San Joaquin College of Law

Civil Procedure – Final Exam 2007 /Cartier

TIME ALLOCATION: 2 hours 40 minutes

QUESTION 1: [50 points]

Mary, a citizen of California, was injured when the vehicle she was driving was hit by a car driven by Dan, a citizen of Washington. Mary was in Oregon to pick up her minor child, (“Child”), who lives with her father in Oregon. Dan filed suit against Mary in a state court in Oregon for personal injury. Mary generally appeared in the action but raised no claims against Dan arising from the collision. Although the court found Mary was negligent, a judgment in her favor was entered. The record is not clear whether Dan lost because he was contributorily negligent and/or because he failed to prove his injuries. In any case, that judgment is now final. Mary recently moved to Oregon and filed a timely diversity action against Dan in federal court seeking damages for her personal injury and property damage sustained in the automobile collision. Dan filed an answer denying liability that asserts the court lacks personal jurisdiction because he continues to live in Washington. He filed a motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction along with a motion to dismiss Mary’s claim on the grounds that her claim is barred by res judicata (claim preclusion), collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), and/or rule preclusion since she did not assert any counterclaim in the prior state court action.

1.          How should the court rule on each of the following motions?

             A.         Dan’s motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction? DISCUSS.

             B.        Dan’s motion to dismiss based on preclusion? DISCUSS.

2.          If this action proceeds, should Dan be permitted to assert a counterclaim for his injuries from the collision? DISCUSS.

QUESTION 2: [50 points]

Hank, a New Yorker, was informed by his employer that he would be transferred to Alabama. In planning for the move, Hank and his wife, Hilda, went to Alabama and bought a house. After Hank returned to New York, Hilda remained in Alabama for a few weeks and hired Al, an Alabama contractor, to paint the house. Al bought the paint from the local Patriot Paint store. Patriot Paint is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York After the painting was completed, Hank returned to Alabama to inspect the job. At Hank’s urging, since Hilda was expecting the couple’s first child, Hilda hired a environmental engineer to test the paint for lead. Upon being advised there was a hazardous level of lead present (above levels set by the federal government for public safety), Hilda filed suit in federal court in Alabama 1) for the cost of having the lead removed from the house and 2) for any possible injury to her unborn child. Upon being properly served, Al filed an answer denying liability along with a counterclaim to recover $10,000 owed under the painting contract . Al also filed a third-party complaint for indemnity against Patriot Paint. Patriot Paint seeks an order to compel Hilda to be medically examined to determine if the unborn child has been affected by the exposure to lead. State law does not require a party to undergo medical examinations. Hank and Hilda continue to reside in New York. Hilda now wants to amend her complaint to state a claim against Patriot Paint.

1.         Which of the following claims, counterclaims, or third-party claims, if any, are properly within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court:

             A.         Hilda v. Al? DISCUSS.

             B.         Al v. Hilda? DISCUSS.

             C.         Al v. Patriot Paint? DISCUSS.

2.          In response to the claim the unborn child might have injuries resulting from the expose to lead, can Hilda be required to undergo a medical exam? DISCUSS.

3.          Assuming the statute of limitations is not a bar, should Hilda be permitted to amend her complaint? DISCUSS.

BONUS: [5 points]

Briefly, but fully, explain “recognition of judgments” as it applies to a judgment of a state or federal court being recognized in another state or federal court.

San Joaquin College of Law

Civil Procedure – Sketch Answer May 2007 / Cartier

Question 1

Mary v. Don arise from a vehicle collision in Oregon. Don previously sued Mary for his injuries in the collision and lost.

Personal Jurisdiction:

Don, a resident of Washington objects to personal jurisdiction. While he must be served within the grasp of the Oregon long-arm statute, nothing in the facts suggests that service was improper. To hold an out-of-state defendant to answer he must have minimum contacts with the forum state so that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Here, Don previously sued Mary in Oregon. This might be a minimum contact BUT this suit does not arise from that suit. The suit arises for a vehicle collision Oregon. By taking the benefits and protections of the state, Don is subject to personal jurisdiction related to his deriving in the state. Simply put, it is foreseeable that Don could be sued in Oregon for an accident taking place in Oregon.

Preclusion:

             Res judicata (claim preclusion) – same claim (NO – Mary’s injuries are not the same claim as Don’s injuries); decided on the merits (yes), final judgment (yes), and same parties (yes). Res judicata will not bar this suit.

             Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) – same issue (yes- negligence), actually litigated (yes), essential to the judgment (probably not since it is not clear what was decided in the prior suit), and mutuality (yes). Collateral estoppel will not bar this suit.

             Rule preclusion – If Oregon has a compulsory counterclaim rule, Mary’s claim would be barred by rule preclusion. Under such a rule an existing counterclaim shall be brought as part of the first proceeding. If Oregon does not have a compulsory counterclaim rule, Mary’s claim world not be barred.

Counterclaim by Don:

             If Mary sues Don, his claim against her, arising from the same accident, would be a compulsory counterclaim BUT it is the same claim he asserted against Mary in the prior state court action. His present claim against Mary is barred by res judicata (claim preclusion).

Question 2:

Hilda v. Al

             While there is an alleged violation of a federal statute, it is unlikely the statute provides a private right of action. If it does not, there is no federal question and the court’s power to hear this case must rest in diversity jurisdiction. Al is a citizen of Alabama; Hilda is a New Yorker. Complete diversity is satisfied. If the amount in controversy exceeds $75K, the court may exercise diversity jurisdiction.

Al v. Hilda

             Complete diversity is met as discussed above. Since his claim is for only $10K, he does not meet the amount in controversy requirement. Since this counterclaim arising form the house painting, it is a compulsory counterclaim and will be afforded supplemental jurisdiction.

Al v. Patriot Paint

             Rule 14 permits the joinder of a non-party who may be liable (under contribution or indemnity)for all or part of the damages defendant is compelled to pay. Since the third-party claim is transactionally related, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Medical exam:

             The scope of discovery extends to all material, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Clearly the medical exam is relevant but state law does not require a party to undergo a medical exam. Here we have a state law claim in federal court. Under ERIE, the court will apply state substantive law and federal procedures. Since Rule 35 permits a court to order a party, whose health is in issue to be medically examined, the exam will be ordered.

Hilda v. Patriot Paint

             Hilda seeks to amend her complaint to assert a claim against Patriot Paint. After an answer is filed, leave of court (or consent of other parties) will be required before the amendment is permitted. Here, Patriot Paint is a corporation with dual citizenship (state of incorporation = Delaware and principal place of business = New York). Since Hilda is a New Yorker, there is no diversity of citizenship. Hilda will not be able to use supplemental jurisdiction against a party joined under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24). Patriot Paint was originally brought into the action under Rule 14. Hilda’s amended complaint would have them added under Rule 20. In either event, Hilda is not able to use supplemental jurisdiction. The court should deny Hilda motion to amend since granting the motion would destroy diversity jurisdiction.