Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

User avatar
annapach
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:24 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby annapach » Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:56 pm

Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7961
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Pleasye » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:06 pm

annapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?

1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 D
Multiple Ps can aggregate claims against 1 D if 1 of the Ps meets the AIC and the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

User avatar
paulshortys10
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby paulshortys10 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:10 pm

gr8scOtt! wrote:
zor wrote:
gr8scOtt! wrote:I just want to see if I've got this right, if someone can confirm?

Federal Civ Pro Impleader, when original claim based on DJ
Plaintiff (State A) sues Defendant/3rd Party Plaintiff (State B). 3rd Party Plaintiff impleads 3rd Party Defendant (State ???)

Can the 3rd Party Defendant be from whatever state, including State B? And so long as DJ is met between Plaintiff and 3rd Party Defendant, Plaintiff can a claim against 3rd Party Defendant.


I'm pretty sure that's right. 3rd P Def can be from whatever state and the claims against it by the original defendant/third-party plaintiff will have supplemental jurisdiction.

There is no supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiff against 3rd party defendant. This means there has to be independent diversity jurisdiction, as if it were its own new lawsuit. So yes, as long as DJ is met between Plaintiff and 3rd P Def, Plaintiff can file a claim.

Thanks!


It is helpful if you think of WHY there is no supplemental jurisdiction over claims by P against third party D. If P and third party D are both from state A, then we can assume that P avoided originally joining third party D because there would have been NO diversity. So the court forces P to have independent diversity over any claims he wants to bring against third party D.

User avatar
paulshortys10
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby paulshortys10 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:11 pm

Pleasye wrote:
annapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?

1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 D
Multiple Ps can aggregate claims against 1 D if 1 of the Ps meets the AIC and the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.


what about 1 P against 2+ D's?

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7961
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Pleasye » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:15 pm

paulshortys10 wrote:
Pleasye wrote:
annapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?

1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 D
Multiple Ps can aggregate claims against 1 D if 1 of the Ps meets the AIC and the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.


what about 1 P against 2+ D's?

Nope, P must meet AIC for each D

Confused7
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Confused7 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:16 pm

paulshortys10 wrote:
Pleasye wrote:
annapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?

1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 D
Multiple Ps can aggregate claims against 1 D if 1 of the Ps meets the AIC and the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.


what about 1 P against 2+ D's?


No, each claim against an individual D must be > $75K.

EDIT: Scooped

Confused7
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Confused7 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:17 pm

Crap, my browser is not letting me do 2X speed for today's lectures. I can't fast forward at all. Not sure why this is happening since it's worked all this time. UGHHHH :x

lilypad144
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:07 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby lilypad144 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:25 pm

Confused7 wrote:Crap, my browser is not letting me do 2X speed for today's lectures. I can't fast forward at all. Not sure why this is happening since it's worked all this time. UGHHHH :x


Try a different browser. That happened to me often on IE so I'd switch to firefox

chipperjones
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:16 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby chipperjones » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:42 pm

Can anyone verify that the answers Themis considers "correct" for the following questions from the MBE Simulated 200 Question test, are actually incorrect?

[+] Spoiler
Question 71: Defendant purposefully availed himself of laws in State B, which is also where he worked 48 weeks/year, 5 days/week. State C, however, was his vacation home for one month/year. Because he can only have one domicile, which is State A, State C is actually LEAST likely to have personal jurisdiction, because his contacts with that state are minimal as compared to State B, to which he traveled every day and where he enjoyed tax free shopping, employment law protections, and a salary. (The accident occurred in State D.)


[+] Spoiler
Question 144: the life tenant's incapacity pre-dated the acquaintance's adverse possession, so the acquaintance would actually have no interest.

User avatar
hephaestus
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:21 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby hephaestus » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:50 pm

chipperjones wrote:Can anyone verify that the answers Themis considers "correct" for the following questions from the MBE Simulated 200 Question test, are actually incorrect?

So I actually think both of these are right as Themis thinks.

[+] Spoiler
Question 71: Defendant purposefully availed himself of laws in State B, which is also where he worked 48 weeks/year, 5 days/week. State C, however, was his vacation home for one month/year. Because he can only have one domicile, which is State A, State C is actually LEAST likely to have personal jurisdiction, because his contacts with that state are minimal as compared to State B, to which he traveled every day and where he enjoyed tax free shopping, employment law protections, and a salary. (The accident occurred in State D.)

[+] Spoiler
But the prompt says that he is physically in state C at the relevant time, so that would give rise to general in personam jurisdiction as long as you serve him while he's vacationing.



[+] Spoiler
Question 144: the life tenant's incapacity pre-dated the acquaintance's adverse possession, so the acquaintance would actually have no interest.

[+] Spoiler
Here, the woman does not have a stroke until after she tells the AP to leave and he refuses. So the possession period actually starts to run the second she tells him to leave and he does not, which the facts make it seem like are a short time before she has a stroke. At the time he stays she has yet to become incapable.

Pickled
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 2:03 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Pickled » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:12 pm

Can somebody please explain this to me?

A telephone company was removing wooden utility poles on a residential street and replacing them with new steel poles. The old poles were approximately 25 feet tall, and weighed several tons each. One morning, telephone company employees were removing an old pole. As a 10-year-old boy walked past the construction site, the old utility pole fell and crushed him to death. When the news was conveyed to the boy’s mother, who was at work several miles away, she immediately fainted. For the next 48 hours, the mother was unable to function due to shock over the event. In the following months, the mother had difficulty sleeping due to nightmares as a result of the incident. The mother sued the telephone company for negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from her son’s death. She produced evidence at trial conclusively establishing that the telephone company was negligent in allowing the old utility pole to fall. The applicable jurisdiction has abandoned the zone of danger requirement for this type of action. Which party is likely to prevail?

Answer Choices:
The mother, because she was closely related to the boy.
The mother, because she suffered severe emotional distress.
The telephone company, because the mother was not present at the scene of the accident.
The telephone company, because its actions were not extreme and outrageous.

Correct Answer:
The telephone company, because the mother was not present at the scene of the accident.

habz
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 10:22 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby habz » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:27 pm

Pickled wrote:Can somebody please explain this to me?

A telephone company was removing wooden utility poles on a residential street and replacing them with new steel poles. The old poles were approximately 25 feet tall, and weighed several tons each. One morning, telephone company employees were removing an old pole. As a 10-year-old boy walked past the construction site, the old utility pole fell and crushed him to death. When the news was conveyed to the boy’s mother, who was at work several miles away, she immediately fainted. For the next 48 hours, the mother was unable to function due to shock over the event. In the following months, the mother had difficulty sleeping due to nightmares as a result of the incident. The mother sued the telephone company for negligent infliction of emotional distress stemming from her son’s death. She produced evidence at trial conclusively establishing that the telephone company was negligent in allowing the old utility pole to fall. The applicable jurisdiction has abandoned the zone of danger requirement for this type of action. Which party is likely to prevail?

Answer Choices:
The mother, because she was closely related to the boy.
The mother, because she suffered severe emotional distress.
The telephone company, because the mother was not present at the scene of the accident.
The telephone company, because its actions were not extreme and outrageous.

Correct Answer:
The telephone company, because the mother was not present at the scene of the accident.


You can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress if you're a close family member even if you're not in the zone of danger. however, you still need to actually witness the accident. Merely hearing about it later and having emotional distress is not sufficient

chipperjones
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:16 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby chipperjones » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:54 pm

ImNoScar, thanks for responding. I beg to differ.

[+] Spoiler
We must be reading different questions. In mine, life tenant has a stroke at T1 in the problem (like first or second sentence), and remains incapacitated throughout.

Confused7
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Confused7 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:01 pm

chipperjones wrote:ImNoScar, thanks for responding. I beg to differ.

[+] Spoiler
We must be reading different questions. In mine, life tenant has a stroke at T1 in the problem (like first or second sentence), and remains incapacitated throughout.


If I'm reading the same question (#144 on the simulated MBE), the 1st or 2nd sentence says that she has a stroke a YEAR after the owner dies. But a few sentences later, the question says that "shortly after" the owner's death, the wife allowed the guy to stay in the place. This implies that she gave him consent to do stay in the house BEFORE she got the stroke.

smalogna
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby smalogna » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:43 pm

Pleasye wrote:
annapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?

1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 D
Multiple Ps can aggregate claims against 1 D if 1 of the Ps meets the AIC and the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.


This may be nit picky but you aren't aggregating claims with multiple Ps and one D. You are looking for one P to meet the AIC as to the D. Then, the other Ps have supplemental jurisdiction which requires the "common nucleus of fact" test.

Examples:
If one P has a tort claim with $85,000 in damages against D, and another P has say an unrelated contracts claim for $10K (yes, unlikely) then no jurisdiction.
If one P has a tort claim for $40K and another P has a tort claim for $40K under same facts against same D, no jurisdiction.
If one P has 76K tort claim and another P has $10K tort claim from same facts, jurisdiction.

Feel free to correct me but I'm 95% sure this is right

smalogna
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby smalogna » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:46 pm

Confused7 wrote:
chipperjones wrote:ImNoScar, thanks for responding. I beg to differ.

[+] Spoiler
We must be reading different questions. In mine, life tenant has a stroke at T1 in the problem (like first or second sentence), and remains incapacitated throughout.


If I'm reading the same question (#144 on the simulated MBE), the 1st or 2nd sentence says that she has a stroke a YEAR after the owner dies. But a few sentences later, the question says that "shortly after" the owner's death, the wife allowed the guy to stay in the place. This implies that she gave him consent to do stay in the house BEFORE she got the stroke.


^ Correct, adverse possession began before incapacity so the time continues to run.

zot1
Posts: 3026
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:49 pm

I know someone posted before what range we should shoot for for the simulated MBE but I cannot find it at the moment. Do any of you know of the top of your head?

californiabarprep
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 4:39 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby californiabarprep » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:51 pm

How accurate/representative is the Themis simulated MBE set? I see that the average score was pretty low for both (64/60) AM and PM. I think Themis uses a lot of their own questions rather than NCBE?

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7961
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Pleasye » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:53 pm

smalogna wrote:
Pleasye wrote:
annapach wrote:Under what circumstance can you aggregate claims to reach amount-in-controversy?

1 P can aggregate all claims against 1 D
Multiple Ps can aggregate claims against 1 D if 1 of the Ps meets the AIC and the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.


This may be nit picky but you aren't aggregating claims with multiple Ps and one D. You are looking for one P to meet the AIC as to the D. Then, the other Ps have supplemental jurisdiction which requires the "common nucleus of fact" test.

Examples:
If one P has a tort claim with $85,000 in damages against D, and another P has say an unrelated contracts claim for $10K (yes, unlikely) then no jurisdiction.
If one P has a tort claim for $40K and another P has a tort claim for $40K under same facts against same D, no jurisdiction.
If one P has 76K tort claim and another P has $10K tort claim from same facts, jurisdiction.

Feel free to correct me but I'm 95% sure this is right

You're correct but also nitpicking

zot1
Posts: 3026
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:06 pm

californiabarprep wrote:How accurate/representative is the Themis simulated MBE set? I see that the average score was pretty low for both (64/60) AM and PM. I think Themis uses a lot of their own questions rather than NCBE?


Not to your point, but I wouldn't be surprised if the lower second score is due to overall exam fatigue.

User avatar
somuchbooty
Posts: 4192
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby somuchbooty » Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:08 pm

I just went 24-10 in a MBE session but missed 10 in a row. I'm starting to think they do this just to make you want to kill yourself.

zot1
Posts: 3026
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:08 pm

zot1 wrote:I know someone posted before what range we should shoot for for the simulated MBE but I cannot find it at the moment. Do any of you know of the top of your head?


Never mind--I found it after searching again. Apparently my brain is just not working right at the moment.

User avatar
UnamSanctam
Posts: 7167
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:17 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby UnamSanctam » Fri Jul 10, 2015 7:49 pm

zot1 wrote:
zot1 wrote:I know someone posted before what range we should shoot for for the simulated MBE but I cannot find it at the moment. Do any of you know of the top of your head?


Never mind--I found it after searching again. Apparently my brain is just not working right at the moment.


I just finished it and my brain doesn't work. What was it?

Confused7
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Confused7 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 7:54 pm

UnamSanctam wrote:
zot1 wrote:
zot1 wrote:I know someone posted before what range we should shoot for for the simulated MBE but I cannot find it at the moment. Do any of you know of the top of your head?


Never mind--I found it after searching again. Apparently my brain is just not working right at the moment.


I just finished it and my brain doesn't work. What was it?


Themis said 110-120 raw score, I think.

zot1
Posts: 3026
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Fri Jul 10, 2015 7:55 pm

UnamSanctam wrote:
zot1 wrote:
zot1 wrote:I know someone posted before what range we should shoot for for the simulated MBE but I cannot find it at the moment. Do any of you know of the top of your head?


Never mind--I found it after searching again. Apparently my brain is just not working right at the moment.


I just finished it and my brain doesn't work. What was it?


Lol I know the feeling! It was something Iike 110-120, but I've been drinking a lot since. How did it go for you?




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cal_pushed, Spartan_Alum_12 and 12 guests