San Joaquin College of Law
Civil Procedure – Final Exam 2006 /Cartier
TIME: 2 hours 40 minutes
Question 1: [50 points]
Husband, citizen of Virginia, was driving with his wife in Virginia when his vehicle slid out of control after coming in contact with spilled oil during a rain storm. The vehicle smashed into a tree resulting in significant damage to the vehicle and injury to Husband and Wife. A few months after the accident, Wife left Husband, filed for a divorce, and moved to Kentucky to be closer to her family. Husband filed a claim in state court in Kentucky which was located 75 miles from his home seeking damages for personal injury and property damage against Delaware Gas, Inc. (“DGI”), a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Kentucky. Husband alleged DGI was negligent in the manner it was installing a natural gas line next to the road in Virginia. Although it was uncontroverted that DGI left leaking oil drums and other debris next to the road. DGI filed summary judgment motion against Husband asserting that his claim was barred under Virginia’s contributory negligence law. In support of this motion, DGI included 1) a declaration from Wife that, at the time of the accident, Husband was speeding and 2) a declaration from an police officer who witnessed the accident that Husband was driving too fast for the weather conditions. The court granted summary judgment finding that “Husband’s negligence, as a matter of law, bars him from recovery.” This judgment is now final. Wife subsequently filed the present diversity suit in federal court in Kentucky against Husband (who is now her former spouse) seeking recovery for her personal injuries (and to get the money she didn’t get in the divorce). Husband filed an answer “denying liability and jurisdiction.” He later filed a motion to dismiss 1) for want of personal jurisdiction, 2) for improper venue, and/or 3) because Wife’s claim is barred by claim preclusion since she testified in the prior proceeding and could have intervened in that action. Wife seeks a summary judgment against Husband claiming he is precluded from relitigating the issue of his negligence as determined in the prior state court case.
[For the purposes of this question you should assume there is no interspousal immunity and that the negligence of one spouse is not imputed to the other spouse because of the marriage.]
Assuming subject matter jurisdiction is proper, how should the court rule on the following:
1. Husband’s motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction? DISCUSS.
2. Husband’s motion to dismiss for improper venue? DISCUSS.
3. Husband’s assertion that Wife’s suit is barred by claim preclusion? DISCUSS.
4. Wife’s summary judgment motion against Husband based on issue preclusion? DISCUSS.
Question 2: [50 points]
Inmate, a citizen of Arizona, is currently serving time at the Arizona State Detention Facility (“ADF”). While being processed into ADF, Inmate asked for a medical check on a black mole on his back. A nurse looked at the mole and suggested he have it looked at when he was transferred to his permanent housing unit. After several weeks Inmate was transferred to his permanent housing and had the mole checked by Doctor, a private contractor, who treats prisoners on an on-call basis. Several months later, Doctor, who lives in Arizona, removed Inmate’s mole that was malignant. Inmate filed a civil rights action in federal court against ADF alleging inadequate medical care and that, as a result, his cancer went undetected and spread which has resulted in extensive medical treatments including surgeries and chemotherapy. Inmate also asserted a state law claim for medical malpractice against Doctor alleging “deliberated indifference.” ADF filed a cross-claim against Doctor seeking contribution and/or indemnity. Doctor filed a motion to dismiss all claims against him for want of subject matter jurisdiction based on a lack of diversity. The court denied this motion. Doctor then filed a 12(b)6 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim since state law requires the pleader to set forth specific acts that constitutes “deliberate indifference.” Inmate’s complaint alleges negligence generally but does not identify specific acts that constitute malpractice. The court acknowledged the state’s pleading requirement was not satisfied but denied the 12(b)6 motion. The case proceeded to a jury trial that resulted in a $2,000,000 judgment against the defendants. When the jury verdict was returned, Doctor immediately requested a judgment as a matter of law (judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The court denied this motion but, on its own motion, granted a conditional new trial unless Inmate agreed to remittitur and accepted damage award of $200,000. Inmate refused to accept remittitur and a new trial was ordered.
Considering all relevant facts, did the court correctly rule on the following:
1. Doc’s motion to dismiss all claims against him for want of subject matter jurisdiction? DISCUSS.
2. Doc’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim? DISCUSS.
3. Doc’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law? DISCUSS.
4. Granting a new trial (on its own motion)? DISCUSS.
Question 3 – BONUS: [5 points] Briefly, but fully, explain the doctrine of forum nonconveniens.
San Joaquin College of Law
Civil Procedure – Sketch Answer 505 /Cartier
Question 1
In prior litigation, Husband, a citizen of Virginia, filed suit in Kentucky against DGI to recover for injuries sustained in an auto accident in Virginia. Husband was contributorily negligent and was denied recovery. In the present suit, Wife, who now resides in Kentucky has filed suit against Husband, her former spouse, to recover for her injuries in the auto accident. Husband objects to personal jurisdiction and venue. Both parties seek to invoke preclusion – res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION, the power to make a binding order against an individual, is obtained by giving notice within the grasp of the state’s long-arm statute. Since Husband is a Virginian, he is an out-of-state defendant in this Kentucky action. To hold him to answer in Kentucky will required that he have certain minimum contacts with the state of Kentucky so that to hold him to answer there will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Husband has no continuous and systematic contact with Kentucky. Although Wife moved there after leaving Husband, his only contact with Kentucky is the suit he filed there against DGI. While some courts might find this is a minimum contact, others would hold that filing one suit does not establish a minimum contact (or consent) for another suit. Even if there is no minimum contact, Husband must object to personal jurisdiction in his answer or pre-answer motion, whichever comes first. Husband’s denial of “Liability and jurisdiction” is likely not sufficient to satisfy Rule 12(b)2. Husband is subject to personal jurisdiction in Kentucky.
VENUE is proper where the cause of action arose (Virginia) or where the defendant (Husband) resides (Virginia). While Kentucky does not meet either prong for establishing venue, Husband must raise his objection in his first pleading. Since he did not object to venue, venue is proper in Kentucky.
CLAIM PRECLUSION (res judicata). 1. Same claim. 2. Decided on the merits. 3. Final judgment. 4. Same parties of privies. Husband asserts Wife’s claim against him should be barred by claim preclusion. Although the summary judgment (determining that there were no triable issues of material fact) in DGI suit was decided on the merits and has since become a final judgment, Wife’s claim for damages is not the same claim as Husband’s claim for damages. Neither are the parties the same. Wife’s knowledge of the suit (and her ability to join that litigation) is not enough to bar her claim if she was not made a party to the first suit.
ISSUE PRECLUSION 9collateral estoppel). 1. Same issue. 2. Actually litigated. 3 Essential to the judgment. 4. Full and fair opportunity to litigate (formerly mutuality). Wife asserts Husband’s negligence was determined in the prior suit. This issue of his negligence was actually litigated in the summary judgment proceeding. Clearly, that determination was essential to the judgment. Wife was not a party to that action and under the old rule of mutuality she would not be allowed to invoke collateral estoppel. Modernly, many courts will allow non-mutual collateral estoppel so long as the party against whom the estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. Here Wife is seeking to invoke offensive no-mutual collateral estoppel. Federal courts (and some state courts) will permit this so long as it is not unfair. You should use the facts to resolve the fairness question.
Question 2
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION is the power of the court to decide a claim. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction – with original jurisdiction over federal questions (cases that arise under federal law) AND over diversity (no plaintiff comes from the same state as any defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000). Doc objects to subject matter jurisdiction. Inmate’s claim against Doc does not arise under federal law. While the claim is likely for more than $75,000, it appears that Inmate and Doc are both citizens of Arizona. Consequently, the federal court does not have original jurisdiction over this claim. Inmate does have a federal question claim filed against ADF. Once the court has original jurisdiction over a claim, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that form part of the same constitutional case and controversy. Supplemental jurisdiction also permits claims against other parties (pendant party jurisdiction). Doc also objects to jurisdiction over ADF’s cross-claim against him. Once the court has jurisdiction over Inmate’s claim against ADF based on federal question and against DOC based on supplemental jurisdiction, ADF may file a cross-claim (seeking indemnity or contribution) against Doc, a co-party. Since the cross-claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim as well.
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. Doc claims Inmate’s complaint fails to state a valid cause of action since it fails to satisfy the state’s heightened pleading requirement. This is an ERIE problem When a state law claim is filed in federal court, the court generally applies state substantive law and federal procedural rules. Since R. 8 permits notice pleading ( a short plain statement of the facts), the federal court properly determined that Inmate’s complaint was sufficient.
JMOL. When there is only one reasonable outcome, the court may enter a judgment in the matter after a party has been fully heard. In this case, a JMOL would not be appropriate because there is not only one reasonable outcome. Additionally, a party who seeks a renewed judgment as a matter of law after a jury verdict is returned, must have requested a JMOL at the close of the evidence. Nothing in the facts suggest this was done. The court correctly denied this motion.
NEW TRIAL. A federal court may grant a new trial based on excessive damages. The court may also invoke remittitur (a conditional new trial) unless plaintiff agrees to accept a lesser amount of damages. Here, Inmate refused remittitur and the new trail was ordered. Nothing in the facts suggests the court’s order is improper.
Bonus:
1. Proper court
2. May decline to hear – stay or dismiss
3. Private factors –
4. Public factors –
5. IF an adequate alternate forum exists