the defense of personal jurisdiction.

P then sued D on the Mississippi judgment in federal court in Nevada. D argued that the Mississippi judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction. P claimed that D waived that defense. How should the federal court decide the issue?

Continue reading "Essay Question from 2008 Civ Pro Exam" »


Essay Question from the 2008 Civ Pro Exam

Question 1

Employer and Employee are domiciled in Ohio. P is domiciled in New York. P and Employee got into a car accident in Ohio, while Employee was acting in the scope of his employment with Employer. P sued Employee for negligence in Ohio state court, but P lost, the jury having found not merely that Employee was negligent, but also that P was contributorily negligent.

Subsequently P sued Employer in federal court in Ohio (under diversity) under a theory of respondeat superior. P alleged that Employee was reckless in the car accident between them. Under Ohio law, contributory negligence is not an affirmative defense to an action for recklessness. Employer argues that P’s action against him should be barred by claim preclusion. Is Employer right?

Continue reading "Essay Question from the 2008 Civ Pro Exam" »


Multiple Choice from the 2008 Civ Pro Exam

Question 7.

P (a domiciliary of California) is suing D1 (a domiciliary of South Dakota who works in North Dakota for the D2 Corp. as a low-level broker) and the D2 Corp. (a brokerage company incorporated in the state of California with its principal place of business in North Dakota). P’s suit was filed in the federal district court for District of Minnesota and is for federal securities fraud. P is asking for $100,000 alternatively from either D1 or the D2 Corp., for damages due to misrepresentations concerning securities that D1 made (on behalf of his employer) to P in California. Under Minnesota law, only a non-party 21 or older may serve a defendant. Under North Dakota law, anyone older than 21, including a party, may serve a defendant. Under California and South Dakota law, only a non-party over 18 may serve a defendant. Furthermore, under South Dakota law, it is impermissible to serve an individual by leaving the summons and complaint at the individual’s home with someone other than that individual. In which of these cases is service on D1 least likely to be adequate?
 
a. A 20-year-old a process server gives D1 the summons and complaint in hand while D1 is on a business trip in Minnesota.


b. P’s lawyer (who is 40 years old) gives D1 the summons and complaint in hand while D1 is on a business trip in Minnesota.


c. A 21-year-old process server leaves the summons and complaint at D1’s home in South Dakota with D1’s husband.


d. P gives the summons and complaint to D1 in hand in North Dakota.


e. A 20-year-old process server gives D1 the summons and complaint in hand while D1 is on a business trip in California.

Continue reading "Multiple Choice from the 2008 Civ Pro Exam" »


Multiple Choice from 2008 Civ Pro Exam

Updated to take into account the Clarification  Act...

4. Which of the following actions is most likely to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction? In each case the action is brought in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York. Assume that any relevant amount in controversy is satisfied.

a. P (a domiciliary of New York) sues the D Corp. (a German corporation with its principal place of business in New York) for violations of federal securities fraud law.


b. P (a domiciliary of New York) sues D1 (a domiciliary of New Jersey) under German law for a battery that occurred in Germany.


c. P1 (a German citizen domiciled in Germany) and P2 (a domiciliary of New York) sue D1 (a German citizen domiciled in Germany) and D2 (a domiciliary of California) under New York law for a battery in connection with a brawl that occurred in New York.


d. P (a German citizen domiciled in Germany) sues D1 (a French citizen domiciled in France) and D2 (a domiciliary of California) under New York law for a battery in connection with a brawl that occurred in New York.


e. P (a domiciliary of New Jersey) sues D (a French national living illegally in New Jersey) under New York law for a battery that occurred in New York.

Continue reading "Multiple Choice from 2008 Civ Pro Exam" »


Multiple Choice Question from 2010 Civ Pro Exam

Back from a philosophy of law conference in Miami. Here's a new multiple choice question from the 2010 exam. It's been updated to take into account changes in the law (esp. the Clarification  Act).

Question 10)          P (a citizen of New York) sues D (a German national domiciled in Germany) in state court in New York under German battery law for $100,000 in connection with a brawl that occurred in Germany. The German has no contacts with the United States except for $80,000 in a bank account located in New York and $20,000 in a bank account located in North Carolina.  Which of the following is the most accurate?

a.         The New York court may attach the New York and North Carolina bank accounts as a source of personal jurisdiction over D.

b.         Assume the New York court attaches the New York bank account as the source of personal jurisdiction over D, D makes a limited appearance, and the court ultimately grants summary judgment to D. P is not claim precluded from suing D in North Carolina state court for the remaining $20,000 of damages.

c.         Under Shaffer v. Heitner, the New York court cannot use D's bank account in New York as a source of personal jurisdiction over D.

d.         D cannot get P's action dismissed on venue grounds, since 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) allows someone who is not a resident of the United States to be sued in any state.

e.         D cannot remove P's action to federal court.

Continue reading "Multiple Choice Question from 2010 Civ Pro Exam" »