San Joaquin College of Law

Civil Procedure–Interim Exam Dec 01/ Cartier

QUESTION 1

Polly Plaintiff is mentally retarded. She was born in California. At the age of 16, her parents, residents of California, took Polly from California to Pennsylvania for the purpose of obtaining a tubal ligation. The sterilization procedure was performed at Drone Hospital by Dr. Don (both of whom are from Pennsylvania). Later, Polly married and moved to Ohio. After learning that she was permanently sterilized, Polly filed suit in Pennsylvania state court. Polly, by her husband as her guardian ad litem, asserted a federal claim against Drone Hospital and various state law claims against her parents and against Dr. Don. The defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. After the case was removed, Polly amended her complaint to allege various state law claims against Drone Hospital. Polly’s parents filed a motion to dismiss the action for want of personal jurisdiction. Subsequently, all of the defendants filed motions, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)6, to dismiss the action as time-barred under Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations that runs from the date of the injury. Federal case law tolls the statute of limitations when the plaintiff lacks mental capacity; state law does not. Polly is now 24 years old.

1.          Was this case properly removed? DISCUSS.

2.          Was Polly’s amendment of her complaint proper? DISCUSS.

3.          How should the court rule on the motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction? DISCUSS.

4.          How should the court rule on the motions to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)6? DISCUSS.

QUESTION 2

Plaintiff, Sonny, a New York domiciliary, filed suit in federal court in California alleging violations of constitutional rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, and violations of various rights protected by state law arising from his wrongful arrest , extradition and incarceration. Simply put, California sought to extradite a felon, Sonne, from New York. Because of confusion regarding the names, Sonny, who had been detained in New York for jaywalking, was mistakenly extradited to California. He was accompanied to California by two of New York’s finest, Officer Wink and Officer Nod. While in custody in California, Sonny was sexually assaulted by fellow inmates. Sonny has filed claims against the two New York police officers who brought him to California. Officers Wink filed a motion: 1) for a more definite statement since Sonny failed to plead facts with particularity, and 2) to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Sonny failed to satisfy California’s code pleading requirements. Two days later, Officers Wink and Nod filed consolidated motions to dismiss 1) for want of personal jurisdiction and 2) for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

How should the court rule on the following:

1.          The motion for a more definite statement? DISCUSS.

2.          The motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)6? DISCUSS.

3.          The motions to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction? DISCUSS.

4.          The motions to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction? DISCUSS.