1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[Hannibal]

Fucking hidden erie questions.

[Eugenie Danglars]

Fucking hidden erie questions.

Share?

[Hannibal]

Fucking hidden erie questions.

Share?

It was a "you're the attorney, make every relevant argument and counterargument about why these claims should be dismissed" or something like that. Somehow I didn't make the connection between a state disallowing a class action and the Shady Grove case that says the court should ignore that kind of thing because it conflicts with Rule 23.

Seriously can't believe I missed that. Heart wasn't really in the PT I'm guessing/hoping.

[sknight323]

Fucking hidden erie questions.

Share?

It was a "you're the attorney, make every relevant argument and counterargument about why these claims should be dismissed" or something like that. Somehow I didn't make the connection between a state disallowing a class action and the Shady Grove case that says the court should ignore that kind of thing because it conflicts with Rule 23.

Seriously can't believe I missed that. Heart wasn't really in the PT I'm guessing/hoping.

Brutal. I'm hoping I didn't miss anything like that on my exam. I thought I caught a hidden pleading issue..hopefully nothing like that, though.

On my prof's exam last year, one of the questions just said "should A settle with B?" because we went over some basic litigation and settlement theory. He said only 10 people caught that there was not any PJ over the person offering the settlement.

[piccolittle]

Keep trying to write out practice questions but they take me forever because I pretty much get bored and distracted (plus taking time to think/flip through outline). Exam is on Friday. Should I be concerned that I don't know anything yet and these questions take forever? I feel like I'm not going to have a good sense of pace and timing until (hopefully) the day before the test. Grrr.

Also, how do you guys IRAC? I tend to write out the full definitions etc in one paragraph (like "a fraudulent misrepresentation is one which..." blah blah) and then apply it in a new paragraph (as in, "here, mattei will argue that the misrepresentation is fraudulent because the president knew at the time that she did not have a reasonable basis to know or assert its truth"). Does that make sense or do you guys work sentence by sentence (as in definition. rule. application. definition. rule. application)?

[ph14]

Feeling pretty good about civ pro. I think it probably has come at expense of my other classes though. I need to really get going on them.

[Eugenie Danglars]

Feeling pretty good about civ pro. I think it probably has come at expense of my other classes though. I need to really get going on them.

This is me, exactly.

[nonprofit-prophet]

Keep trying to write out practice questions but they take me forever because I pretty much get bored and distracted (plus taking time to think/flip through outline). Exam is on Friday. Should I be concerned that I don't know anything yet and these questions take forever? I feel like I'm not going to have a good sense of pace and timing until (hopefully) the day before the test. Grrr.

Also, how do you guys IRAC? I tend to write out the full definitions etc in one paragraph (like "a fraudulent misrepresentation is one which..." blah blah) and then apply it in a new paragraph (as in, "here, mattei will argue that the misrepresentation is fraudulent because the president knew at the time that she did not have a reasonable basis to know or assert its truth"). Does that make sense or do you guys work sentence by sentence (as in definition. rule. application. definition. rule. application)?

Based on the sample answers my profs have supplied, I say go sentence by sentence. Exam writing is different from memo writing.

[thegrayman]

do some states still use contributory negligence? I have in my notes that Li v Yellow Cab overruled CN, but I also have that some states still use it?

[NYC Law]

Property oh property, you are slowly destroying my soul.

[protein]

Okay I have a protocol question.

When the professor asks for best argument and then problems with the argument, and one of the problems is comparative negligence,
do you then do P's rebuttal to the comparative neg claim? I assume you have to flesh out the comparative negligence claim, and I was wondering if doing rebuttals would be going too far. (this is for a word limited question)

Thanks!

[protein]

do some states still use contributory negligence? I have in my notes that Li v Yellow Cab overruled CN, but I also have that some states still use it?

some states still do, NC for one + some Southeastern US states

[rocon7383]

civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?

[thegrayman]

civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?

isn't it because diversity is based on domicile, and the minimum contacts analysis is used only to figure out where you can sue?

[rocon7383]

civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?

isn't it because diversity is based on domicile, and the minimum contacts analysis is used only to figure out where you can sue?

Ok, so, for the sake of argument- P, a CA citizen, sues in diversity, the D for a breach of contract arising out of the D's functionality and offices in Fla. He brings this case in Fla, and it would be acceptable due to minimum contacts? I just don't understand how this minimum contact test goes out of the window when P is domiciled in Fla. So when he's a Fla resident, the corp's functionality in the district is irrelevant and diversity is ok because only DE and MA matter.

[$peppercorn]

civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?

I mean diversity and Subject Matter Jurisdiction do exist, assuming the amount in controversy is over 75,000. I believe you are confusing personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. shouldnt be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction technically. It may be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because the contacts with florida, while they do have some, are not related to the claim. So unless the contacts were systematic and continuous to invoke general personal jurisdiction, there probably is not personal jurisdiction. Sounds like the contacts with miami would work if courts used the "muscle test" instead of the nerve test because the PPb is generally a place where general jdx is okay, but they use the Nerve test. And you even said the PPb is in MA.

[thegrayman]

civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?

isn't it because diversity is based on domicile, and the minimum contacts analysis is used only to figure out where you can sue?

Ok, so, for the sake of argument- P, a CA citizen, sues in diversity, the D for a breach of contract arising out of the D's functionality and offices in Fla. He brings this case in Fla, and it would be acceptable due to minimum contacts? I just don't understand how this minimum contact test goes out of the window when P is domiciled in Fla. So when he's a Fla resident, the corp's functionality in the district is irrelevant and diversity is ok because only DE and MA matter.

I understand it like this (someone correct me if I'm wrong please)

subject matter jurisdiction is going to be based on diversity since it is a state cause of action (breach of contract). for diversity, they base it on domicile, so diversity exists.
personal jurisdiction is based on where the defendant can be brought into court without offending "fair play and substantial justice" or the myriad other tests out there. for PJ, you would look at the contacts with the forum state to see if it would be fair to make the D go there to litigate the suit.

[rocon7383]

civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?

I mean diversity and Subject Matter Jurisdiction do exist, assuming the amount in controversy is over 75,000. I believe you are confusing personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. shouldnt be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction technically. It may be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because the contacts with florida, while they do have some, are not related to the claim. So unless the contacts were systematic and continuous to invoke general personal jurisdiction, there probably is not personal jurisdiction. Sounds like the contacts with miami would work if courts used the "muscle test" instead of the nerve test because the PPb is generally a place where general jdx is okay, but they use the Nerve test. And you even said the PPb is in MA.

Ok, I guess i'm just getting effed up by confusing subject matter and personal. the question is sneaky, the majority of the company's employees and customers, PLUS most of its trucking routes are entirely within Fla. And the P, a Fla native, is suing in Fla based on diversity. I guess, because to me this stinks as systematic and continuous I am having a difficult time reconciling diversity.

[thegrayman]

[/quote]

Ok, I guess i'm just getting effed up by confusing subject matter and personal. the question is sneaky, the majority of the company's employees and customers, PLUS most of its trucking routes are entirely within Fla. And the P, a Fla native, is suing in Fla based on diversity. I guess, because to me this stinks as systematic and continuous I am having a difficult time reconciling diversity.[/quote]

for sure, it sounds like the Q was made to highlight that little nuance. just keep in mind that SMJ and PJ are established using different tests

[rocon7383]

civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?

isn't it because diversity is based on domicile, and the minimum contacts analysis is used only to figure out where you can sue?

Ok, so, for the sake of argument- P, a CA citizen, sues in diversity, the D for a breach of contract arising out of the D's functionality and offices in Fla. He brings this case in Fla, and it would be acceptable due to minimum contacts? I just don't understand how this minimum contact test goes out of the window when P is domiciled in Fla. So when he's a Fla resident, the corp's functionality in the district is irrelevant and diversity is ok because only DE and MA matter.

I understand it like this (someone correct me if I'm wrong please)

subject matter jurisdiction is going to be based on diversity since it is a state cause of action (breach of contract). for diversity, they base it on domicile, so diversity exists.
personal jurisdiction is based on where the defendant can be brought into court without offending "fair play and substantial justice" or the myriad other tests out there. for PJ, you would look at the contacts with the forum state to see if it would be fair to make the D go there to litigate the suit.

I think i'm seeing my mistake. so NEVER look beyond PPB and INC for diversity? Systematic and Continuous is never ok for diversity? Is that the consensus?

[$peppercorn]

For a corporation that is right. PPB and state of Inc. are the only domiciles. Individual has one domicile. Partnerships have domicile wherever any partner is domiciled. Systematic and continuous should only be mentioned when you are talking about personal jurisdiction

[thegrayman]

I think i'm seeing my mistake. so NEVER look beyond PPB and INC for diversity? Systematic and Continuous is never ok for diversity? Is that the consensus?

for diversity
test is based on domicile, so for the corporation you base on incorporation and PPB (there are different tests to establish PPB). systematic and continuous contacts would be used to establish PJ.

perhaps the question wanted you to argue that although the corporation had employees and what not in FL, using some PPB test you establish that it is actually not domiciled in FL, even though it has sufficient contacts to establish PJ?

that is my guess

[rocon7383]

thanks. Been a verrrrrry long day, brain is close to fully mush. Bed soon.

[$peppercorn]

I think i'm seeing my mistake. so NEVER look beyond PPB and INC for diversity? Systematic and Continuous is never ok for diversity? Is that the consensus?

for diversity
test is based on domicile, so for the corporation you base on incorporation and PPB (there are different tests to establish PPB). systematic and continuous contacts would be used to establish PJ.

perhaps the question wanted you to argue that although the corporation had employees and what not in FL, using some PPB test you establish that it is actually not domiciled in FL, even though it has sufficient contacts to establish PJ?

that is my guess

The Supreme Court in Hertz said that the Principle place of business is the Nerve Center. No more two tests for "muscle" and "Nerve". So its basically only the place where the top executives and administration and and stuff takes place

[thegrayman]

The Supreme Court in Hertz said that the Principle place of business is the Nerve Center. No more two tests for "muscle" and "Nerve". So its basically only the place where the top executives and administration and and stuff takes place

hmm we never covered Hertz, didn't know that though

I guess that makes civpro .0001% less confusing