Civ Pro Final_spring 2020 {coronavirus}

The court is likely to grant the mill's motion because federal law governs transfers of venue and it would be more convenient for the witnesses and parties to litigate the claim in State B. The forum-selection clause in the contract designates State B courts as the sole venue for litigating disputes arising under the contract, and under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, such clauses are enforceable. Additionally, the fact that the flour was produced in State B and the majority of likely witnesses are in State B further supports the transfer of the case to a federal court in State B.

The correct answer is to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This is because both parties are citizens of State A, which means there is no diversity of citizenship, a requirement for a diversity action in federal court. The contractor's attorney can argue that the case should be dismissed because the federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.

The tennis player's attorneys should file a motion to strike only the reporter's affirmative defense for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground that it has been waived. This is because the reporter already filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, which the court denied. By doing so, the reporter has waived their right to challenge personal jurisdiction. However, the statute of limitations affirmative defense has not been waived, so it should not be challenged at this stage.

The correct answer is a motion to sever the causes of action, filed by the driver, because she has been improperly joined as a defendant. This is because the complaint alleges two separate causes of action - breach of contract by the woman and negligence by the driver. The driver can argue that the claims against them are unrelated and should be heard separately, as joining them together would be improper. By filing a motion to sever, the driver can request that the court separate the claims into two separate cases, increasing the likelihood of success.

The manufacturer's best option is to file a motion to sever and order plaintiffs to bring separate lawsuits. This is because the athlete and the cyclist have different claims against the manufacturer, and their lawsuits should be treated separately. Additionally, the athlete's claim for personal injury and the cyclist's claim for violation of the fair trade act are unrelated. By ordering the plaintiffs to bring separate lawsuits, the court can ensure that each claim is dealt with individually and avoid any confusion or prejudice that may arise from joining the two claims together.

The court should deny the motion to dismiss, sever the claims against the manufacturer from the claim against the dealer, and determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over each of the severed suits. This is because misjoinder is not a ground to dismiss and the manufacturer and dealer are not misjoined. The court should separate the claims against the manufacturer and the dealer to address them individually and determine if the court has jurisdiction over each case.

The butcher's lawyer may file a motion to transfer venue due to the burden that would be imposed on the butcher if he were required to litigate in State A. This is because the butcher has not spent any time in State A apart from the single day of the car accident, and closing his butcher shop to travel to State A would result in losing all profits during that time. By transferring the case to State B, where the butcher resides, the burden on the butcher would be reduced and he would not have to close his business.

The court is likely to grant the employer's motion to intervene because the employer's claim shares common questions of law and fact with the clerk's action. This means that both the employer and the clerk have similar legal and factual issues that need to be resolved in order to determine liability for the damages. Allowing the employer to intervene will ensure that all relevant parties are present and that the court can make a comprehensive decision on the case.

The judge is most likely to rule that there is a right to a jury because the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury for suits at common law. The plaintiff in this case is seeking damages, which is considered a legal remedy.

The janitor's attorney should file a motion to dismiss for insufficient process. The janitor was served with a summons from the court, but not a copy of the complaint. Insufficient process refers to a defect in the manner in which the summons and complaint are served. Since the janitor did not receive a copy of the complaint, there is a procedural error in the service of process. Therefore, the attorney should file a motion to dismiss on these grounds.

The correct answer is "No, because the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal." In this scenario, the surgeon appealed the denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. However, appellate courts typically do not have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals, meaning appeals on issues that are not final decisions of the case. The denial of the motion to dismiss is not a final decision, as the case is still ongoing with discovery cutoff and trial dates set. Therefore, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear the merits of the surgeon's appeal at this stage.

The court will grant the motion to dismiss because the cross-claim does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action. In this case, the original action is the man's complaint against the mortgage brokers for failing to make required disclosures under federal lending law. The cross-claim, on the other hand, alleges a violation of federal labor laws and involves a dispute between the two brokers. Since the cross-claim is not directly related to the original action, the court will dismiss it.

The man's lawsuit can go forward if he can establish that the class did not receive adequate representation in the class action lawsuit. This is because if the class did not receive adequate representation, it could be argued that the final judgment in the class action lawsuit does not have binding effect on the man's individual claim. The man may argue that he was not adequately represented in the class action lawsuit and therefore should not be barred from pursuing his own claim in State A federal court.

The court must hold a settlement hearing because it is a class action lawsuit and the settlement agreement affects all members of the class. In such cases, the court needs to ensure that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for all class members. A settlement hearing allows the court to review the terms of the agreement, consider any objections from class members, and make a determination on whether to approve the settlement.

The correct answer is that the court should grant the motion to sever because the record label failed to assert, against the disc jockeys, a right to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or a series of transactions or occurrences. This means that the disc jockeys did not engage in the alleged piracy together or have any connection to each other, and therefore their cases should be considered separately.

The designer's best argument for dismissal of the third-party complaint is that the manufacturer's complaint failed to state a proper third-party claim. This means that the manufacturer did not provide sufficient evidence or legal grounds to support their claim against the designer. By pointing out this failure, the designer can argue that the complaint should be dismissed as it does not meet the necessary requirements for a valid claim.

The corporation will not be able to successfully move the court to dismiss the action for failure to join a necessary party because the surgeon who implanted the pacemaker is not subject to personal jurisdiction in State A. Even though the state law allows joint and several liability, the court cannot force the man to join the surgeon as a defendant if the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the surgeon. Therefore, the corporation cannot use the failure to join a necessary party as a basis for dismissing the action.

The most promising strategy for the foreign corporation's lawyers to follow is to file a motion with the court seeking permissive intervention. This would allow the foreign corporation to join the lawsuit as a party and actively participate in the defense of the car manufacturer. By intervening in the lawsuit, the foreign corporation can protect its own interests and ensure that any adverse ruling does not create unfavorable tort doctrines that could leave it and other car manufacturers vulnerable to future lawsuits.

The correct answer is Yes, because no final judgment exists and there is no other basis for appellate jurisdiction. In this case, the jury returned a verdict for the designer, but the district court granted a new trial motion by the jeweler. As a result, there is no final judgment in place for the designer to appeal from. Without a final judgment, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The patient's claim will be time-barred because it did not comply with State A's tolling statute. The patient filed the lawsuit on January 4, 2008, but the cardiologist was not served until January 15, 2008. State A's tolling statute provides that the statute of limitations is tolled when service of process is made on the defendant. Since the cardiologist was not served until after the statute of limitations had expired on January 5, 2008, the patient's claim would be time-barred and cannot proceed.

The cab driver's attorney could argue that State C is an improper venue for the lawsuit. Since the alleged tortious injuries occurred in State D, it would be more appropriate for the lawsuit to be filed in a state court in State D. The attorney could argue that it would be inconvenient for both parties and witnesses to have the case heard in State C, where the incident did not occur. Therefore, the attorney could request the court to dismiss the lawsuit based on improper venue.

The court may retain the case because even though the man is an indispensable party and the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over his claim, the court has the discretion to determine whether the action should proceed in equity and good conscience. In other words, the court can decide if it is fair and just to continue the case without the man joining the lawsuit.

The correct answer is No. If the court determines that excluding the State B American-born employees would only impair and not prejudice the American-born employees, then the court does not need to dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit. This is because the court does not need to dismiss suits even when indispensable parties cannot be joined.

The court should accept the affidavits and grant the stockbroker's motion if it finds that the stockbroker lacks minimum contacts with the state. This is because personal jurisdiction requires a defendant to have sufficient contacts with the forum state, and the stockbroker has submitted affidavits detailing his lack of contacts with State A. By accepting the affidavits, the court can consider this evidence in determining whether it has personal jurisdiction over the stockbroker.

not-available-via-ai

The judge is likely to not certify the class because the man's claims are not typical of the claims of the rest of the class. In order to certify a class action, the claims of the representative plaintiff must be typical of the claims of the other class members. Since the man is seeking compensatory damages of $77,000 while no other member of the class is owed more than $100, his claim is not representative of the rest of the class.

The judge will rule that the homeowner is not entitled to a jury because this is a civil case in which the plaintiff seeks purely equitable remedies. The Seventh Amendment only guarantees the right to a jury trial in cases where the plaintiff seeks legal remedies, not equitable remedies. Since the homeowner is seeking specific performance, which is an equitable remedy, they do not have the right to a jury trial in this case. Additionally, the federal court's jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity, not federal question jurisdiction, so the Seventh Amendment does not apply.

The correct answer is that the court should strike only the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction as it was waived by the seller. This is because the seller initially moved to dismiss the buyer's complaint, but then later amended their complaint to add the manufacturer as a party. By doing so, the seller submitted themselves to the personal jurisdiction of the court. However, the defense of improper venue was not waived by the seller, as it was asserted in their answer to the buyer's amended complaint.

The court should only consider whether failure to join a party is a valid defense to the case at bar, but it should refuse to consider the merits of the defense of improper venue. This is because the grocer raised the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in its pre-answer motion, and the court denied the motion. Once the court has denied a pre-answer motion, the defendant is generally precluded from raising additional defenses in the answer. Therefore, the court should not consider the defense of improper venue, but it should consider the defense of failure to join a party if it is raised in the answer.

The art collector can bring an interpleader action against both the historian and teacher in State A federal court, even if State A's state court would not have personal jurisdiction over the historian or the teacher under State A's long-arm statute. This is because the federal interpleader statute allows for the resolution of disputes involving multiple claimants to property, regardless of whether the state court would have jurisdiction over the parties involved. The federal court can assert jurisdiction over the case based on federal law, allowing the art collector to bring suit against both cousins in the same court.

The correct answer is that the farmer should move for remittitur or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the ground that the jury's damage award was "excessive." This is because under federal law, a judge can offer the plaintiff the choice between a new trial or remittitur if the compensatory damages are deemed excessive. Additionally, under substantive State A law, the court can reduce a jury's awards by way of remittitur if it thinks damages are "excessive." Therefore, the farmer has the option to request a new trial or a reduction in the damages awarded.

The best course for the corporation's attorneys to follow is to serve a summons and complaint on the manufacturer as a third-party defendant. This is because the corporation is concerned that any defects in the rear axle may have been the fault of the manufacturer, so they want to include them in the lawsuit. By serving them as a third-party defendant, the manufacturer can be brought into the case and held responsible if they are found to be at fault.

The correct answer is Yes, because the federal court does not have jurisdiction over the corporation's counterclaim. This is because the employee's complaint is based on a federal law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the federal court has jurisdiction over that claim. However, the corporation's counterclaim is based on a state law, State A's wrongful conversion statute, and the federal court does not have jurisdiction over that claim. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the counterclaim will likely be granted.

The court should be most concerned about whether there would be conflicts-of-interest among the class members that would undermine the adequacy of the representation that the named Hispanic accountant and her attorney could provide. This is because a class action lawsuit requires the representative plaintiff to adequately represent the interests of all class members. If there are conflicts-of-interest among the class members, it could undermine the fairness and effectiveness of the representation, potentially leading to an unfair outcome for some members of the class.

The court should grant the truck driver's motion because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize courts to order a physical examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner. This rule applies regardless of the choice-of-law rules or the location of the federal court. State B law not permitting a court to order plaintiffs to submit to examination by physicians is irrelevant in this case as the federal rule takes precedence.