San Joaquin College of Law
Civil Procedure – Final Exam 2005 / Cartier
TIME: 2 hours 40 minutes.
Question 1 – [50 points]
Plaintiff, a citizen of California, was injured in January 2002 by a product manufactured by Delta, Inc. The injury occurred in California where Plaintiff received extensive medical care for his injuries. Delta is a Delaware corporation, with its principal production facility in California and its corporate offices located in Mississippi. In March 2004, Plaintiff filed an action in California state court seeking compensatory damages in excess of $25,000 and punitive damages, an amount within the general jurisdiction of the Superior Court. Delta removed the action to federal court and thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the action as time barred by California’s two-year statute of limitations. This motion to dismiss was granted. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action for these same personal injuries in federal court in Mississippi within that state’s seven-year statute of limitations period. Delta has filed a motion to dismiss 1) for want of subject matter jurisdiction and/or 2) improper venue. Further, Delta also seeks a dismissal of this action based claim preclusion because this action is barred by the prior federal court action. Plaintiff has filed a motion to transfer the case to the appropriate federal court in California.
How should the court rule on each of the following:
1. Delta’s motion to dismiss
A) for want of subject matter jurisdiction? DISCUSS.
B) for improper venue? DISCUSS.
C) based on claim preclusion? DISCUSS..
2. Plaintiff’s motion to transfer? DISCUSS.
Question 2 -- [50 points]
Professor Perky (“Prof”), a teacher at a state university in Ohio, accepted a one-year visiting professor assignment at Colorado State University for the 2002-03 academic year. In early 2003, Prof attended a anti-war rally at a local city park. During the rally a protester detonated a small suitcase bomb. City police responded by firing plastic bullets into the crowd. Prof received minor to moderate injuries as a result of being hit by plastic bullets and being trampled by the crowd. Several local citizens were also injured in this incident. Prof tendered a timely notice of claim against City. After Prof presented his notice of claim, City contracted with a local law firm to investigate the matter and to handle any subsequent litigation. In the course of the investigation, the attorneys interviewed witnesses, including bystanders, the police officers who were on the scene, and three foreign exchange students who are no longer in the United States.. The attorneys then prepared a written report for the city council. After his claim for damages was denied, Prof filed a diversity action in federal court in Colorado seeking damages for his injuries ($70,000) and for an injunction (to require City to provide its officers training in crowd control techniques). After commencing this legal action, Prof returned to Ohio. Several of the others injured in this incident filed actions for damages against City in state court. City has filed answers in all the actions denying liability. City has filed a motion in the federal court to dismiss Prof’s action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Prof has filed a motion to compel discovery of a) the attorneys’ witness interview notes and b) the report made to the city council. For the purposes of this question, you should assume Colorado has abolished its work product doctrine.
How should the court rule on each of the following:
1) the motion to dismiss? DISCUSS.
2) the motion to compel? DISCUSS.
BONUS – [5 points]
Assuming City’s liability is established by summary judgment in the state court proceedings referenced in Question 2, what is the preclusive effect of that judgment in this federal court action? DISCUSS.
San Joaquin College of Law
Civil Procedure – Sketch Answer May 2005 / Cartier
Question 1
An action stating a claim against a manufacturer for a defective product was originally filed in California state court. Defendant, Delta, Inc, removed the action to the federal court and moved for dismissal since the claim was time barred by California’s statute of limitations. The action was dismissed. Plaintiff filed the instant action in federal court in Mississippi.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The federal court will be empowered to hear this state law claim under diversity jurisdiction if there is complete diversity (plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than the defendant) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff is a citizen of California. Delta, Inc, a corporation, has dual citizenship: 1) its state of incorporation (Delaware) and 2) its principal place of business. The facts state Delta’s headquarters are in Mississippi but that its principal production facility is in California. If California is the principal place of business, diversity fails. Otherwise, complete diversity exists. Plaintiff still must meet the amount in controversy requirement. The original action sought damages in excess of $25,000, plus punitive damages. Unless defendant can show plaintiff cannot obtain a judgment in excess of $75,000, the amount in controversy requirement is also met. Note: the fact that Delta removed the action in California does not prevent Delta from challenging subject matter jurisdiction now.
Venue. Venue is generally appropriate where the cause of action arose (which is California in these facts) or where the defendant resides. Delta, Inc., as a corporation, is deemed to reside in any district where it would be subject to personal jurisdiction if that district were a state. Since Mississippi is its corporate headquarters, Delta clearly resides in Mississippi or in the district in Mississippi where its corporate offices are located. There is nothing unfair about holding Delta to answer in this forum.
Claim Preclusion. Delta argues the instant action is barred by claim preclusion (res judicata). It appears that plaintiff’s claim is the same as the one raised in California (using the same transaction or occurrence test OR the same primary right test). Clearly there was a final judgment in that action that involved the same parties. The question remains whether the California action was “decided on the merits.” Semtek, in a California-related action, suggests that a dismissal based on the statute of limitations is procedural and is not on the merits. Under this rationale, the plaintiff may bring suit in Mississippi.
ERIE; When a state law claim is brought in federal court, the court should apply state substantive law and federal procedural rules. While a federal court will apply the applicable state statute of limitations to a state law claim, the statute of limitations, between states, is generally regarded as procedural. Here the federal court should apply the same statute of limitations that would be applied by the Mississippi state court. Applying the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, that court should give the same preclusive effect to the California dismissal that would be afforded by the California court. Again, according to Semtek, California’s dismissal is not “on the merits” for the purpose of preclusion.
Transfer. A federal court may transfer a case that is properly brought in one district court to another district court under § 1404 for the convenience of witnesses or parties OR in the interest of justice. Here, since the injury occurred in California where plaintiff resides. The convenience to plaintiff along with the availability of witnesses could justify transferring this case to California, Since venue was appropriate in Mississippi, that state’s law will control even if the case is transferred to California.
Question 2:
Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed this diversity action in federal court. Diversity jurisdiction is appropriate when the is complete diversity (the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different state) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Although Prof was residing in Colorado, he was there as a visiting professor. It appears he remained a citizen of Ohio. Defendant city is clearly a citizen of Colorado. Complete diversity exists. Plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of $70,000, plus an injunction. The value of the injunction (either as a benefit to plaintiff or as a cost to defendant) may be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
Motion to Compel. The scope of discovery extends of all matter, not privileged, relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Here, plaintiff seeks discovery of a report prepared by defendant’s attorneys and statements from various witnesses. While it is not expressly stated, I will assume the City is asserting the materials requested are privileged.
Attorney client privilege protects communications between the attorney and client regarding legal advice. The report tendered by the attorney, if it is providing legal advice, may be protected under the attorney-client privilege. Further, the attorneys’ notes from interviews with the police officers who were on the scene might also be covered by this privilege if the attorneys were talking to the officers in the scope of providing legal advice to the City.
Work-Product. Although Colorado has abolished its work-product doctrine, a material prepared in anticipation of litigation provision is included in Federal Rule 26. Since the federal rules are procedural, federal courts will recognize this federal work-product protection. Under Erie, when a state law claim is brought in federal court, the federal court applies state substantive law and federal procedures. When an FRCP is on point, it applies.
Under Rule 26, materials prepared in anticipation of litigation are privilege. The mental impressions and theories of the attorney in this case would be absolutely privileged. Other material prepared in anticipation of litigation would be qualifiedly privileged and would be discoverable only on a showing of substantial need and unavailability.
The report to the city council, if not covered by the attorney-client privilege, might be protected as work product IF the report was made in anticipation of litigation.
The statement from police officers, if not covered by the attorney-client privilege, would be only qualifiedly privileged. Since the officers are likely still available, plaintiff could be expected to get his own statements, informally or through depositions. The witnesses wold not be covered by atttorney-client privilege BUT would be qualifiedly privileged. If the witnesses remain available, plaintiff can obtain his own statements form them. As regards the foreign exchange students who are no longer in this country, this showing of unavailability, coupled with substantial need, would entitle plaintiff to a copy of those statements.
Bonus: Res judicata – No; Offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel – maybe; Full Faith and Credit Act