Download Law Examination: Civil Procedure - Volkswagen Bug Import Case and more Exams Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity!
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COURSE EXAMINATION
SCHOOL OF LAW (BOALT HALL) FALL, 1994
LAW 200A -- CIVIL PROCEDURE
Instructor in Charge: Professor W. Fletcher Time allowed: Three hours
Instructions:
This is an open book examination. You may bring into the examination room any assigned or recommended materials in the course, plus your personal notes. Personal notes include notes from a study group of which you may be a part and notes taken for you by another person on a day you were absent.
There is only one question on this examination. It has six parts, labeled "motions." Answer all six parts. The motions may not each take the same amount of time to answer. Use your best judgment as to how much discussion is need for each motion.
This examination is designed to be written in the time allocated. Indeed, I think three hours is ample time. But please keep careful track of your time. Make sure you leave enough time to answer the later motions with as much thoroughness as the earlier motions.
Please be sure to put your examination number on each bluebook, or on each page of your examination if you type. Do not leave your bluebook or typed answers on the desk. They must be turned in to the person in charge. If you finish early, you must turn your examination in to the Registrar's Office in Room 225.
Examination
(suggested time: 3 hours)
As you may know, Volkswagen "bugs" are no longer manufactured in Germany, and for many years new VW bugs have not been imported into this country. (The following is for non-car buffs: The VW bug is the original, beetle-shaped car first imported by VW into the United States in the 1950s. The bug was wildly popular for a number of years, and many American are nostalgic for the days when they could buy a new VW bug.)
VW bugs are, however, still manufactured in Mexico. Under the new lower import tariffs under the recently adopted NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), it may soon be possible to import Mexican-made VW bugs profitably into the United States. Anticipating a new beetle craze in the United States, Dave's Dodge (DD), a small Dodge dealership in Buffalo, New York, purchases ten new bugs from VW` of Mexico (VWM) for importation into the United States. VWM knows that DD is purchasing the bugs for resale somewhere in the United States, but does not know precisely where. DD is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York. VWM is a Mexican corporation, with its principal place of business in Mexico. At the time of the sale to DD, VWM exports substantial numbers of VW bugs to Central and South American countries.
But DD has jumped the gun. At the time DD acts, the tariff has not yet been reduced. DD does not pay any tariff,^ and^ simply^ smuggles^ the^ cars^ into^ the^ United States. Further, although the bugs that DD imports meet Mexican safety standards, they do not meet all American safety standards. For example, the Mexican-made bugs do not have reinforced, shatterproof glass in the windshield, as required by American federal law.
Peter Piper (PP), who lives in Buffalo, buys a VW bug from DD. Shortly after purchasing the bug, PP drives it to Mexico on vacation. While PP is driving the bug on a steep mountain road in Mexico, the brakes fail. In the resulting accident, PP is thrown through the windshield. The windshield shatters and cuts him severely. PP is treated in a Mexican hospital for about a month, and is then flown home for further treatment. The car is a total loss and now sits in a junkyard in Mexico.
PP brings suit against both DD and VWM in federal District Court for the Western District of New York, seeking damages of $500,000. (Buffalo is in the Western District of New York.) For simplicity's sake, we will say that Peter's suit involves only two causes of action. The first cause of action is based on New York state product liability law. Under New York law, selling a consumer product that fails to comply with a safety standard
PP settles with DD and VWM for $100,000 each, and PP then voluntarily dismisses his suit against DD and VWM pursuant to the settlement.
Motion 4: BAM renews its motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction. What result? Discuss.
Assume that BAM's motion is denied.
Motion 5: BAM moves to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. What result? Discuss.
Assume that BAM's motion is denied.
Motion 6: BAM moves to dismiss VWMIs suit on grounds of forum non conveniens. What result? Discuss. You may assume that if the case were in New York state court in this procedural posture, the state court would not dismiss for forum non conveniens.
To the extent that it might be useful to you, I reproduce relevant portions of New York's long-arm statute:
N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 302. Personal jurisdiction by acts of nondomiciliaries.
(a) Acts which are the basis for jurisdiction. As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary ... who in person or through an agent:
- transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods and services in the state; or
- commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to a person or property with the state...if he (i) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce, or (ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.
