hypos 14 Flashcards
P sues D for breach of contract and fraud. P claims that the breach and/or fraud resulted in total losses of 100K. P’s claim goes to trial and the jury awards P 100K on the breach of contract claim but rejects the fraud claim.
Should Defendant be permitted to appeal the loss on the breach of contract claim?
Yes, because D has been ordered to pay P $100K that it denied owing. Thus, the decision is adverse to D’s interests.
P sues D for breach of contract and fraud. P claims that the breach and/or fraud resulted in total losses of 100K. P’s claim goes to trial and the jury awards P 100K on the breach of contract claim but rejects the fraud claim.
Should Defendant be permitted to appeal result of the fraud claim?
No, because D won on that claim (P received nothing) and therefore that part of the judgment is not adverse to D’s interests.
P sues D for breach of contract and fraud. P claims that the breach and/or fraud resulted in total losses of 100K. P’s claim goes to trial and the jury awards P 100K on the breach of contract claim but rejects the fraud claim.
Should Plaintiff be permitted to appeal the loss on the fraud claim?
No, because P received all the relief that P requested. P sought total damages of $100K on both claims and received an award of $100K. The jury rejected one of P’s legal theories (fraud) but this did not prevent P being made whole. Thus, the decision was not adverse to P’s interests.
P sues D for breach of contract. P claims that the breach resulted in total losses of 200K. P’s claim goes to trial and the jury awards P 100K on the breach of contract claim.
Should Plaintiff be permitted to appeal the breach of contract claim?
Yes, because P has not received all that P sought (even though P “won” on the breach of contract claim). P could appeal claiming that the failure to award $200K made the decision adverse to its interests.
A consumer sues a company arguing that a product the consumer purchased from the company is defective and has caused an injury. The company denies its product is defective and then counterclaims alleging that consumer has breached a contract by failing to make payments on the product. The consumer denies the breach.The case goes to trial and the jury finds for the consumer on the products liability claim and awards damages against the company. It also finds for company on the breach of contract claim and awards damages against the consumer.
Who can appeal this verdict?
Both parties can appeal. The consumer can appeal the portion of the judgment against her on the breach of contract claim (b/c that part is adverse to her interests) while the company can appeal the portion of the judgment against it on the products liability claim (b/c that part is adverse to its interests).
Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking a declaratory judgment that a house D owns is entitled to protection as a historic building. As part of the requested relief, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to prevent D from demolishing the house. The trial court rejects the request for an injunction and enters judgment for Defendant. Plaintiff appeals. While the appeal is pending, the house accidentally burns down.
Can plaintiff proceed with the appeal?
No, b/c the appeal is moot. The appellate court cannot issue an injunction to prevent the demolition of a non-existent building. Since the requested relief can no longer be granted, the appeal is moot.
D made a Rule 12(b)(6) motion during the pleading phase alleging that one of P’s claims fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The judge ruled against D and the claim was eventually tried to a jury. Must D do anything at trial to ensure that this issue is appealable?
Yes. You must renew that request at trial or you will be deemed to have waived it.
How would D renew their argument that P has failed to state a legally valid claim at trial?
D could do this by making a motion for JMOL and requesting entry of judgment in your favor on the allegedly deficient claim. (And D would have to “renew” that motion after the verdict, if D lost.)
D made a pre-trial motion to exclude W1, a witness listed by P on its witness list. The judge denied the pre-trial motion. At trial, P calls W1 to the stand. What should D do?
D would still have to object to that witness at trial or D runs the risk that any objection to that witness is considered waived (even though D raised it in the pre-trial motion).
D is called as a witness at trial and asked “What did your lawyer advise you to do?” D’s lawyer objects to the question. D’s lawyer considers two objections: 1) hearsay (an objection the lawyer believes is weak) and 2) attorney-client privilege (an objection the lawyer believes is strong). D’s lawyer objects on the grounds that the question calls for hearsay. The judge overrules the objection and D answers the question. On appeal, D argues that the verdict for P should be overturned because the question asked for information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Should D prevail on appeal?
No because D is limited to the specific objection it made at trial (hearsay) and is barred from raising the attorney-client privilege objection.
Why bar the attorney-client privilege argument on appeal?
Because we don’t want D’s lawyer making weak arguments at trial and reserving a strong argument in hopes of tricking the court into making an appealable error.
In other words, we don’t want sandbagging. We want the parties to advance their best arguments at trial.
Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, sues D for racial discrimination and seeks damages and an injunction against D. P moves for offensive summary judgment on P’s affirmative claim seeking judgment in his favor, including damages and the injunction. The court declines to enter summary judgment in P’s favor (and as a consequence does not enter the injunction).
Can P immediately appeal the refusal to grant the SJ motion?
No. It is not a final decision under 28 USC 1291 b/c it does not end the litigation on the merits – the refusal to grant SJ means the litigation will continue.
And the decision would not be immediately appealable as the refusal to grant an injunction under 28 USC 1292(a). See Problem 2 on page 688.
A man and woman are involved in a car accident and the woman sues the man claiming that his negligent driving was responsible for the accident. She seeks $100,000 in personal injuries. The jury returns a verdict for the woman in the amount of $100,000 and also makes a special finding that the man is required to wear corrective lenses while driving and that he was not wearing corrective lenses at the time of the accident. The man appeals the jury verdict and loses on appeal.
Can the woman later sue the man again claiming that she actually suffered $200,000 in injuries as a result of the accident and the man should pay her another $100,000?
No. She already sued and won on this claim (negligent driving). She can’t sue again on the exact same claim. This claim is precluded by her earlier lawsuit. This is an example of claim preclusion.
A man and woman are involved in a car accident and the woman sues the man claiming that his negligent driving was responsible for the accident. She seeks $100,000 in personal injuries. The jury returns a verdict for the woman in the amount of $100,000 and also makes a special finding that the man is required to wear corrective lenses while driving and that he was not wearing corrective lenses at the time of the accident. The man appeals the jury verdict and loses on appeal.
Can the woman later sue the man for damage to her car that arose out of the accident?
No. Even though she didn’t claim for damages to the car in the first suit, the second claim (negligent driving) is the same as the first claim (negligent driving) and thus the claim in the second lawsuit is precluded by her first lawsuit. It does not matter that the damages she is seeking in the second suit were not considered in the first suit. This is also an example of claim preclusion.
A week after the appeals court affirms the trial court verdict for the woman in the first litigation, the man and woman are involved in another car accident. The woman sues the man again and accuses him of negligence in the second accident.
Is this claim barred by claim preclusion?
No. This is the same type of claim (i.e., negligence) as in the first litigation but it is not the same claim b/c it arises out of a different set of facts (the second accident). In fact, it could not have been brought in the first lawsuit b/c the cause of action did not arise until after the conclusion of the first suit. A claim cannot be barred in the second litigation if it could not have been raised in the first litigation.
A week after the appeals court affirms the trial court verdict for the woman in the first litigation, the man and woman are involved in another car accident. The woman sues the man again and accuses him of negligence in the second accident.
Is this claim barred by claim preclusion?
No. This is the same type of claim (i.e., negligence) as in the first litigation but it is not the same claim b/c it arises out of a different set of facts (the second accident). In fact, it could not have been brought in the first lawsuit b/c the cause of action did not arise until after the conclusion of the first suit. A claim cannot be barred in the second litigation if it could not have been raised in the first litigation.
A week after the appeals court affirms the trial court verdict for the woman in the first litigation, the man and woman are involved in another car accident. The woman sues the man again and accuses him of negligence in the second accident.
Does issue preclusion apply?
Maybe. It depends on whether some issue that is contested in the second litigation was actually decided in the first litigation.
We would need more facts to know.
Assume that the woman’s theory in the second suit is that the accident was caused by the man’s failure to wear his glasses. The man argues that he is not required to wear glasses.
Now does issue preclusion apply?
Yes. This issue (whether the man must wear glasses) was actually decided in the first litigation between these parties and is at issue in the second litigation.
What does issue preclusion preclude?
The man would be prohibited from disputing that he must wear corrective lenses b/c that issue was actually decided against him in the first litigation.
In effect, the decision in the first case that he must wear glasses is binding in the second case.
A man (citizen of WI) and woman (citizen of IL) are involved in a car accident and the woman sues the man for personal injuries in state court in WI. The jury returns a verdict for the woman in the amount of $100,000. The woman later brings a second lawsuit in IL state court against the man for damages to her car.
What law will apply to determine the effect of the first judgment?
The effect of the judgment is determined by the law of the court that issued the judgment. In this case, the judgment was issued by a state court in WI, so the later IL court must apply WI law to determine the effect of the earlier judgment.
A woman (citizen of IL) sues a man (citizen of IL) in the Northern District of Illinois for violation of a federal statute regarding overtime pay. The jury returns a verdict for the woman in the amount of $100,000. The woman later brings a second lawsuit in IL state court against the man for fraud arising out of the same facts.
What law will apply to determine the effect of the first judgment?
Here the court that issued the first judgment was a federal court. That court had Federal Question jurisdiction over the claim b/c it was for a violation of a federal statute. Accordingly, the law the IL state court must apply to determine the effect of the earlier judgment is the federal law of claim preclusion.
A man (citizen of IL) and woman (citizen of WI) are involved in a car accident and the woman sues the man for negligence in the Northern District of Illinois. The jury returns a verdict for the woman in the amount of $100,000 for her personal injuries. The woman later brings a second lawsuit in WI state court against the man for damages to her car.
What law will apply to determine the effect of the first judgment?
IL state law. The first lawsuit took place in federal court in IL, but the basis for jurisdiction was diversity b/c the claim is based on state law (negligence). Thus, the effect of the judgment is determined by the law of the state where the federal court sits. In this case, the federal court sits in IL, so the WI state court must apply IL state law to determine the effect of the federal court judgment.
A state court action takes place in Wyoming between a Georgia plaintiff and a Wisconsin defendant. The dispute is for breach of contract and the court applies Florida law to the contract. It ends in a final judgment.
A second lawsuit is brought in federal district court in New York between the same parties over the same contract. One of the parties argues the second suit is barred by claim preclusion arising out of the judgment in the first suit.
What jurisdiction’s law will the federal court in New York use to determine the effect of the first judgment?
Wyoming because the first lawsuit (the one that allegedly gives rise to claim preclusion) took place in a Wyoming state court.
A lawsuit takes place in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois between a Georgia plaintiff and a Wisconsin defendant. The dispute is for violation of a federal statute. It ends in a final judgment.
A second lawsuit is brought in federal district court in New York between the same parties over the same statute. One of the parties argues the second suit is barred by claim preclusion arising out of the judgment in the first suit.
What jurisdiction’s law will the federal court in New York use to determine the effect of the first judgment?
Federal law of claim preclusion (because the first lawsuit took place in federal court and jurisdiction was based on federal question jurisdiction).
A diversity action takes place in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois between a Georgia plaintiff and a Wisconsin defendant. The dispute is for breach of contract and the court applies Florida law to the contract. It ends in a final judgment.
A second lawsuit is brought in federal district court in New York between the same parties over the same contract. One of the parties argues the second suit is barred by claim preclusion arising out of the judgment in the first suit.
What jurisdiction’s law will the federal court in New York use to determine the effect of the first judgment?
The federal court will use Illinois law because, while the first lawsuit took place in federal court, the basis for subject matter jurisdiction was diversity jurisdiction, and the federal court was sitting in Illinois.
The owner of a piece of property, sues a neighbor alleging that a fence on the neighbor’s property encloses a part of the owner’s land and that the neighbor is trespassing on owner’s property. The case goes to trial and the court finds that the disputed property belongs to the neighbor.
The owner then sells his property to a buyer, who promptly files suit against the neighbor alleging that the neighbor’s fence improperly encloses property that belongs to the buyer.
Should the buyer be able to sue the neighbor on this claim?
This is not a situation of complete mutuality. There is a party to the second lawsuit (the buyer) who was not a party to the first lawsuit. Therefore, it looks like these are not the right parties for claim preclusion.
Why is buyer’s claim against neighbor precluded?
Successors in interests in real property are treated as being in privity with their predecessors in interest.
In other words, the buyer is “in privity” with the owner (from whom he purchased the property) and is treated as if buyer had participated in the earlier suit.
As such, a later claim by buyer against neighbor over the same claim is barred by claim preclusion.
Plaintiff finds out six months after entry of a judgment against her that defendant deliberately failed to disclose a crucial and damning document during discovery, even though plaintiff requested that document during discovery.
Can P appeal the judgment on this basis?
No. The 30-day window for appealing has passed. Moreover, it is not clear that the trial court has committed any “error” here, even though P has been harmed. So P might not be able to prevail on an appeal anyway.
