2015 February California Bar Exam

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:06 pm

I don't think I'll ever understand Supplemental Jurisdiction.
I think it's the whole "in diversity cases, plaintiff can't use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome lack of diversity" thing.
But then how is it in fed court in the first place? In diversity cases…can't use supp juries to overcome lack of diversity…but there is diversity in the first place because thats how they got into fed court.

My brain. Is mush.
Anyone taking the test in Pasadena?

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:11 pm

Also, I keep seeing questions that ask to discuss preclusion and the test taker knows which one to discuss. I'm an idiot, apparently, because I would discuss both. How do I know when to discuss issue preclusion or when to discuss claim preclusion ??

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:34 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:I don't think I'll ever understand Supplemental Jurisdiction.
I think it's the whole "in diversity cases, plaintiff can't use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome lack of diversity" thing.
But then how is it in fed court in the first place? In diversity cases…can't use supp juries to overcome lack of diversity…but there is diversity in the first place because thats how they got into fed court.

My brain. Is mush.
Anyone taking the test in Pasadena?


Yea, that is kinda weird when I read that as well and don't know entirely how to approach that on an MBE question (although I plan on just sticking it in there in the essay as a "oh by the way, a P can't use Supplemental JX to overcome lack of diversity in a diversity case... lul wut").

I *think* and I have absolutely no idea if I am correct, but perhaps it has to deal with solely the amount in controversy? Technically, diversity JX requires complete diversity AND amount in controversy right? Maybe "lack diversity" is merely shortform for both elements vs just the actual lack of complete diversity (of citizenship)?

That might not be right, because I also remember something along the lines of a P being able to use supplemental JX in order to meet the amount in controversy for something or another (maybe fed question case? but that wouldn't work since you don't need an amount in controversy for fed question).

Sorry, probably made this worse.

As for preclusion, I think the easiest way to do it is to see who's doing the suing: if it's any new party involved in the matter, you can automatically remove claim preclusion from the analysis, right? The elements of claim preclusion are: 1) same parties and those that are in privity to them, 2) same claim (transaction or occurrence), 3) final judgment on the merits 4) opportunity to litigate.

Now if it's a different party, but perhaps same cause of action, then it gets tricky, but I still don't think claim preclusion could apply even in that case if a party is different (since that now goes to offensive/defensive use of mutuality) so maybe by default, it is now issue preclusion? Issue preclusion elements are 1) actual litigation, 2) same issue (common question of legal fact or law?), 3) final judgment on the merits. Right?

Also, do you/anyone understand how PJ actually works? The notes say that venue ("venue JX"), domicile, consent, Notice (?), and service of process are valid methods of establishing PJ. But all the sample answers pretty much only hit on minimum contacts. So:

1. What is the long arm statute--is it also a "traditional method of establishing PJX?"
2. My outline says that a long arm statute can establish PJX... OK, but how? If it can reach as wide as the fed constitution, then why do people end up doing the minimum contacts analysis immediately afterwards? In other words, what's the relationship between a long arm statute and minimum contacts?
3. I *think* I get how Removal JX is PJX-- it basically just means that the receiving has PJ because the P could've filed the case there initially? But what's the point of making it a "source of PJX?" Why include this as a category at all?
4. When do in rem, quasi in rem, and in personam JX apply? I get that the first two deal with land, but if I establish JX with in rem or quasi in rem, do I completely disregard the other methods (minimum contacts, basically?)
5. For in personam JX, when does that apply? Only if I can serve (validly) the D in the forum state? That's literally it? No need for minimum contacts at that point?
6. When do I NOT need to do minimum contacts?

For Corporations:

1. Do I need to know anything about an S or C corp? I just remembered those two while looking up an LLC. I remember my professor mentioning it, but don't see it in my Kaplan stuff.
2. I also don't see anything about hostile takeover/defenses to hostile takeover. I remember that being mentioned in class, but definitely don't see anything in my bar prep materials. Is that not tested?

morescotchplease
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:46 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby morescotchplease » Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:11 pm

Am I the only one getting waves of nausea every time I run across something I still don't have a good grasp on?

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:36 pm

morescotchplease wrote:Am I the only one getting waves of nausea every time I run across something I still don't have a good grasp on?


What do you mean "waves?" You mean it leaves you every now and then??

cndounda1985
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:31 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby cndounda1985 » Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:48 pm

A State can exercise personal jurisdiction through it's long arm statute, as long as it rises up to the Constitutional ceiling established by International Shoe. I think the fact pattern usually says "blah blah state has a long arm statute" all you need to do is just discuss that CA or whatever state has a long arm statute. But even though it has a long arm statute, it must still be constitutional for them to exercise that. So that it doesn't violate the traditional notions of fairplay and substantial justice. Then you discuss the fairness factors. It's basically a three step analysis (1) traditional basis, no then (2) Long Arm Statue and then (3) Constitutional requirements of minimum contacts and fairness.

Also, the state will almost never have just regular traditional basis jurisdiction because then your analysis would just stop there. They want you to go through the entire analysis. You will usually see that they don't consent, my tutor says if they file like a motion for lack of PJ..that's your hint that they didn't consent so you continue with the entire analysis. i basically understand PJ that it has to be fair for the court to exercise PJ over.

As far as supplemental jurisdiction, remember it still has to be out of the same transaction or occurence for them to have PJ. It's supplemental because it's probably another claim..let's say you first sue on diversity but the case is a personal injury and you also have a breached of K claim. Both occurred during the same incident. The court now has supplemental jurisdiction over your new claim, because although it's a K claim, it arises out of the same incident.

I hope i didn't make it more confusing but it took me awhile to get it down. I hope this helps.






redblueyellow wrote:
CourtneyElizabeth wrote:I don't think I'll ever understand Supplemental Jurisdiction.
I think it's the whole "in diversity cases, plaintiff can't use supplemental jurisdiction to overcome lack of diversity" thing.
But then how is it in fed court in the first place? In diversity cases…can't use supp juries to overcome lack of diversity…but there is diversity in the first place because thats how they got into fed court.

My brain. Is mush.
Anyone taking the test in Pasadena?


Yea, that is kinda weird when I read that as well and don't know entirely how to approach that on an MBE question (although I plan on just sticking it in there in the essay as a "oh by the way, a P can't use Supplemental JX to overcome lack of diversity in a diversity case... lul wut").

I *think* and I have absolutely no idea if I am correct, but perhaps it has to deal with solely the amount in controversy? Technically, diversity JX requires complete diversity AND amount in controversy right? Maybe "lack diversity" is merely shortform for both elements vs just the actual lack of complete diversity (of citizenship)?

That might not be right, because I also remember something along the lines of a P being able to use supplemental JX in order to meet the amount in controversy for something or another (maybe fed question case? but that wouldn't work since you don't need an amount in controversy for fed question).

Sorry, probably made this worse.

As for preclusion, I think the easiest way to do it is to see who's doing the suing: if it's any new party involved in the matter, you can automatically remove claim preclusion from the analysis, right? The elements of claim preclusion are: 1) same parties and those that are in privity to them, 2) same claim (transaction or occurrence), 3) final judgment on the merits 4) opportunity to litigate.

Now if it's a different party, but perhaps same cause of action, then it gets tricky, but I still don't think claim preclusion could apply even in that case if a party is different (since that now goes to offensive/defensive use of mutuality) so maybe by default, it is now issue preclusion? Issue preclusion elements are 1) actual litigation, 2) same issue (common question of legal fact or law?), 3) final judgment on the merits. Right?

Also, do you/anyone understand how PJ actually works? The notes say that venue ("venue JX"), domicile, consent, Notice (?), and service of process are valid methods of establishing PJ. But all the sample answers pretty much only hit on minimum contacts. So:

1. What is the long arm statute--is it also a "traditional method of establishing PJX?"
2. My outline says that a long arm statute can establish PJX... OK, but how? If it can reach as wide as the fed constitution, then why do people end up doing the minimum contacts analysis immediately afterwards? In other words, what's the relationship between a long arm statute and minimum contacts?
3. I *think* I get how Removal JX is PJX-- it basically just means that the receiving has PJ because the P could've filed the case there initially? But what's the point of making it a "source of PJX?" Why include this as a category at all?
4. When do in rem, quasi in rem, and in personam JX apply? I get that the first two deal with land, but if I establish JX with in rem or quasi in rem, do I completely disregard the other methods (minimum contacts, basically?)
5. For in personam JX, when does that apply? Only if I can serve (validly) the D in the forum state? That's literally it? No need for minimum contacts at that point?
6. When do I NOT need to do minimum contacts?

For Corporations:

1. Do I need to know anything about an S or C corp? I just remembered those two while looking up an LLC. I remember my professor mentioning it, but don't see it in my Kaplan stuff.
2. I also don't see anything about hostile takeover/defenses to hostile takeover. I remember that being mentioned in class, but definitely don't see anything in my bar prep materials. Is that not tested?

morescotchplease
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:46 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby morescotchplease » Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:50 pm

redblueyellow wrote:
morescotchplease wrote:Am I the only one getting waves of nausea every time I run across something I still don't have a good grasp on?


What do you mean "waves?" You mean it leaves you every now and then??


haha

User avatar
Elms
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:06 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Elms » Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:06 pm

I've got a 45 minute commute each way to the exam every day, so I've been spending the day downloading music to make myself a "mix tape" for the ride. Anyone have any suggestions of what to add? I'm open to all genres!

User avatar
zabagabe
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:48 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby zabagabe » Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:30 pm

Elms wrote:I've got a 45 minute commute each way to the exam every day, so I've been spending the day downloading music to make myself a "mix tape" for the ride. Anyone have any suggestions of what to add? I'm open to all genres!


here's a few that I've been playing lately:
Maroon 5 - Sugar. Upbeat happy song. It's been in heavy rotation lately to keep me perky.
Queen - We Will Rock You (b/c irrational confidence is critical at this juncture)
Destiny's Child - Survivor (to channel in the last 30 minutes of the three-hour essay segment, when you kind of want to quit but know you just need to keep going and not give up)

:lol:

User avatar
Elms
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:06 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Elms » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:03 pm

zabagabe wrote:
Elms wrote:I've got a 45 minute commute each way to the exam every day, so I've been spending the day downloading music to make myself a "mix tape" for the ride. Anyone have any suggestions of what to add? I'm open to all genres!


here's a few that I've been playing lately:
Maroon 5 - Sugar. Upbeat happy song. It's been in heavy rotation lately to keep me perky.
Queen - We Will Rock You (b/c irrational confidence is critical at this juncture)
Destiny's Child - Survivor (to channel in the last 30 minutes of the three-hour essay segment, when you kind of want to quit but know you just need to keep going and not give up)

:lol:


Awesome suggestions, thanks!!! Survivor is very appropriate!

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:24 pm

morescotchplease wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
morescotchplease wrote:Am I the only one getting waves of nausea every time I run across something I still don't have a good grasp on?


What do you mean "waves?" You mean it leaves you every now and then??


haha



Haha yeah im pretty much sick 24/7 at this point. I'm going to do some more reviewing tonight then dinner and a cocktail or two at the restaurant across the street.

arizzle
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:40 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby arizzle » Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:38 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:Anyone taking the test in Pasadena?



Yup. Just got to the hotel. I hope it's not raining tomorrow like it is today. I was planning on walking.

morescotchplease
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:46 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby morescotchplease » Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:15 pm

good luck everyone.

User avatar
zabagabe
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:48 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby zabagabe » Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:39 pm

Yes, good luck everyone! Based on effort and camaraderie alone, this whole thread deserves to pass! :)

Also: just went to the Subway by the Oakland Convention Center to get my lunch for tomorrow. The entire counter was wrapped in bullet proof plastic and I got offered weed by two different guys right outside. Felt like I was living the beginning of a Criminal Procedure essay prompt! ;)

User avatar
Elms
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:06 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Elms » Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:46 pm

zabagabe wrote:Yes, good luck everyone! Based on effort and camaraderie alone, this whole thread deserves to pass! :)

Also: just went to the Subway by the Oakland Convention Center to get my lunch for tomorrow. The entire counter was wrapped in bullet proof plastic and I got offered weed by two different guys right outside. Felt like I was living the beginning of a Criminal Procedure essay prompt! ;)


Haha this is so perfect!

User avatar
Elms
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:06 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Elms » Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:48 pm

Signing off until tomorrow night, just wanted to wish good luck to everyone. Stay calm, watch your time, and remember that you probably know more than you think you do! Go kick that exam's ass!

User avatar
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:16 pm

last minute question: is there an easy way to distinguish a covenant from an equitable servitude? i understand the difference between the two in terms of the requirements for them to run with the land, but how do you know whether a promise is one or the other?

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:53 pm

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:last minute question: is there an easy way to distinguish a covenant from an equitable servitude? i understand the difference between the two in terms of the requirements for them to run with the land, but how do you know whether a promise is one or the other?


Easiest way to look at the remedy sought:

Injunction = ES
Money damages = covenant

Also, no privity required for ES, I believe.

Furball
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:51 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Furball » Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:39 pm

Elms wrote:I've got a 45 minute commute each way to the exam every day, so I've been spending the day downloading music to make myself a "mix tape" for the ride. Anyone have any suggestions of what to add? I'm open to all genres!



Calvin Harris ft. Neyo - "Let's Go"

I probably listened to this song on repeat for months during my bar prep for the last July exam. And during my commute to the testing center too. I kid you not, it motivated me like hell. Think it worked b/c I passed.

Good Luck!

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby a male human » Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:36 pm

Looking forward to the frantic discussion of the first three essay prompts around lunchtime tomorrow :)

Have some "positive force" (the track I distinctly remember playing in my car as I arrived at my hotel in Sacramento exactly 1 year ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp3qiOKuEBM

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:47 pm

a male human wrote:Looking forward to the frantic discussion of the first three essay prompts around lunchtime tomorrow :)

Have some "positive force" (the track I distinctly remember playing in my car as I arrived at my hotel in Sacramento exactly 1 year ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp3qiOKuEBM


I thought we weren't allowed to talk about the test just yet (since there are people with accomodations still taking it)?!

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby a male human » Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:56 pm

redblueyellow wrote:
a male human wrote:Looking forward to the frantic discussion of the first three essay prompts around lunchtime tomorrow :)

Have some "positive force" (the track I distinctly remember playing in my car as I arrived at my hotel in Sacramento exactly 1 year ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp3qiOKuEBM


I thought we weren't allowed to talk about the test just yet (since there are people with accomodations still taking it)?!

I guarantee that by 1 PM tomorrow, people here won't be able to resist moaning about the subjects that came up.

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:32 am

a male human wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
a male human wrote:Looking forward to the frantic discussion of the first three essay prompts around lunchtime tomorrow :)

Have some "positive force" (the track I distinctly remember playing in my car as I arrived at my hotel in Sacramento exactly 1 year ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp3qiOKuEBM


I thought we weren't allowed to talk about the test just yet (since there are people with accomodations still taking it)?!

I guarantee that by 1 PM tomorrow, people here won't be able to resist moaning about the subjects that came up.


Fuck it. I don't even remember how long our lunch break is or what time we even Start.

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:43 am

I tried to go to sleep, but couldn't. I was trying to recall rule statements in my head since I was doing reasonable well with some subjects, but the moment I got to--you guessed it--Evidence, all hell broke loose.

I might just walk out if there's an evidence question on the test... and definitely walking out if it's a CA evid or CA civ pro question.

So if you see me packing up and leaving in Oakland, well, wave or something.

In other news, I have been slaying property as long as it's not RAP.

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:59 am

Good luck.
I'm just here, trying not to vomit.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests