San Joaquin College of Law
Civil Procedure FINAL EXAM 2003 / Cartier
Time: 3 hours.
Question 1: 50 points
Paula Plaintiff was employed by Delot, Inc. (“Delot”), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. In March 2002, Delot “temporarily transferred” Paula from its Illinois office to its Michigan headquarters. Delot fired Paula in October 2002. The stated reason for the termination was that Paula had a habit of “coming on to” male co-workers. Paula then filed suit in the United States District Court in Michigan alleging a violation of Michigan state gender discrimination laws. After filing her complaint, Paula returned to Illinois. While Paula admits being a “touchy-feely” person, she contends the corporation’s reason for terminating her was a pretext and that the real reason for her termination was to permit the hiring of a male employee for her position. The case was tried by a jury. While Paula’s former co-workers testified that she brushed against them and hugged them from time to time, none of them believed her actions were intended as sexual advances. Internal corporate e-mails were introduced to show Delot had been planning for several months to replace Paula with a male. In fact, Paula’s position was filled by a male within days of her termination. At the end of Paula’s presentation of her case-in-chief, Delot moved for a motion for a judgment as a matter of law (“directed verdict”). This motion was denied. The trial continued and the case was finally submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Paula in the amount of $365,000. Delot then filed motions requesting a 1) a renewed judgment as a matter of law (“judgment notwithstanding the verdict”); 2) a new trial; and/or 3) remittitur. Federal courts in Michigan, in conformity with Michigan case law, have upheld jury verdicts which do not “shock the conscience.” Recent state tort reform legislation, however, adopts the “deviates materially” standard for determining whether a jury verdict is excessive. In support of the jury award, Paula points to a recent case where a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case in Michigan state court obtained a judgment of $350,000 on similar facts. After the district court denied each of Delot’s motions, Delot filed an appeal contending that each of the court’s rulings was erroneous and that, in any event, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction rendering its judgment void.
1. Did the trial court have proper subject matter jurisdiction? DISCUSS.
2. Did the trial court correctly deny:
a) Delot’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law? DISCUSS.
b) Delot’s motion for a renewed judgment as a matter of law? DISCUSS.
c) Delot’s motion for a new trial? DISCUSS.
d) Delot’s motion for remittitur? DISCUSS.
Question 2: 50 points
Pierre, a French national with ties to terrorist groups in Sudan, was a detainee of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. During a portion of his detention, Pierre was held at a state detention facility (“DetFac”) in Delaware where he lived. After being transferred to a detention facility in New York in 2001, Pierre filed a suit in a federal court in New York against various DetFac employees (“employees”) and against Doc, all of whom live and work in Delaware. Doc is an independent contractor who routinely treats detainees at DetFac. He is not an employee of DetFac. Pierre filed a complaint alleging violations of his federal civil rights under 28 U.S.C § 1983. He asserted 1) that Delaware was unconstitutionally cold, 2) that American food is not fit to eat, and 3) that when he was sick, the doctor gave him medicine that took several days to make him well. [You may assume there is a federal question in there somewhere.] Employees and Doc were served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with the office manager at DetFac. State rules permit service at one’s place of employment. Immediately after filing this suit in New York, Pierre was returned to DetFac. Doc moved to dismiss the suit against him based on improper service and want of personal jurisdiction. The court granted Doc’s motion. Employees then filed a motion to dismiss the New York proceeding for want of personal jurisdiction. The court denied this motion and transferred the case against employees to Delaware. After the transfer, employees filed an answer to the complaint and moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The federal court in Delaware granted this motion. No appeal was taken. In early 2003, Pierre filed suit against employees and Doc in Delaware state court alleging the same facts as a basis for a federal § 1983 claim and for various state law claims that were not raised in the prior proceeding. Employees seek a summary judgment based on claim preclusion; Doc seeks summary judgments based on claim preclusion and/or issue preclusion. A copy of the judgment of the Delaware federal court dismissing Pierre’s prior action was properly submitted to this court in support of the motions for summary judgment.
1. Was the court correct in dismissing Doc from the New York action? DISCUSS.
2. Was the first action against the employees properly transferred from New York to Delaware? DISCUSS.
3. How should the court rule on the employees’ motion for a summary judgment?
DISCUSS.
4. How should the court rule on Doc’s motion for a summary judgment? DISCUSS.
Question 3: [Bonus–5 points]
Briefly, but fully, explain the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that permit a party to amend a pleading before and/or after the applicable statute of limitations has expired.