July 2015 California Bar Exam Forum

[brotherdarkness]

What is this primary rights stuff? Someone please explain

CA uses the primary rights doctrine, whereas FRCP uses same transaction or occurrence. This is relevant in in res judicata.

Suppose you are in a car accident and you suffer (1) property damage to the car, and (2) personal injury to yourself.

Under FRCP, those arise from the same transaction or occurrence -- the car accident. Thus, you must bring both claims at the same time, or else the other will be barred by res judicata.

Under CA rules, these are different primary rights (property damage and personal injury). Thus, you may bring one, and then the other.

[smokeylarue]

In fed crim cases, the D must open the door before Victim can offer character evidence of Victim. Does this rule apply to California as well? (I know it definitely does for character evidence of defendant)

[Pleasye]

Idk if this is implied somewhere or actually a rule, but do you always need to swear in a witness if they're on the stand?

Ie) February 2004 Q 1, Crim Law
The D wanted to go on the stand to read a newspaper out loud to prove that he didn't have an accent, because the witness heard that the robber had an accent. D doesn't want to be sworn in or subject to cross. Is that permissible? I checked my outline for it but it doesn't explicitly say.

Kaplan's model answer basically said as rules (1) D can offer evidence in support of his innocence, and (2) D doesn't need to be sworn in if not offering testimonial evidence. I feel like I haven't heard of either as specific rules, persay.

Never heard of that but it is 100% logical.

It would be as if you were playing a voice sample or showing a sample of someone's handwriting. No need for testimony. That being said, devil's advocate.... I would want to ask him if he has practiced on his accent since the crime, etc.

Yup it's non-testimonial evidence of a physical characteristic of the D.

As to asking him more questions, I don't think you could because he isn't a witness (and thus is still protected by his 5th rights). I'm sure any prosecutor would argue for it though.

[sopranorleone]

Excellent idea re: the game!

Although I'm gonna break the rules and only post about civ pro, since that's what I'm reviewing now:

Fed: notice pleading. Must put D on notice of claims/issues. Twobly/Iqbal

CA: fact pleading. P must plead ALL facts constituting the elements of the claim(s) asserted

[redblueyellow]

It's also pretty fucked that pretty much everyone is predicting a CA CivPro question. Was it like that in Feb? What is there rational; guessing a hail mary?

Fucking cbx might as well test tribal law at this point

If you don't pass the bar, I'm going to burn some shit up.

But just to the point of blackening; I don't want to go to jail.

[smokeylarue]

I don't think anyone is predicting CA Civ Pro except that one random One-Timers website

[brotherdarkness]

It's also pretty fucked that pretty much everyone is predicting a CA CivPro question. Was it like that in Feb? What is there rational; guessing a hail mary?

Fucking cbx might as well test tribal law at this point

If you don't pass the bar, I'm going to burn some shit up.

But just to the point of blackening; I don't want to go to jail.

Was it charred, or was it scorched?!

[redblueyellow]

FRCP: Max 10 depositions; one per person for a max of 7 hours, unless you get court's consent
CA Bullshit: Unlimited depos in unlimited courts; Limited courts get 1 depo; can ask court for more permission

FRCP: 25 interrogatory limit
CA Bullshit: 35 limit; unlimited on form interrogatories (wtf is this?)

ABA MR: Duty of Confidentiality can be violated to avoid serious bodily injury/death and to avoid great financial harm
CA: no great financial harm exception

ABA MR: Must report violations (usually SEC related) up and out in a corp if the corp is your client
CA: Must report up, not out. Try to withdraw if possible.

[robinhoodOO]

It's also pretty fucked that pretty much everyone is predicting a CA CivPro question. Was it like that in Feb? What is there rational; guessing a hail mary?

Fucking cbx might as well test tribal law at this point

If you don't pass the bar, I'm going to burn some shit up.

But just to the point of blackening; I don't want to go to jail.

Was it charred, or was it scorched?!

[redblueyellow]

It's also pretty fucked that pretty much everyone is predicting a CA CivPro question. Was it like that in Feb? What is there rational; guessing a hail mary?

Fucking cbx might as well test tribal law at this point

If you don't pass the bar, I'm going to burn some shit up.

But just to the point of blackening; I don't want to go to jail.

Was it charred, or was it scorched?!

Goddamnit. Hold on. I'll check.

"Must be charring or something more. Discoloration, blackening, or other lesser damage is insufficient."

WTF is scorched? Is that like blackening but with damage?

[robinhoodOO]

I don't think anyone is predicting CA Civ Pro except that one random One-Timers website

One-Timers; Bar Guru; & Bar Exam 101.

Plus, the Bar Secrets guy said CivPro in general could show up with a chance of res J and collateral estoppel. This easily leaves open CA primary rights doctrine

[smokeylarue]

I don't think anyone is predicting CA Civ Pro except that one random One-Timers website

One-Timers; Bar Guru; & Bar Exam 101.

Plus, the Bar Secrets guy said CivPro in general could show up with a chance of res J and collateral estoppel. This easily leaves open CA primary rights doctrine

Gawdamnit.

[redblueyellow]

In fed crim cases, the D must open the door before Victim can offer character evidence of Victim. Does this rule apply to California as well? (I know it definitely does for character evidence of defendant)

FRCP: The D must first offer V's CE before the door is opened and P can introduce the same character trait against the D. Exception is if the D is relying on self-defense in a homicide case, in which case the P can first introduce CE of the V's peacefulness.

CA: Prop 8 allows for introduction of V's character if relevant, but I don't know if it's saying that P can FIRST introduce V's CE or if it's after D has opened the door.

That's kinda important. Does anyone know for sure?

[redblueyellow]

I don't think anyone is predicting CA Civ Pro except that one random One-Timers website

One-Timers; Bar Guru; & Bar Exam 101.

Plus, the Bar Secrets guy said CivPro in general could show up with a chance of res J and collateral estoppel. This easily leaves open CA primary rights doctrine

Are you memorizing deadlines for stuff in CA?

[robinhoodOO]

I don't think anyone is predicting CA Civ Pro except that one random One-Timers website

One-Timers; Bar Guru; & Bar Exam 101.

Plus, the Bar Secrets guy said CivPro in general could show up with a chance of res J and collateral estoppel. This easily leaves open CA primary rights doctrine

Are you memorizing deadlines for stuff in CA?

No, and the only reason is because if they test CA Civ Pro, it will almost entirely be a Fed crossover (which is what everyone is predicting) and, if it's not, it'll be Anti-SLAPP w/1st Amendment or some shit and deadlines won't be much of an issue

[redblueyellow]

I don't think anyone is predicting CA Civ Pro except that one random One-Timers website

One-Timers; Bar Guru; & Bar Exam 101.

Plus, the Bar Secrets guy said CivPro in general could show up with a chance of res J and collateral estoppel. This easily leaves open CA primary rights doctrine

Are you memorizing deadlines for stuff in CA?

No, and the only reason is because if they test CA Civ Pro, it will almost entirely be a Fed crossover (which is what everyone is predicting) and, if it's not, it'll be Anti-SLAPP or some shit and deadlines won't be much of an issue

That's a good point.

Watch, the prompt is going to be ultra stupid and say something like "only address CA law for timeliness."

[robinhoodOO]

I don't think anyone is predicting CA Civ Pro except that one random One-Timers website

One-Timers; Bar Guru; & Bar Exam 101.

Plus, the Bar Secrets guy said CivPro in general could show up with a chance of res J and collateral estoppel. This easily leaves open CA primary rights doctrine

Are you memorizing deadlines for stuff in CA?

No, and the only reason is because if they test CA Civ Pro, it will almost entirely be a Fed crossover (which is what everyone is predicting) and, if it's not, it'll be Anti-SLAPP or some shit and deadlines won't be much of an issue

That's a good point.

Watch, the prompt is going to be ultra stupid and say something like "only address CA law for timeliness."

If you're in Sac and this is the prompt, I'd be the guy standing up and shouting that this exam is bullshit.

[redblueyellow]

I don't think anyone is predicting CA Civ Pro except that one random One-Timers website

One-Timers; Bar Guru; & Bar Exam 101.

Plus, the Bar Secrets guy said CivPro in general could show up with a chance of res J and collateral estoppel. This easily leaves open CA primary rights doctrine

Are you memorizing deadlines for stuff in CA?

No, and the only reason is because if they test CA Civ Pro, it will almost entirely be a Fed crossover (which is what everyone is predicting) and, if it's not, it'll be Anti-SLAPP or some shit and deadlines won't be much of an issue

That's a good point.

Watch, the prompt is going to be ultra stupid and say something like "only address CA law for timeliness."

If you're in Sac and this is the prompt, I'd be the guy standing up and shouting that this exam is bullshit.

You're taking it there? I thought you'd be in Oak considering your proximity. I hope it's not super hot up in SAC.

[robinhoodOO]

I don't think anyone is predicting CA Civ Pro except that one random One-Timers website

One-Timers; Bar Guru; & Bar Exam 101.

Plus, the Bar Secrets guy said CivPro in general could show up with a chance of res J and collateral estoppel. This easily leaves open CA primary rights doctrine

Are you memorizing deadlines for stuff in CA?

No, and the only reason is because if they test CA Civ Pro, it will almost entirely be a Fed crossover (which is what everyone is predicting) and, if it's not, it'll be Anti-SLAPP or some shit and deadlines won't be much of an issue

That's a good point.

Watch, the prompt is going to be ultra stupid and say something like "only address CA law for timeliness."

If you're in Sac and this is the prompt, I'd be the guy standing up and shouting that this exam is bullshit.

You're taking it there? I thought you'd be in Oak considering your proximity. I hope it's not super hot up in SAC.

It's supposed to be really hot...haha. Gonna suck, but I heard the convention center pumps air into the testing area.

I actually chose Sac because my wife is picking me up on her way to Bend, OR and Sac is a more convenient drive from our place in SoCo. Otherwise, ya, I would've chosen Oak

[FearnLoathing]

I'm going over Evidence at the moment. Here's what I have:

FRE Class Actions: individual class members cannot aggregate their claims if they are "separate and distinct"; whereas class actions in CA CAN aggregate their claims to determine amount in controversy

FRE lack of PJ: raise defense motion (12)b or answer; whereas in CA Motion to Quash can be made at same time as Answer, Demurrer or Motion to Strike.

FRE Relief: Complaint must contain demand for relief; CA no SMJ statement or in PI cases/wrongful death do not list damages (Right to Privacy issue)

[Loud Kiddington]

What's the consensus on number right needed to pass the MBE section? I'm at like 60-70% right now and seemingly dropping with each set...

[redblueyellow]

FRCP Question - Aggregating Claims by the P

When can and can't the P aggregate claims against a D/Ds to meet diversity AIC?


1a. If P against multiple Ds, then P may aggregate all claims if the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence? [does it matter if it's same T&O?]

OR

1b. If P against multiple Ds, then P may not aggregate all claims even if arising out of the same T&O?

2. If P against multiple Ds, but multiple Ds are joint and severally liable, then P may aggregate claims arising out of the same T&O?

2. If P against multiple Ds, and Ds have a common and undivided interest, then P may aggregate claims arising out of the same T&O (although, if common and undivided interest, then the same T&O should be implied)?

3. If multiple Ps, against any number of Ds, then may aggregate claims if at least one P meets AIC.

[robinhoodOO]

What's the consensus on number right needed to pass the MBE section? I'm at like 60-70% right now and seemingly dropping with each set...

128 Raw is usually where people recommend for the CBX based on how essays/PT's are weighted. That's about 67%

[redblueyellow]

Donna, a pedestrian, was injured when a mail truck owned by the U.S. and driven by John (a post office employee), hit her while she was crossing the street. Donna reasonably believed that both the U.S. and John were liable to her. Applicable statutes, and court decisions interpreting those statutes, indicate that a suit against the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act may only be brought in federal court. Therefore, Donna sued both the U.S. and John in federal district court for Nevada. Both Donna and John are citizens of Nevada. Donna’s claim is for $200,000 against the U.S., and for $50,000 against John. Donna’s claim against the U.S. is based on the Federal Tort Claims Act; her claim against John is based on a state-law negligence theory. John has moved to have the claim against him dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Should John’s motion be granted?

ANS:
Yes, because the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction permits Donna to assert her state-law claim against John, given the presence of a federal-question claim between Donna and the U.S. arising out of the same transaction as the Donna-John claim.


Why is the answer "Yes...?" Shouldn't it be "No..." since supplemental JX will allow for John to remain in the case? If the court dismisses the state law negligence theory, then doesn't John completely escape liability?

Is this a typo on their part?

[pupshaw]

FRCP Question - Aggregating Claims by the P

When can and can't the P aggregate claims against a D/Ds to meet diversity AIC?


1a. If P against multiple Ds, then P may aggregate all claims if the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence? [does it matter if it's same T&O?]

OR

1b. If P against multiple Ds, then P may not aggregate all claims even if arising out of the same T&O?

2. If P against multiple Ds, but multiple Ds are joint and severally liable, then P may aggregate claims arising out of the same T&O?

2. If P against multiple Ds, and Ds have a common and undivided interest, then P may aggregate claims arising out of the same T&O (although, if common and undivided interest, then the same T&O should be implied)?

3. If multiple Ps, against any number of Ds, then may aggregate claims if at least one P meets AIC.

P cannot aggregate claims against multiple Ds to meet AIC unless the Ds are jointly liable. So 1b and 2 are right. 3 is not really a question of aggregation, but supplemental jurisdiction. The rule is that if P meets amount in controversy against one D, court has supplemental jurisdiction over claims against other Ds arising out of same T&O as long as the Ds don't destroy complete diversity.