Final Examination
Part I: Multiple Choice Questions (40%) (480 Points)
1. William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, has been held in contempt of court by Judge Susan Webber Wright, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In her opinion, she found that he had lied during his deposition in the Paula Jones case, taken in her presence in Washington, D.C. She held that he had disobeyed her order to participate in the deposition and to answer truthfully therein. She imposed on him a monetary sanction in the amount of the cost of her travel to Washington, and an award in the amount of the attorneys fees for Mrs. Jones' lawyers preparation for and participation in the deposition. Assuming that the settlement of the underlying action did not deprive the court of authority to impose sanctions under the rules, what is the most appropriate basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for these sanctions?
2. In 1996, Ms. Irina Rudzewicz, a citizen of Poland, is admitted for permanent residence in the United States. She begins to teach economics at Florida International University and resides in Coral Gables, Florida. She works out at the Olympic Gym in Coral Gables. In May of 1998, she discovers that the Gym management, which was trying to catch a thief, had videotaped all persons changing clothes in the women's locker room. A police investigation showed that the gym's security guards were stealing things from the lockers, and were selling copies of the security videotapes over the internet. Ms. Rudzewicz's nephew, who lives in Krakow, Poland, downloaded a copy of a video depicting her. After giving her son a severe tongue-lashing for looking at this particular web site, his mother notified Ms. Rudzewicz about the video. She files an invasion of privacy suit, based only on the laws of Florida, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Olympic Gyms, Inc., a California Corporation with its principal place of business in West Palm Beach, Florida. She claims in excess of $600,000.00 in damages. The company has moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Should the court dismiss the case on that basis?
3. During this past Spring Break, Jeff Johnson, a graduating High School Senior, who was then a citizen of Alabama, was stopped by officers of the United States Border Patrol when he returned to Laredo, Texas, from a night out in Laredo, Mexico. The officers arrested Mr. Johnson for public drunkenness, and left him handcuffed the back of their official vehicle, an armored van. Mr. Johnson died in the van after drowning in his own vomit. The officers involved are citizens of Texas and reside, respectively, in LaSalle and McMullen counties in Texas. They have no contacts with Alabama. Mr. Johnson's parents, Jeffrey and Mary Johnson, wish to file suit against the two officers under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Johnsons are citizens of Alabama and residents of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Assuming that claims may be filed against the officers under the Act, that these claims would be both reasonable and substantial, and that the two officers will not waive any defenses available to them, in which court may this case be filed?
4. A hurricane destroyed the boat owned by George Costanza, a resident of St. Petersburg, Florida. Lloyds of New York Insurance Company provides Costanza's boat-owner's policy. Because of the storm surge, Costanza's boat landed on the house owned by one Jerry Seinfeld, causing property damage in excess of $150.000.00. The day after the hurricane, as everyone was assessing the damages, Cosmo Cramer, an agent for Lloyds was took a statement from Mr. Seinfeld, who said he was going to sue Mr. Costanza to recover his damages. Mr. Cramer wrote down what Mr. Seinfeld said and Mr. Seinfeld, after reading it, signed the document. After that, Mr. Cramer, in reasonable anticipation of Mr. Seinfeld's suit, also took similar statements from two neighbors, Albert Martin, and June Cleaver. Both Mr. Martin and Ms. Cleaver described how they saw the storm surge from their homes overlooking the shore, and how the boat was carried there by the water and wind and smashed into Seinfeld's home. They signed Mr. Cramer's transcription of what they said. Mr. Seinfeld files a suit in Federal Court against Mr. Costanza. During discovery, Mr. Seinfeld requests copies of the statements given by his neighbors, through a Request for Production of Documents. Mr. Seinfeld admits that he can get substantially the same thing by deposing Mr. Martin and Ms. Cleaver, who are willing to talk to him, but he still wants the statements. The insurance company is providing Mr. Costanza with his defense, and has turned over to his defense team the statements taken by Mr. Cramer. Can Mr. Costanza successfully refuse to produce the requested documents?
5. Ms. Ellen Morgan has filed a suit against Dr. John D. Bombay and his employer Humana Hospital, Inc., because he left his Rolex watch inside Ms. Morgan's thoracic cavity during an appendix operation. Ms. Morgan is a citizen of California, Dr. Bombay is a citizen of Oregon and Humana is incorporated in Washington State and has its Principal Place of Business in West Palm Beach, Florida. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Washington because the relevant facts occurred at Doctor's Hospital in Walla Walla, which is owned and operated by Humana. The claim exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest, and only diversity jurisdiction is claimed over this malpractice tort suit. The plaintiff wants to establish that the doctor had been flown in from his home hospital in Oregon to cover for some striking interns and had been working for 72 hrs., with only 4 hours of sleep. She wants a certification indicating that Dr. Bombay is or is not authorized to practice medicine in Washington State. This information is only available from the Washington State Board of Physicians, an independent private association in the State of Washington. What is correct way to compel the Board to provide her with access to these records under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
6. Bill Christian has sued Fred Smith in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Fourteen days after being served with process, Mr. Smith filed a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of process. The court denied this motion. Seven days after the notice of the court's order, Mr. Smith filed his answer. Fifteen days after filing the answer, Mr. Smith files an Amended answer raising, for the first time, the defense of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which was available when the motion mentioned above was filed. Should the Court consider the jurisdictional objection?
7. Buffy Summers, a citizen of California who resides in the city of Sunnyvale, a small city just South of San Francisco, in Santa Clara County, California, has been sued by Pierre Lestat, a citizen of France, who resides in the city of Paris, in that country. Me. Lestat was spending his vacation in California and was staying in San Francisco. He took a night-trip to Sunnyvale, when, while he was minding his own business, Ms. Summers attempted to stab him through the heart with a wooden stake. She missed, but Me. Lestat feared for his life and files suit under California law, which allows very substantial damage awards based on fear resulting from intentional conduct, even without actual physical harm. He claims jurisdiction based only on section 1332 of Title 28, and claims damages in excess of $300,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest. The suit is filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Ms. Summers moves for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of venue. Should the court dismiss?
8. José Cruz, Juan Cepeda, Roberto Clemente and Iván Rodríguez, all citizens of New York, file suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, against Phil Niekro, a citizen of Georgia who resides in Atlanta. They allege that jurisdiction over their claims is based exclusively on diversity. The complaint alleges that Mr. Niekro negligently caused a car accident in which he ran over expensive Harley Davidson motorcycles belonging to each of the Plaintiffs. The accident caused only property damage, because the plaintiffs were sitting inside the Baseball Fantasy Bar and Grill on Peachtree Street in Atlanta, when Mr. Niekro plowed over their bikes. The complaint claims damages, exclusive of costs and interest, as follows: Mr. Cruz claims $50,000.00, Mr. Cepeda claims $37,500.00, Mr. Clemente claims $65,000.00 and Mr. Rodríguez claims $42,500.00. Mr. Niekro files a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. What should the court do?
Essay QUESTION 1 (30%) (360 Points)
On May 1, 1998, Mr. John Smith entered the Nirvana Hospital in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Nirvana Hospital is operated by the Nirvana Life Sciences Corporation (hereinafter "Nirvana"). Mr. Smith was subjected to an operation on May 2, 1998. The original purpose of the operation was to remove his left leg, which, because of complications from diabetes had become gangrenous and had to be amputated. The operation was performed by Dr. Mary Cross. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith had his right leg --which until that date had been perfectly healthy-- amputated on that day. He, as the sole plaintiff, filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Cross in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. He claimed damages for assault, for pain and suffering, for continuing physical problems, for continuing medical expenses, for loss of income, and other damages claims that add up to over $2,500,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest. Dr. Cross answered the complaint by defending that she had been called to the hospital from her usual practice in Chicago, because the Nirvana surgeon who was scheduled to operate on Mr. Smith, had to handle an emergency operation. She further alleged that the patient's chart indicated that it was his right leg which was to be amputated, not the left. She attributed this error to Nirvana's employees, since they were the only ones with access to the patient's records. Therefore, she filed a third-party complaint against Nirvana, alleging that they had to compensate her for any damages that might be awarded to Smith. She further alleged that she had not been paid her $85,000.00 fee for this operation, and asked that the court award judgment therefor plus interest and costs. Nirvana was not amused. It made claims against everyone already in the case. First it sued the doctor; then it initiated claims against Mr. Smith, alleging that he was the proximate cause of his damages, because he changed the chart, in order to be able to sue and to recover a substantial judgment. Nirvana alleges that Mr. Smith is suicidal, because of his long and debilitating illness, and is looking for way to leave some money to his ex-wife and their three children. Mr. Smith is outraged and responds by filing claims against Nirvana, alleging that its employees contributed to his damages by making an error on his chart.
Assume that Wisconsin law applies to all claims, that Wisconsin is a joint and several tort liability state, and the parties have pleaded accordingly. The only basis of original jurisdiction that has been pleaded is Diversity of Citizenship. Nirvana is incorporated under the laws of California and has its Principal Place of Business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. For Diversity purposes, Mr. John Smith is a citizen of Wisconsin. Dr. Mary Cross is a citizen of Illinois.
As to the facts described above, answer the following questions only:
1. Identify and explain the Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure that provide the basis for the claims made by Mary Cross against Nirvana.
2. Identify and explain the Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure that provide the basis for the claims made by Nirvana against John Smith.
3. Identify and explain the Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure that provide the basis for the claims made by the John Smith against Nirvana.
4. Identify and explain the source(s) of subject-matter jurisdiction for claims by Mary Cross against Nirvana.
5. Identify and explain the source(s) of subject-matter jurisdiction for claims by Nirvana against John Smith.
6. Identify and explain the source(s) of subject-matter jurisdiction for claims by John Smith against Nirvana.
In Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, explains:
Federal diversity jurisdiction provides an alternative forum for the adjudication of state-created rights, but it does not carry with it generation of rules of substantive law. As Erie read the Rules of Decision Act: "Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State." Under the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. Classification of a law as "substantive" or "procedural" for Erie purposes is sometimes a challenging endeavor. ***
In his dissent, Justice Scalia, writes:
The Court commits the classic Erie mistake of regarding whatever changes the outcome as substantive. That is not the only factor to be considered. See Byrd *** Outcome-determination "was never intended to serve as a talisman," Hanna v. Plumer, and does not have the power to convert the most classic elements of the process of assuring that the law is observed into the substantive law itself.
For purposes of class discussion, I gave you the following structure of analysis, which I have slightly modified for examination purposes:
I. Is there a Federal rule or practice on point?
(1) Is the rule Constitutionally based, e.g., 7th amendment, Byrd, or supremacy.
(2) Is there a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Hanna, Ragan, Burlington, Armco.
(3) Gasperini's majority shows that there may be a federal judicial practice that comes neither from a constitutional rule nor from a rule of civil procedure.
II. Is there a conflict between applicable state law and the federal rule or practice? Or if there is no federal rule or practice, can we ignore state law?
(1) Balancing Byrd factors or the "twin aims" of Erie described in Hanna (i) forum shopping and (ii) fairness.
(2) The conflict with federal a federal rule or practice cannot be avoided by narrow construction and superimposition of the state law. Ragan, Armco.
III. If there is a conflict between an applicable federal rule or practice and state law,
(1) Is it a valid exercise of Federal rule-making power? Sibbach, Hanna
(2) Is it rationally classifiable as "procedure"? Burlington, Hanna, c.f., Note 4, pp. 963-4.
Considering the U.S. Constitution, Erie and its progeny, the Rules Enabling Act (28 USC ß 2072), the Rules of Decision Act (28 USC ß 1652), our class discussion, and your sound judgment, explain, in a short essay: (1) how each of the elements detailed in my structure contributes to distinguishing between "substance" and "procedure;" and (2) why the distinction is important or even necessary.
X