hypos 9 Flashcards

1
Q

D has signed a loan contract agreeing to repay P $500,000 plus interest on a certain date. The date passes without D paying the money and P sues. D fails to answer the Complaint, and P obtains a default under Rule 55(a).
What will happen next?

A

P’s claim is for a sum certain because the amount P is owed is readily calculable from the contract. It is $500,000 plus the specified interest plus P’s costs as the prevailing party.
Thus, P can use Rule 55(b)(1). P can file an affidavit computing his damages with the clerk, and the clerk will enter a default judgment in P’s favor for that amount.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

P is injured in a car accident with D and suffers serious injuries. P sues D alleging that D negligently caused the accident and claims that she is entitled to medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. D fails to answer the complaint and P obtains a default under Rule 55(a).

A

P’s claims are not for a sum certain. While her medical expenses may be reasonably easy to calculate, her lost wages and pain and suffering are not.
P will have to move for a default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2). The judge will likely hold an evidentiary hearing at which P will have to prove how much her pain and suffering and lost wages are worth (using witnesses and documents).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

P files suit against D in N.D. Ill. alleging that D breached a contract and owes substantial damages. After the pleading stage was completed, P’s lawyer served all the parties with notice that she was withdrawing from the case. Thereafter, P makes no discovery requests. Three months have passed.
What can D do?

A

The N.D. Ill. local rules indicate that at least six months of inactivity by P would be necessary before D could move for a dismissal. Thus in N.D. Ill. more time would have to pass before D could move for a dismissal.
In some jurisdictions, D need only show a pattern of delay. In such jurisdictions, D might already be able to move for a dismissal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

P sues D for patent infringement in federal district court. D replies with a counterclaim for breach of contract and seeks $25K in damages. D’s claim arises out of the same transaction as P’s patent infringement claim. P seeks a dismissal from the court under 41(a)(2), and D objects.

Can the court grant the dismissal?

A

P can’t voluntarily dismiss its claims if that would result in the dismissal of D’s counterclaims for lack of SMJ!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

P sues D for patent infringement in federal district court. D replies with a counterclaim that seeks $25K in damages for violation of a federal statute. P seeks a dismissal from the court under 41(a)(2), and D objects.

Can the court grant the dismissal?

A

The federal court would continue to have SMJ over the counterclaim even after the dismissal of P’s claim. So, P is permitted to voluntarily dismiss its claim. But notice that this does not get rid of D’s counterclaim which remains pending for independent adjudication

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Assume Jane Smart (a citizen of CA) sues GrowCo (a citizen of CA and DE) in federal district court alleging gender discrimination in violation of federal law.
What is the jurisdictional basis for this case?

A

Federal question doctrine.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Smart (CA) and GrowCo (CA & DE) then sign a settlement agreement that resolves their dispute and Smart dismisses her suit with prejudice. As part of the agreement, Smart agrees not to work with any of GrowCo’s competitors for six months after the date of the agreement. Two months later, Smart goes to work for a competitor. GrowCo wishes to sue to enforce the settlement agreement and try to force Smart to resign from the competitor.
Where can this suit be brought?

A

This is now a suit for breach of contract (the terms of the settlement agreement). Breach of contract is a state law claim, so there is no FQ.
Neither is there diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not diverse (both are CA citizens). So, this claim could only be brought in state court.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Let’s assume that GrowCo would prefer to bring this action to enforce the settlement agreement before the same federal district court judge that had heard P’s earlier claim (b/c the judge understands the case and GrowCo believes she is sympathetic to their concerns).
Is there a way to accomplish that?

A

Yes. A consent decree or stipulated judgment.
Federal courts have the inherent authority to enforce their judgments. If you put the key terms of the settlement agreement (including the non-compete provision) in a stipulated judgment, the court will then later have jurisdiction to hear claims that the parties are not complying with the court’s judgment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Plaintiff files suit against Defendant alleging that D breached a contract with P for the delivery of goods. The contract contains a mandatory arbitration clause. D wishes to force P to arbitrate the dispute.
What should D do to force arbitration?

A

The arbitration provision is presumptively valid under FAA, Sec. 2.
D can seek a stay of the pending litigation under FAA, Sec. 3. (Notice that the pending litigation is stayed rather than dismissed.)
And D can ask the court to order P to arbitrate the matter pursuant to the arbitration clause. FAA, Sec. 4.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Imagine that your phone company adds a $5/month fee for “credit protection” to your bill without telling you. You pay $35 dollars before you notice the charge. You complain and they stop charging the fee but refuse to refund you what you already paid.
You look at the terms of your agreement with the phone company and realize it includes a mandatory arbitration provision and a provision that bars class actions.
What would you do?

A

Probably nothing. It isn’t worth suing or arbitrating over $35 even if what the credit card company did was illegal.
It might be worth arbitrating if it is a widespread practice, lots of other people have been effected, and you can sue/arbitrate together (i.e., a class action). But the arbitration provision (including the ban on class actions) is probably enforceable, so that isn’t really an option either.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

You are an attorney representing a phone company. You are charged with drafting the contract that all your client’s customers will be required to sign before purchasing anything.
Should it contain an arbitration provision?
If so, what should that provision include?

A

Yes, it should contain a mandatory binding arbitration provision. Such a provision gives you a great deal of control over who can “sue” you, where they can “sue” you, what the resulting “litigation” will look like, etc. By controlling these things you can benefit your client. So, you should do it.
n addition to making arbitration mandatory, it should define what that arbitration will look like. You should consider including clauses (e.g., limitations on the amount of discovery) that will save your client money.
It should also include a provision barring class actions. This will cause many small claims (valid or otherwise) to simply disappear, which will also save your client money.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

P sues D alleging that D signed a promissory note in return for a loan but failed to repay the loan. D answers and denies liability but raises no affirmative defenses. During discovery, D admits in a deposition that the note is genuine and that he did not repay the loan. D claims that he did not repay the loan because he lost his job and could not afford it. (This is not a valid defense to a contract.)
Would P prevail at trial?
Is a trial necessary?
Is there another option for P?

A

obvi summary judge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

P sues D alleging that D ran a red light and struck P causing P serious injuries. D answers and admits failing to running the red light and striking P, raises no affirmative defenses, but disputes the amount of damages. During discovery, D obtains witness testimony that the impact was so slow that P suffered only very minor scrapes and bruises.
Can P obtain a summary judgment against D

A

P can probably obtain a partial summary judgment against D. D has essentially conceded the liability portion of P’s claim by admitting that D ran a red light and struck P.
However, D is contesting the amount of P’s harm and has presented some evidence that P’s harm was not as serious as P claims.
The probable result would be a partial summary judgment in P’s favor on liability, but the issue of harm is contested, so the trial would go forward.
But it would be limited to only the question of how much P was harmed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Plaintiff sues Defendant for injuries suffered during a traffic accident. Plaintiff alleges that D owed her a duty to drive with reasonable care, that D was driving negligently at the time of the accident because he ran a stop sign, that D’s negligent driving was the cause of the accident, and that Plaintiff was seriously injured as a result.
Defendant answers, denies that he drove negligently, files a counterclaim alleging that Plaintiff was the one driving negligently because she was the one that ran the stop sign, and that her negligent driving caused Defendant’s injuries, and raises an affirmative defense of contributory negligence.

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

P sues D for racial discrimination. Juror A goes through voir dire and is asked if she knows P. A says no and is placed on the jury. Jury grants verdict for P. Afterwards, D’s lawyer notices P and Juror A talking very animatedly and hires a PI to find out more about Juror A. It turns out that Juror A is P’s cousin and they are good friends.
Can D obtain a new trial?

A

Yes. Juror A has lied about a question during voir dire. They said they did not know P but they did. And the correct answer (that she was P’s cousin and good friend) would have got her struck for cause because jurors are not supposed to be closely related to or good friends with either of the parties. Therefore, D is entitled to a new trial.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

P sues D for racial discrimination. Juror A goes through voir dire and states that she is 34. Jury finds for P. After the verdict, D discovers that A lied about her age. She is really 37.
Can D obtain a new trial?

A

No. Juror A has lied in response to a question during voir dire. They said they were 34 when they were really 37. But the correct answer would not have resulted in the juror being struck for cause because age is not a grounds for removing a juror. Consequently, the juror’s lie is not enough to warrant a new trial for D.

17
Q

P sues D for gender-based employment discrimination. During voir dire, the jurors are told a little bit about the case and asked if they would be able to fairly decide the case. A juror raises her hand and says “I am the owner of a small business and I feel that might sway my judgment in this case.” In response to further questioning she says “as a business owner I believe that if an employee doesn’t get the benefits they want, they’re going to sue me.” Juror is put on the jury.
Should the juror have been struck for cause?

A

Probably yes. Her views suggest that she is impermissibly biased against the employee and in favor of the employer as a result of her experiences as a business owner. This bias means that she should not sit on the jury in this case and should have been struck for cause.

18
Q

P sues D for gender-based employment discrimination. During voir dire, the jurors are told a little bit about the case and asked if they would be able to fairly decide the case. A juror raises her hand and says “I am the owner of a small business and I feel that might sway my judgment in this case.” In response to further questioning she says “as a business owner I believe that if an employee doesn’t get the benefits they want, they’re going to sue me.” The judge then asks the witness “Once I instruct you on the law, will you be able to put aside your beliefs and fairly decide this case based solely on the law and the evidence presented during the trial?” The juror says, “Yes, your honor. I can.” Juror is put on the jury.
Should the juror have been struck for cause?

A

Probably not. Many cases have held that a juror should not be struck for cause despite admitting to a pre-existing belief that might bias them if they make an unequivocal declaration that they can put aside that belief and decide the case based only on the law and the evidence.
This hypo is based on Problem 3 from page 618.

19
Q

P sues D for wrongful discharge. D exercises its first peremptory challenge and strikes a Black male juror. P objects claiming that the peremptory strike is impermissible because based on race.
Will D have to justify the strike?

A

Probably not. One strike of a Black juror will not create a prima facie case of misuse of peremptory strikes on the basis of race. So D probably won’t be forced to explain or defend the strike

20
Q

P sues D for wrongful discharge. D exercises all three of its peremptory strikes to eliminate Black jurors leaving only white jurors on the jury. P objects claiming that the peremptory strikes were impermissibly based on race.
Will D have to justify them?

A

Probably yes. Now all the strikes were used against Black jurors and resulted in an all white jury. That is a prima facie showing that their use was based on race.
But that does not mean P will automatically win the objection. Now D has to explain why three Black jurors were struck. If there is a plausible race-neutral explanation for each one, then P’s objection will be overruled.

21
Q

P bears burden of proving at trial that cow went through the break in the fence
P presents no evidence about how cow got on track
Was there a “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” from which a “reasonable jury” could find for P?
So what result?

A

Today, the defendant in this case would make a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of P’s presentation of evidence.
Because P failed to present any evidence on an element on which P bore the burden of proof, the “jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for” P on P’s claim and the court would grant D’s JMOL motion.

22
Q

JMOL can be granted when a party has been “fully heard on an issue.” When has that occurred?

A

It depends on which party bears the burden of proof on the issue.
If P bears the burden of proof on an issue, then P must produce evidence of it during P’s case. (P will go first.) If P produces no evidence on the issue during P’s case, then D may move for JMOL when P rests its case (i.e., before D presents its case).

23
Q

When will a party have been “fully heard on an issue”?

A

Where D bears the burden of proof on an issue, it will not have been “fully heard” on that issue until the close of D’s case.
So, D can move for JMOL against P at the end of P’s case (i.e., halfway through trial) but P can only move for JMOL against D at the close of D’s case (i.e., at end of presentation of evidence by both parties).

24
Q

Imagine that in Reid v. San Pedro Railroad, P produced an eyewitness who said that the cow went through the break in the fence. D, in its case, presents no contrary evidence about how the cow got on the tracks, does nothing to impeach P’s W, and then rests.
Could a “reasonable jury” find for D?

A

No. The only evidence presented to the jury is that the cow went through the break in the fence. No contrary evidence was presented. So the jury would have to conclude that the cow went through the break in the fence.
Thus, given that D had conceded the other elements of the claim, the jury would have to rule for P.

25
Q

Is there a way P could get that outcome without waiting for a jury verdict?

A

Yes. Use R. 50 offensively. P could make a motion for JMOL in P’s favor.

26
Q

When can a JMOL motion be made?

A

After the party has been “fully heard” on the issue Rule 50(a)(1)
But “before the case is submitted to the jury” Rule 50(a)(2)

27
Q

P sues D for breach of contract. D has a prior conviction for sexual assault. Judge rules that D’s prior conviction is not admissible and orders P not to introduce evidence of it because of its prejudicial effect on the the jury. One of P’s witnesses blurts out on the stand that D is a convicted rapist.
What should D do?

A

Make a motion for a new trial. The witness has revealed to the jury information that it was not supposed to receive and that is highly prejudicial. D could reasonably argue that this has so compromised the trial that we should essentially start over with a new jury.

28
Q

P sues D on a promissory note and D raises an affirmative defense of fraud in the inducement. P seeks damages of $1,200 ($1,000 principal plus $200 in interest). D is not contesting the amount owed on the promissory note, just whether the note is valid.
What are the possible jury outcomes?
What happens if the jury returns a verdict of $5,000 in favor of P?

A

The problem here is that there appears to be a flaw in the verdict. Given the parties’ theories of the case, there should have been two possible verdicts: 1) verdict for P in the amount of $1,200; or 2) verdict for D (P receives nothing).
There does not appear to be any way that the jury could have reached a figure of $5,000 without violating the judge’s instructions to them or ignoring the evidence presented by the parties. Thus, D should make a motion for a new trial.

29
Q

A wins a judgment against B for $100K. B refuses to pay. A places a lien on B’s house. B’s bank already has a lien on B’s house for $200K that has first priority. B then sells the house for $400K.
Who gets what?

A

B’s bank (the lien holder with priority) gets paid first and gets $200K.
A (as the lienholder with second priority) gets paid $100K.
B gets whatever is left ($100K).
If the house sold for $300K, then the bank and A would get paid, but B would get nothing.
If the house sold for $200K, the bank would get its $200K b/c it has priority, but both A and B would get nothing.