Cases

Question 1

First Michigan Corp. v. Bramlet

Answer 1

you messed up my money; Filed in Michigan to stop arbitration happening in Florida. Circ court held case turns on § 1391(b)(2) and what is considered a substantial event rather than the court determining what is the most substantial event. Michigan was location of a substantial event and therefore venue could be proper.

Question 2

Skyhawke Technologies v. DECA International Corp

Answer 2

Stealing golf patent; motion to transfer from to C.D. Cali. Court determines venue is proper because burdens neutral to transfer, it hasn’t been shown to be too decisive to actually transfer case, so venue is kept in Mississippi

Question 3

Graham v. Dyncorp International

Answer 3

accident overseas sues in TX; Even when attempting to transfer/dismiss under 1406, court will still use factors in 1404 to determine which possible venue is proper venue. Goldlawr allows for transfer instead of dismissal if filed in improper venue. Factors show that SD TX is improper venue, but also provide ability to transfer to ND TX due to personal jurisdiction being proper there Transfer of venue TEST

Question 4

Van Dusen v. Barrack

Answer 4

Keep state law when transferring. Only applies to state law claims, federal court will always follow precedent set in their own Circuits on FQ issues

Question 5

Bremen v. Zapata

Answer 5

a. enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust
b. the clause to be invalid
c. enforcement contravenes a strong public policy
d. or seriously inconvenient for the trial

Question 6

Atlantic Marine Construction v. United States District Court

Answer 6

build my building; P sued for breach of K in WD Tex. D moved to dismiss or transfer to VA. Dist Court denied motion, SC reversed. Court provided that filings with exclusive FSC must be reviewed under § 1404(a) standard with 3 restrictions

Question 7

Bremen v. Zapata Off Shore

Answer 7

To deem FSC unenforceable, the movant must show that the enforcement would
be: (really high bar) 1) unjust or unreasonable, 2) the clause to be invalid, 3) enforcement contravenes a strong public policy, or 4) seriously inconvenient for the trial.

Question 8

Piper Aircraft v. Reyno

Answer 8

Scottish plane crash; forum non conveniens proper due to all factors pointing towards
Scotland being proper venue. Court considered: Ps aren’t US citizens, accident occurred in in Scotland, and another pending suit in England Court are therefore able to hear the suit

Question 9

Swift v. Tyson

Answer 9

judge made law is not the “law” of the state under RDA. Federal courts not bound by state
law if case was of “transitory nature.” They did apply state law when it was of “local” nature. Swift
created general common law

Question 10

Black & White Taxicab v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab:

Answer 10

Swift provided for systematic forum shopping –
case highlights potential problem of Swift doctrine, by allowing parties to select more favorable federal forum that otherwise would have been prohibited by state law.

Question 11

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins

Answer 11

CL and statutory laws need to be applied in federal courts (federal courts do not have the
power to create federal general common law)
7 mighty words: there is no federal general common law

Question 12

Klaxon v. Stentor

Answer 12

YES. SCOTUS clarified ruling in Erie and held that the federal court must apply the choice
of law principles followed by the courts of the forum states in deciding what law to apply A federal district court hearing state law claim must follow the choice of law of the courts of the,state where it sits.
After Klaxon, can now precisely state Erie as: Federal district court exercising jurisdiction over a state law claim must apply same substantive
law as it would be applied by state courts of state in which federal district court sits.

Question 13

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance:

Answer 13

Court didn’t know whether to apply Federal Rule 23 or NY Stat 901(b). difference of opinion on the court whether the two rules were actually in conflict.

Question 14

Byrd Balancing

Answer 14

Weighs importance of the rule to its own system. Whichever is more important,
that rule should apply. Federal law can still prevail if sufficiently important policy of federal courts
is involved

Question 15

Conley v. Gibson

Answer 15

Union representative failed to represent; held complaint can be sufficient to state a claim
unless it appears beyond a doubt there are no set of facts to support this claim

Question 16

Bell Atlantic v. Twombly:

Answer 16

Baby Bells Anti-Trust; establishes plausibility pleading standard – if all facts true, would it be
more than adequate that D is liable. It is not probably, but not impossible
Take all facts as true, then how likely is it that Baby Bells did the conspiracy and are liable. Not enough
to be constituted with liability but need to make liability plausible
Twombly holding – conclusory allegations made instead of facts in support of allegations will not be
taken as true and ignored, what is left is required to make a plausible pleading
Quotes of accused IS sufficient to NOT be conclusory
Officially discarded “no set of facts” from Conley

Question 17

Ashcroft v. Iqbal:

Answer 17

9/11 Muslim Round Up; held Twombly plausibility pleading standard applies to all civil suits.
Factual allegations of compliant were insufficient as most were conclusory and are not considered when
reviewing MTD

Question 18

Swanson v. Citibank

Answer 18

Discriminatory Loan; circuit court applied Deferential Reasonable Inference standard to
find the Ps complaint to be sufficient to proceed with the case. Court held that P’s claim for discrimination
meet plausibility standard because allegations pled could be seen as reasonable inferences as to rejection of
loan (followed Souter’s majority in Twombly)

Question 19

McCleary-Evans v. Maryland Department of Transportation

Answer 19

Discriminatory Job; circuit court applied standard
that considered favorable inference for the D and other circumstance which the district court judge may have
pulled from their past. To determine D’s MTD the court was allowed to consider their past experience of
discriminatory suits and affirmed dismissal by trial court

Question 20

Advance Financial Corp. v. Utsey

Answer 20

attorney failed to comply with court order to turn over disclosure. After
failed attempts to have attorney comply, court entered default judgment against his client. Take away: must
comply with discovery rules and court orders.

Question 21

Upjohn Co

Answer 21

the fact that an employee is not a senior manager does not mean they can’t
provide relevant information to legal counsel regarding litigation issues.

Question 22

Hickman v. Taylor

Answer 22

boat crash and attorney did all the legwork to interview those involved, opposing
attorney wanted copy of all of the interviews the first attorney did. Court does not allow because
attorney client privilege should be restricted to confidential communication made by a client to attorney.

Question 23

Hanna v. Plumber

Answer 23

Modified Outcome Determinative Test

Question 24

Wood v. Capital One Services

Answer 24

wood sued CO for violations of the FDCPA. Court held documents
requested were too burdensome for D’s to provide and they had already complied with past requests, and
the court would rehear motion if P willing to pay

Question 25

Leonard v. Mideast Systems

Answer 25

nonpayment vs malpractice; attorney sued client for failure to make payment
and received default judgment. In separate suit client sued attorney for malpractice. Court held claim being
brought my client was compulsory CC which required them to raise it at his suit against him and dismissed
the case

Question 26

Burlington v. Strong

Answer 26

Strong won prior suit against Burlington and this suit was for recovery of amounts paid
out by the union. Court held Burlington’s claim to the money was a permissive CC and Burlington not
required to raise the CC in initial action

Question 27

Hart v. Clayton Parker:

Answer 27

issues with supplemental jurisdiction; P sued for violation of FDCPA in D’s debt collection.
D countersued for amount due on debt and based their claim on supp. jur. Court held SMJ over claim was not
allowed because claims not CNOF related

Question 28

Rainbow v. Atlantis Hawaii

Answer 28

boat crash; injured P sued for harm done due to boating accident. Co-D sued each
other seeking indemnification or contribution. Court held that if a party files substantive cross

Question 29

Exxon v. Allapattah

Answer 29

joinder and diversity; in this consolidated case, the court considered the pre-1367 state of
affairs and the adoption of the enactment of the statute by Congress. Court held that where other elements of
diversity jurisdiction present and at least one named P satisfies AIC, the court may exercise jurisdiction over other
Ps who might otherwise be properly joined but who do not meet AIC

Question 30

Schoot

Answer 30

federal court can consider a claim against a nonresident 3PD if: (1) long arm jurisdiction permits,(2)
matter brought within appropriate venue, and (3) joinder satisfies FRCP

Question 31

Wallkill v. Tectonic

Answer 31

sued for negligence in testing of land prior to purchase. D tried to implead
construction company for making property unstable, but court rejected contention because they had no
standing to sue the general contractor. In order to join party under 14(a) must be able to held liable to
them

Question 32

Guaranteed Systems v. American National:

Answer 32

P sued general contractor for breach of construction contract. Gen
C then brings in Sub C under 14(b) who is not a diverse party. Court held that it is subject to the 1367(b)
restriction and must deny claim due to lack of diversity between parties

Question 33

Great Atlantic v. East Hampton

Answer 33

unconstitutional zoning; GA tried to join litigation even though their interests
were pretty much the same as original parties in the suit. intervention should not be granted if existing party can
prove adequate representation of proposed intervenors interests and intervention would unduly complicate
litigation

Question 34

Mattel v. Bryant

Answer 34

Bratz litigation; after removal to federal court, MGA intervened as D (R24) which
destroyed diversity but: intervention by non-diverse, indispensable party destroys jurisdiction under
1332 (diversity), but intervention by non-diverse, non-indispensable party does not

Question 35

Celotex v. Catrett

Answer 35

wrongful death asbestos; Rule 56 does not require moving party to support its motion with
affidavits or other similar materials negating opposing party claim. P needs to show no genuine dispute of fact on any
element for the court to grant the motion

Question 36

Matsushta Electric v. Zenith Radio

Answer 36

Zenith claims there is a conspiracy to fix prices to drive competitors not in
oligarchy out of market. P needs to show how innocent explanation is not the reasoning being used

Question 37

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby

Answer 37

libel article calling someone a Nazi; when deciding a motion for SJ court should consider
the same evidence standard of proof that would apply at trial, so instead of the clear-and-convincing-evidence
standard used, need to instead have used the proof of actual malice

Question 38

Porn v. National Grange

Answer 38

car crash and 2 suits; NG refuse to pay insurance coverage after Porn suffered car crash
injuries. Court uses transactional approach and concludes claim is barred. Once final judgment on the merits is
reached, claim preclusion barred Porn from bringing suit that arose out of same transaction of events