Michael Green's CivPro Blog

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. 

Multiple Choice Question from the 2007 Civ Pro Exam

4.    D is a partnership. W and H are wife and husband. In reliance upon statements made by employees of D, W and H each made separate purchases of bonds issued by D. The price of these bonds subsequently plummeted and W and H each had to sell them at a heavy loss. W sued D in federal court in New York for her damages resulting from D’s alleged violation of federal securities laws. On a motion for summary judgment, the court found that no reasonable jury could find that the statements made by D’s employees were materially misleading. The court therefore granted summary judgment to D. Subsequently, D was purchased by the X Corp. After this purchase, H sued the X Corp in federal court in California for H’s damages as a result of D’s violations of federal securities laws. Which of the following is most accurate?
    
a.    Under Parklane Hosiery, H is issue precluded from relitigating whether D’s employees’ statements were materially misleading.
b.    H is not issue precluded under Parklane Hosiery from relitigating whether D’s employees’ statements were materially misleading, because H could have easily intervened in W’s suit against D.
c.    Parklane Hosiery is irrelevant to whether H is issue precluded, since the matter is determined by New York state law.
d.    H is not issue precluded from relitigating whether D’s employees’ statements were materially misleading, because the X Corp and D are not in privity. 
e.    H is not issue precluded from relitigating whether D’s employees’ statements were materially misleading, because W and H are not in privity.