Civil Procedure Exam - Spring 2003: Professor Fletcher's Final Exam Questions and Answers, Exams of Civil procedure

Download Civil Procedure Exam - Spring 2003: Professor Fletcher's Final Exam Questions and Answers and more Exams Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity! Civil Procedure Spring 2003 Final Exam Model Professor Fletcher Am Jur Question 1 Motion 1 The District Court should deny Jones=s motion to remand because it has diversity jurisdiction over the case. A. First, it should be noted that there is a sufficient amount in controversy: Jones has demanded $1 million. Second, there is diversity of citizenship because Jones (J) is an OR citizen, and Smith (S) is a citizen of either CA or NV. However, there is no federal removal jurisdiction if the case has been filed in the defendant=s home state court. Therefore, the court should remand if S is a CA citizen but not if S is a NV citizen. S has taken up residence in CA, but not with an intent to stay there. S has committed a number of acts indicating an intention to stay and a number indicating otherwise. He has told Boalt that he intends to stay and register his car and gotten a drivers license in CA. He has also taken a job in CA. However, these acts are considered with an intent to return to NV as well. S may have had financial reasons to tell UC what he did and it is possible he re-registered his car as evidence for UC. Also, his CA job was temporary. Similarly, some evidence of an intent to return to NV may have other explanation. By filing his taxes as though he still lived in NV, S saved money. By telling the dealer he was from NV he saved himself embarrassment. However, continuing to vote in NV also suggests a tie to the state, with no powerful ulterior motive: he chose which state=s politics he wishes to affect. Finally, S=s statement to his friends suggests any intention to stay is contingent on future events. Therefore, S is probably ambivalent about where he will end up living and has not yet formed an intention to stay in CA indefinitely. Therefore, his domicile is still NV and he may remove the case. 1 B. There is not federal question jurisdiction in this case. J=s complaint does refer to federal law, but this is not necessarily enough to satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule. J=s causes of action both arise under State law. One includes a reference to state or federal law as an element. Whether this creates a federal question is a question touched by both Smith v. KS City Title & Trust and Merrell Dow, and one case went each way. However, this case more closely resembles Merrell Dow: The federal question is not the key element in the case and it is not one of central importance to the federal courts, because the answer is likely obvious: use of cocaine is almost always illegal. Morever, to federal law may not even be necessary if CA and NV prohibit cocaine as well. Therefore, there is no federal question jurisdiction here. Motion 2 The court should deny Hoorah=s motion. Since CA has a broad long arm statute, the only question is whether Hoorah=s contacts w/ CA satisfy the Burger King formulation of the minimum contacts test for constitutionalized personal jurisdiction. First, the court must see if there are enough minimum contacts to pass the BK threshold. This is an example of a case where a general-specific jurisdiction continuum would be useful. Hoorah=s advertises on the internet, and many of its customers are from CA. However these are passive, stream-of commerce type contacts, which Asahi puts into some doubt. Hoorah=s also advertises in CA newspapers, though, and this is an active reaching out to CA. These are the only general contacts in the facts. They are probably not enough for general jurisdiction, but they are enough to meet a minimum threshold under Burger King. There are also specific contacts. Most importantly, H=s conduct caused an accident in CA interstate trade H=s sought. However, he did not come in response to their solicitations, but because of his NV background. Also Hoorah=s didn=t know he was from CA. Thus, the specific contacts in this case are more passive. They are probably insufficient alone to sustain specific CA jurisdiction. However, the court should use them in the second step of Burger King analysis. 2 In this case fair play and substantial justice favor jurisdiction. S is part of a class of H=s patrons that CA has a legitimate policy concern about. Furthermore, H should be a party to the case in which the S and J dispute is settled, so that all issues can be decided once only. Finally, H is not a foreign corporation. choose to dismiss, here, the CA court is constitutionally obliged to dismiss rather than taking the case and applying its SOL. Therefore, there will be a serious Erie problem if a plaintiff can get the CA SOL in federal court but the CA court is unable to apply it. (Indeed, it is questionable whether the case should even be transferred under 1406, when, as here, there is good venue but no jurisdiction. Therefore, the transfer should at least not include bringing a favorable SOL.) Therefore, Van Dusen should not apply. The NV district court should apply the substantive law the NV court would, which includes the 1 year SOL. (No constitutional issue w/ local SOL). Note that no injustice has been done by the delay before the transfer, because S=s claim was first filed after the 1 year NV SOL. Question 2 Issue 1 The court should not dismiss under the Piper law of forum non convenience (FNC). First, it should be noted that the FL court is more easily accessible to both parties, as both are located in the US. Second, the difficulty of obtaining all necessary witnesses would be high in either forum. Reyes-Cruz (RC) and Moncanto (M) will both want witnesses to how the pesticide was used in Honduras (H). RC has found some in FL, but they may not be sufficiently knowledgeable or well-disposed to M for M=s needs. M has real needs in this area: the pesticide may have been applied in excess of the amounts M recommended, or other brands may have been used. M can not compel witnesses in H to testify in FL. On the other hand, RC needs US witnesses, including M employees. The problems of compelling their testimony of M employees could be lessened through a stipulation by M that it will require employees to testify, but there will still remain the cost and inconvenience of getting witnesses to H. Furthermore, such an agreement could be hard to monitor. Thus, the location of witnesses favors neither forum. 5 Third, the FL court may have to apply H law to the case. In any event, it will have a difficult choice of law question to answer. This weighs in favor of a FNC dismissal. Fourth, the FL court is not an unrelated forum. It has an interest in protecting RC. Although he is not a citizen, RC may live in FL for the rest of his life, and so FL has an interest in his well-being in his ability to support himself, and in whether he burdens FL=s health care system. Furthermore, FL is now the home of a community of former Honduran banana workers. This weighs against FNC dismissal. On the other hand, (5th), FL does not have the primary interest in regulating the use of pesticides in H; that belongs to H. By accepting the case, the US interferes with H=s ability to handle such cases at home, even if the US court applies H law. Sixth and finally, taking the case has the potential to interfere w/ US exports, by exposing US exporters to favorable US juries. RC was in H and a citizen of H when exposed to the pesticides. Yet this is not the same as allowing a truly foreign plaintiff to use US courts; RC is now a permanent US resident. Nonetheless, this factor weighs in favor of FNC. Thus, the Piper factors are mixed. However, in order to dismiss on the basis of FNC, the inconvenience or oppression to the defendant should be Aall out of proportion@ to the convenience to the plaintiff. That is not the case here. Nor are the Apublic@ factors heavily in favor of dismissal; rather we have two interested courts. Therefore, the district court should not dismiss for FNC. Even if the factors above weighed more heavily in favor of dismissal, the district court should keep the case because the Honduran courts are clearly unsatisfactory for this case. The plaintiff makes a strong allegation which he must prove to benefit from the clearly unsatisfactory forum doctrine. He says not only that H courts award smaller judgments, or that the law is more favorable to growers. Rather, he says that the law favors him but that it will not be followed. He says that this is because of the dominance of parties interested in cases like this one. He says not that awards tend to be smaller, but that they are without exception a pittance. 6 If RC can provide proof of these allegations, he will have shown that he will no get basic fairness in th Honduran courts. This renders them clearly unsatisfactory. Note that this is a politically charged holding for a court to make. The court might be more comfortable using its discretion not to dismiss under FNC grounds and there is ample justification not to, before reaching this exception. Issue 2 This question is best answered using the York and Byrd analyses. They produced mixed results, but probably favor following Fed law. First, note that no statute or FRCP applies to FNC. Thus, rather than applying Hanna, we should apply York and Byrd to determine whether this a substantive or procedural area of law. Erie requires that state law apply if FNC is substantive. Where state and federal law differ, the choice between them will be outcome determinative. This is true in a simple sense: the case will be dismissed. It is also true in the sense that the difference will substantially influence the plaintiffs choice of court. If the plaintiff had wanted to file in another country, she would have done so. Since she wants to be in the US, she will choose the court that will allow this. The influence of FNC law or forum choice is weakened by its uncertainty, however. Piper, for example, lists a large number of fairly vague and policy-oriented factors. Furthermore, it is a discretionary issue. Thus, in practice a plaintiff may be uncertain as to the outcome under state or fed law. York favors state law. Byrd, on the other hand, favors federal law. First, FNC in federal court will always concern the relations between the US= judiciary and foreign governments. This is a concern of the fed governmental. Second, state FNC law must deal with alternative forums in both other states and other countries. Yet fed FNC law could be tailored to the international setting. On the other hand, states have a strong interest in what cases are taken in their states and therefore (probably) applying their laws. Federal interest is weakened because FNC is judge- made not statutory. Furthermore, the outcome determinativeness of the FNC motion increases the state interest. Also, both states and the fed government have an interest in avoiding further confusion of another type of FNC law. Byrd favors federal law. It is a close call, but overall, federal law is favored. 7