San Joaquin College of Law

Civil Procedure–Interim Exam March 2001 /Cartier

             Plaintiff, a resident of Connecticut, alleges that she was harassed and defrauded of money and property by defendants, Law and Order, both of whom are residents of Colorado.

             Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in federal court in Connecticut, alleges:

She met Law and a number of other women in 1995, while “hanging out” in a female-to-female chat room. Law introduced Plaintiff to Order, who was purportedly Law’s live-in lover. Law and Order coaxed Plaintiff to send Law a $1,000 digital camera for her publishing business and later to send $500 for snow tires. Plaintiff alleges that she was told she was going to be a silent partner in the publishing business. When Plaintiff found out the publishing business did not exist, she refused to send more money. Thereafter, Law and Order began harassing Plaintiff by sending her e-mails telling her she was mentally ill and telling her how ugly she was. According to Plaintiff, these messages continued for nearly a year. Despite changing her internet service provider and nickname numerous times, defendants were able to locate her and the messages continued. By her complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages of “$10,000,000 for general, compensatory and punitive damages.”

             Defendants, upon being properly served, filed a motion to dismiss 1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and 3) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

             First, defendants assert there is no way Plaintiff can satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of the federal court. Second, defendants allege that the camera and money sent to Law were both gifts. A copy of a card accompanying the money from Plaintiff for the tires, recites, “This is all I can give you now.” A copy of this card, bearing Plaintiff’s signature, is attached to defendants’ motion as an exhibit. Further, defendants correctly point out that plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege any “physical impact,” as required by state law. In a declaration supporting defendants’ motion, Law asserts that in February 1998, the animosity between the parties escalated to the point that defendants filed a police report against Plaintiff for harassment. Plaintiff was arrested and, after entering a plea of “no contest,” was convicted of harassment. A copy of the police report is also attached to defendant’s motion.

             In responding to defendants’ motion, Plaintiff acknowledges the money for the tires was a gift but she stands by her assertion that she was harassed by the defendants and that they manipulated money and property from her over the internet. She seeks recovery for fraud [based upon the knowingly false representation that the publishing business existed] and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In opposition to defendants’ motion, she has provided a declaration that, as a result of defendants’ conduct, she has been unable to sleep and has lost weight.

Considering all relevant facts, how should the court rule on each of the following:

1.          Defendants’ motions to dismiss

                          A) for want for subject matter jurisdiction? DISCUSS.

                          B) for want of personal jurisdiction? DISCUSS.

2.          Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted? DISCUSS.

3.          If Defendants seek civil damages for the 1998 harassment by Plaintiff, can those damages be sought   A) in this proceeding? DISCUSS

                           B) in a subsequent proceeding? DISCUSS.

Bonus:Assume that Connecticut state law would not require Plaintiff to submit to a physical or mental exam in this case. If this case proceeds, can Plaintiff be compelled to undergo a physical or mental exam? DISCUSS.