San Joaquin College of Law
Civil Procedure–FINAL EXAM 2000/Cartier
TIME: 2 hours 40 Minutes
Question 1:
Professor Science (“Prof”) was employed as a science teacher in New Mexico from 1990 to 1998. He contends his employment with the NewMex School District was terminated because of “an anti-academic atmosphere” and because he had expressed his opinion that athletic programs were being funded at the expense of academics. Prof subsequently moved to Kentucky and was hired by the Kentucky School District as a science teacher and coach for the 1998-99 school year. At the end of that school year, Prof was terminated by the Kentucky School District for insubordination, conduct unbecoming a teacher, incompetency and neglect of duty. Upon being terminated, Prof filed suit in state court in Kentucky against members of the school boards of both the NewMex School District and the Kentucky School District and against the superintendents of the two school districts alleging a violation of his civil rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Each of the defendants appeared in the action. The Kentucky court dismissed the action against the New Mexico defendants for failure to state a claim. The court later granted the Kentucky defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Several months later, Prof filed an appeal that was dismissed as untimely. Thereafter, Prof returned to New Mexico where he filed suit in federal court against the same defendants alleging that the defendants, in terminating his employment, engaged in a conspiracy to violate his civil rights. The District Court in New Mexico granted the New Mexico defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Prof’s claims against them were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. The district court also granted the Kentucky defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that, since the Kentucky defendants live and work in Kentucky, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.
In the instant appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Prof asserts that his claim alleging a conspiracy is not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel. He claims the Kentucky defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Mexico. He further contends that since he failed to properly serve the New Mexico defendants in the Kentucky action, the Kentucky judgment cannot have preclusive effect as to the New Mexico defendants. In the Kentucky action, Prof served the New Mexico defendants by leaving the summons and complaint at the local school district office with a secretary. State law does not permit substituted service at a place of employment.
Considering all relevant facts:
1. Is this appeal properly before the court? DISCUSS.
2. Did the district court properly grant a summary judgment in favor of the New Mexico defendants on the ground that Prof’s claims against them were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel? DISCUSS.
3. Did the district court properly grant the Kentucky defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it lacked personal jurisdiction over them? DISCUSS.
Question 2:
Frank and Francine, husband and wife, have filed a claim in the United States District Court in Penn against Jersey Bar, Inc. (“Jersey Bar”) alleging that Frank and his friend, Fred, went to Jersey Bar, which is incorporated and located in Jersey, where they were served alcoholic beverages despite the fact they were visibly intoxicated. Plaintiffs further allege that Frank and Fred then got into a boat which was operated by Fred. Frank and Fred then went to Ridley Park in Penn via the boat. While Fred was docking the boat, Frank sustained an injury to his hand which eventually required amputation of his thumb. Frank, Francis and Fred are residents of Penn. Jersey Bar is a small lounge in Jersey that, while it does not advertise in Penn, occasionally serves patrons from Penn. As a result of the boating injury, Frank seeks damages of $100,000 for the loss of his thumb; Francine, as a co-plaintiff, seeks $25,000 for loss of consortium. Jersey Bar, upon being properly served in the action, filed a motion to dismiss 1) for want of subject matter jurisdiction, 2) for want of personal jurisdiction, and 3) for failure to join Fred as a necessary party. For the purposes of this question you should assume contribution among joint tortfeasors is permitted in Jersey but not in Penn. In response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiffs made a cross motion for transfer to Jersey.
Considering all relevant facts, how should the court rule on each of the following motions:
1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss:
a. for want of subject matter jurisdiction? DISCUSS.
b. for want of personal jurisdiction? DISCUSS.
c. for failure to join a necessary party? DISCUSS.
2. Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer? DISCUSS.
Bonus: Assuming the case is transferred to Jersey, what law(s) will apply in a United States District Court in Jersey?