civ pro Flashcards
When Boxer received BBD Inc.’s answer, she realized that she forgot to include an additional claim under a recently passed federal statute allowing for product liability claims against pet food companies. Within seven days of being served with BBD’s answer, Boxer filed an amended complaint that included both the breach of warranty and federal claims. Under these circumstances:
(A) The judge should not allow the amendment. Once BBD Inc. filed its answer, Boxer could only amend with the permission of the court or BBD.
(B) The judge should not allow the amendment because Boxer should have included the federal claim in her original complaint.
(C) The judge should allow the amendment because Boxer can freely amend her pleadings until the parties commence discovery.
(D) The judge should allow the amendment because Boxer can amend as a matter of course.
Answer (D) is correct. A party can amend her pleadings once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the complaint or within 21 days of being served with a responsive pleading or a motion to dismiss, whichever is earlier. Here, Boxer filed her amended complaint within 21 days of being served with BBD’s responsive pleading, so her amendment is allowed.
Answers (A) and (B) are not correct for the same reason Answer (D) is correct.
Answer (C) is not correct. Although the amendment rules are flexible, there are limitations. Once Boxer properly amends as a matter of course or once that time frame has passed, she can amend again. But she will have to seek permission from the court or from the opposing party.
Camila sued Ariana for slander, following a nasty dispute about the results of a running contest. Since Ariana also owes Camila money (she breached a contract to buy 1,000 copies of Camila’s book, “It’s Better to Be Smart”), Camila combined both claims in a single federal lawsuit. Are the claims properly joined?
(A) No. These claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
(B) Yes. Since there is only one party on each side, Rule 18 allows free joinder of claims, and Rule 20’s requirements do not apply.
(C) No. The rules do not allow tort and contract claims to be joined in the same lawsuit.
(D) Yes. Since both claims involve disagreements between the same two people, they automatically are considered to share a common question of law or fact.
Answer (B) is correct. With only one plaintiff and one defendant, this lawsuit involves joinder of claims but not joinder of parties. Rule 18 provides that a “party asserting a claim … may join, as independent or alternate claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” Therefore, the claims are properly joined under these circumstances.
Answer (A) is incorrect. Because Rule 20 does not apply, the claims are not required to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
Answer (C) is incorrect. Unlike some former procedural systems that put strict limits on joining claims, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not impose this type of limitation. Instead, they encourage free joinder to dispose of issues efficiently.
Answer (D) is incorrect. Not only is no “common question” required, if it were the statement in (D) is untrue—the mere
A plaintiff properly filed an action in federal district court against a defendant for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a car accident. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was liable under a respondeat superior theory for the negligent driving of the defendant’s employee. The defendant properly impleaded the employee, asserting a claim against the employee based on indemnification. At trial, the jury reached a general verdict in favor of the defendant. Subsequently, the employee filed an action in federal district court against the defendant, seeking to recover for injuries suffered as a consequence of the accident. The employee has asserted that the accident was caused by the defendant’s failure to properly maintain the car that the employee was driving.
Is the employee barred from pursuing this action?
A. Yes, because the employee’s claim arises out of the same occurrence that was the subject matter of the defendant’s indemnification.
B. Yes, because the employee failed to assert a cross-claim against the defendant in the prior action.
C. No, because the employee was not the original defendant in the prior action.
D. No, because the prior action was decided by a general jury verdict.
The correct answer is A.
This question tests compulsory counterclaims.
Rule: By impleading the employee, the employer became a third-party plaintiff and the employee a third-party defendant.
Since the employee’s claim against the employer (a negligence claim based on the employer’s failure to properly maintain the brakes on the car involved in the accident) arose out of the same occurrence or transaction as the claim that the employer had brought against the employee’s claim was a compulsory counterclaim.
An initial crossclaim is never mandatory, but once one crossclaim is filed, it functions like a new complaint for counterclaim purposes.
The employee was a third-party defendant in the prior action, the original defendant in that action, the employer, asserted a crossclaim against the employee.
As a consequence, the employee was required to plead any claim that the employee had that arose out of the same occurrence that was the subject matter of the defendant’s indemnification claim.
The primary difference between a motion for summary judgment and a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence is:
(A) The standard the movant must meet.
(B) The non-movant’s burden to avoid summary judgment.
(C) The record on which the court will base its decision.
(D) The nature of the court’s review of the record.
Answer (C) is correct. A summary judgment ruling is a prediction. The court, by looking at discovery products plus affidavits, declarations, and other materials must predict whether, if the case were allowed to go to trial, there would be a genuine issue of material fact to be tried. At trial, on the other hand, the parties have actually presented live testimony, documents, and other physical evidence, and the judge must decide whether this evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in favor of the party with the burden of production.
Answer (A) is incorrect. The movant in either case must convince the court that there is or will be no legally sufficient evidence in favor of the non-movant.
Answer (B) is incorrect. The question in both cases is whether the party with the burden has produced a record on which a reasonable jury could find in its favor.
Answer (D) is incorrect. In both cases, the court is to view the evidence and make inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. In neither case is the court supposed to make decisions about credibility or to weigh the evidence
Alexis was an art collector who loaned part of her modern art collection to the Washington museum. The museum suffered a flood and many of Alexis’s pieces were destroyed. Alexis filed a state-law claim against the museum in federal court, seeking $2 million in damages. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Alexis and awarded her $4 million in damages. The museum moved for a reduced verdict. The museum argued that the $4 million award violated Washington state’s law requiring property damage jury verdict awards to be reviewed by the judge under a “materially deviates” standard (meaning that the verdict award should be reduced if it materially deviates from a reasonable amount). Alexis argued that under FRCP 59, the verdict can only be set aside for any reason that existed under common law. Courts have since interpreted that standard to mean only when the verdict award “shocks the conscience.” Should the court apply state or federal law when assessing the jury award?
Federal law, because the issue is procedural.
Federal law, because the case is in federal court.
State law, because otherwise, the application of federal law would be outcome determinative.
State law, because the case is in federal court on the basis of diversity
294Answer (C) is correct. This hypo is based on Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415 (1996). In that case, the Court determined that because FRCP 59 was silent as to the basis for a new trial, it did not conflict with New York law providing for a substantive standard. This case is similar. The Washington law supplies a standard that is more stringent than the federal common law standard. This means that parties are likely to both forum shop and be treated inequitably depending on whether they filed in state or federal court. Thus, in order to avoid that, the court would apply the Washington standard to review the jury trial verdict.
Answer (A) is incorrect because while there is a rule of procedure in the mix, if the court does not find it in conflict with the state rule, then the federal rule does not automatically apply.
Answer (B) is incorrect because federal law does not always apply to cases filed in federal court.
Answer (D) is incorrect because while state substantive law applies in diversity cases, federal procedural law also applies
Letitia sued Interstate Hospital and Dr. Nailah Owens in federal court in Phoenix, Arizona, for medical malpractice. Letitia’s federal complaint was prepared and filed in accordance with the federal rules. Similarly, Letitia has complied with all federal procedural requirements in prosecuting her claims in federal court. Under Arizona law, in medical malpractice claims, plaintiffs are required to seek certification from an expert medical board before filing a complaint. Because Letitia did not seek this certification, the hospital and Owens have moved to dismiss her complaint with prejudice. Will the district court grant this motion?
Yes, if the court determines that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the Arizona certification rule do not conflict and that not applying the
Arizona certification rule would be outcome determinative.
Yes, if there is no federal countervailing interest in preventing the Arizona certification rule from applying.
No, if the court determines that there is a direct collision between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the Arizona certification rule.
Answers (A), (B), and (C).
D) is the best answer. The answer to this question will depend on whether the court determines that FRCP 8 and the Arizona certification rule are in direct conflict. If they are, then under Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010), the court will likely determine that FRCP 8 should apply. It is a procedural rule that does not violate the Rules Enabling Act. However, if the two rules do not conflict, then the question is whether the application of the Arizona certification rule in state court and Rule 8 in federal court would lead to forum shopping or inequitable administration of the law (be outcome determinative under the Twin Aims test). If it would be, then the state law should apply. Finally, the state law would still apply as long as there is not a federal countervailing interest in Rule 8 applying. Thus, the answer to this question really depends on how the court reads the intersection between these two rules.
Answers (A), (B), and (C) are all correct, making Answer (D) the best answer.
