July 2015 California Bar Exam Forum

[brotherdarkness]

P and DO were from the same state, but DO was eliminated before the notice of removal was filed. So it just turns on whether the analysis of "could have been originally been filed in federal court" begins with the original complaint, or after the DO was dismissed for lack of PJ.

ETA -- Doesn't matter. Both of us probably explained the rules correctly, and one of us (likely me) missed some easy points by coming to the wrong conclusion. Not gonna be the end of the world, and certainly isn't going to determine whether we pass or fail this thing.

[smokeylarue]

They were same state, but just wasn't sure if we should address the issue if we assume he's dropped out. I think I overthought it, the simple answer is probably the right one.

[BrokenMouse]

lol

[robinhoodOO]

P and DO were from the same state, but DO was eliminated before the notice of removal was filed. So it just turns on whether the analysis of "could have been originally been filed in federal court" begins with the original complaint, or after the DO was dismissed for lack of PJ.

still had complete diversity

[Reds622]

P and DO were from the same state, but DO was eliminated before the notice of removal was filed. So it just turns on whether the analysis of "could have been originally been filed in federal court" begins with the original complaint, or after the DO was dismissed for lack of PJ.

ETA -- Doesn't matter. Both of us probably explained the rules correctly, and one of us (likely me) missed some easy points by coming to the wrong conclusion. Not gonna be the end of the world, and certainly isn't going to determine whether we pass or fail this thing.

And on the last part of that question... Was it a quick one for you? I just say there thinking, well... That's all we get for this.

[Underoath]

P and DO were from the same state, but DO was eliminated before the notice of removal was filed. So it just turns on whether the analysis of "could have been originally been filed in federal court" begins with the original complaint, or after the DO was dismissed for lack of PJ.

ETA -- Doesn't matter. Both of us probably explained the rules correctly, and one of us (likely me) missed some easy points by coming to the wrong conclusion. Not gonna be the end of the world, and certainly isn't going to determine whether we pass or fail this thing.

damn I think I did what you did too...lol oh well...

[smokeylarue]

P and DO were from the same state, but DO was eliminated before the notice of removal was filed. So it just turns on whether the analysis of "could have been originally been filed in federal court" begins with the original complaint, or after the DO was dismissed for lack of PJ.

ETA -- Doesn't matter. Both of us probably explained the rules correctly, and one of us (likely me) missed some easy points by coming to the wrong conclusion. Not gonna be the end of the world, and certainly isn't going to determine whether we pass or fail this thing.

damn I think I did what you did too...lol oh well...

Same mistake lol. Hoping those graders actually read our analysis so they know at least we knew what we were talking about....

[brotherdarkness]

P and DO were from the same state, but DO was eliminated before the notice of removal was filed. So it just turns on whether the analysis of "could have been originally been filed in federal court" begins with the original complaint, or after the DO was dismissed for lack of PJ.

ETA -- Doesn't matter. Both of us probably explained the rules correctly, and one of us (likely me) missed some easy points by coming to the wrong conclusion. Not gonna be the end of the world, and certainly isn't going to determine whether we pass or fail this thing.

damn I think I did what you did too...lol oh well...

Again, it doesn't matter. It's one part of a multi-part question. If I fail, it'll be because I fucked up a lot more than this one thing. Not gonna stress about it at all.

[BrokenMouse]

lol

[Reds622]

For PT, did you guys feel like 90% of your effort was front loaded?

For myself, yes. I wasn't entirely confident after that one though..

[Tiago Splitter]

P and DO were from the same state, but DO was eliminated before the notice of removal was filed. So it just turns on whether the analysis of "could have been originally been filed in federal court" begins with the original complaint, or after the DO was dismissed for lack of PJ.

It doesn't matter where he's from, because he moved before filing the suit. Again, you were right if you considered all 3 parties. Note, remand was brought after the removal. So, you needed to consider whether removal was proper which occurred before PJ motions, so it was Q of whether diversity existed at the outset (period).

yeah I disagree but we'll see

[brotherdarkness]

For PT, did you guys feel like 90% of your effort was front loaded?

Nope. I forgot to mention "the rule" until pretty far into the damn thing. Then realized I need to make that my part (b) and move the analysis of P's evidence (the statements by P, the co-worker, and the expert) to part (c).

[brotherdarkness]

P and DO were from the same state, but DO was eliminated before the notice of removal was filed. So it just turns on whether the analysis of "could have been originally been filed in federal court" begins with the original complaint, or after the DO was dismissed for lack of PJ.

It doesn't matter where he's from, because he moved before filing the suit. Again, you were right if you considered all 3 parties. Note, remand was brought after the removal. So, you needed to consider whether removal was proper which occurred before PJ motions, so it was Q of whether diversity existed at the outset (period).

yeah I disagree but we'll see

I didn't even notice that DO moved... Maybe that means I fucked up one of the PJ analysis questions. Yikes.

[soj]

.

[ilovetheatre]

For PT, did you guys feel like 90% of your effort was front loaded?

Nooo, I started typing an hour in to it and I still didn't get to say everything I wanted.

Or did I misunderstand your question (today has been a day of brain farts - I forgot the word "easement" and spent a few minutes recalling all the legal "e" words I knew and still didn't remember easement until tonight (and no, it wasn't on the essay, so no need to shit bricks))?

[Tiago Splitter]

Like you said bd we all did plenty of analysis. I thought I crushed that Q but even if it wasn't perfect you aren't failing this test with a 70 on one of those essays. Don't even sweat it.

[robinhoodOO]

P and DO were from the same state, but DO was eliminated before the notice of removal was filed. So it just turns on whether the analysis of "could have been originally been filed in federal court" begins with the original complaint, or after the DO was dismissed for lack of PJ.

It doesn't matter where he's from, because he moved before filing the suit. Again, you were right if you considered all 3 parties. Note, remand was brought after the removal. So, you needed to consider whether removal was proper which occurred before PJ motions, so it was Q of whether diversity existed at the outset (period).

yeah I disagree but we'll see

I'm curious on what in particular we're disagreeing about, but, ya, we'll definitely see in roughly 4 months :/

[BrokenMouse]

lol

[robinhoodOO]

P and DO were from the same state, but DO was eliminated before the notice of removal was filed. So it just turns on whether the analysis of "could have been originally been filed in federal court" begins with the original complaint, or after the DO was dismissed for lack of PJ.

It doesn't matter where he's from, because he moved before filing the suit. Again, you were right if you considered all 3 parties. Note, remand was brought after the removal. So, you needed to consider whether removal was proper which occurred before PJ motions, so it was Q of whether diversity existed at the outset (period).

yeah I disagree but we'll see

I didn't even notice that DO moved... Maybe that means I fucked up one of the PJ analysis questions. Yikes.

I wouldn't worry about it. Every Q for every person, someone missed an issue or two. I'm sure I missed a few on the CrimPro one--haha. Was hoping for murder and 5th Amendment and got stuck with that weird 4th shit

[brotherdarkness]

Like you said bd we all did plenty of analysis. I thought I crushed that Q but even if it wasn't perfect you aren't failing this test with a 70 on one of those essays. Don't even sweat it.

Truth. I love civ pro and thought I nailed that question pretty much dead-on. Apparently I didn't read the facts close enough, so I'm going to venture a guess that the DO's move caused his residency to change and thus allow the court to have PJ (I said it didn't have PJ). But I talked about the rules and shit, so idk maybe I passed. Maybe I didn't. Won't know for a few months and gonna try not to sweat it now.

[robinhoodOO]

Like you said bd we all did plenty of analysis. I thought I crushed that Q but even if it wasn't perfect you aren't failing this test with a 70 on one of those essays. Don't even sweat it.

Truth. I love civ pro and thought I nailed that question pretty much dead-on. Apparently I didn't read the facts close enough, so I'm going to venture a guess that the DO's move caused his residency to change and thus allow the court to have PJ (I said it didn't have PJ). But I talked about the rules and shit, so idk maybe I passed. Maybe I didn't. Won't know for a few months and gonna try not to sweat it now.

From what I've gathered they break down points based on issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion. Thus, if you have 3 of the 4, you got most of the points (which is more than many can say)

[Reds622]

Like you said bd we all did plenty of analysis. I thought I crushed that Q but even if it wasn't perfect you aren't failing this test with a 70 on one of those essays. Don't even sweat it.

Truth. I love civ pro and thought I nailed that question pretty much dead-on. Apparently I didn't read the facts close enough, so I'm going to venture a guess that the DO's move caused his residency to change and thus allow the court to have PJ (I said it didn't have PJ). But I talked about the rules and shit, so idk maybe I passed. Maybe I didn't. Won't know for a few months and gonna try not to sweat it now.

I saw the same thing that you did.. I think. I "may" have found PJ for "other" party though..

[BrokenMouse]

lol

[brotherdarkness]

Like you said bd we all did plenty of analysis. I thought I crushed that Q but even if it wasn't perfect you aren't failing this test with a 70 on one of those essays. Don't even sweat it.

Truth. I love civ pro and thought I nailed that question pretty much dead-on. Apparently I didn't read the facts close enough, so I'm going to venture a guess that the DO's move caused his residency to change and thus allow the court to have PJ (I said it didn't have PJ). But I talked about the rules and shit, so idk maybe I passed. Maybe I didn't. Won't know for a few months and gonna try not to sweat it now.

From what I've gathered they break down points based on issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion. Thus, if you have 3 of the 4, you got most of the points (which is more than many can say)

Thanks bro. Felt good about things like an hour ago, feeling less good about them now. But I'm going to take my own advice and chill the fuck out about it.

[Calicakes]

Like you said bd we all did plenty of analysis. I thought I crushed that Q but even if it wasn't perfect you aren't failing this test with a 70 on one of those essays. Don't even sweat it.

Truth. I love civ pro and thought I nailed that question pretty much dead-on. Apparently I didn't read the facts close enough, so I'm going to venture a guess that the DO's move caused his residency to change and thus allow the court to have PJ (I said it didn't have PJ). But I talked about the rules and shit, so idk maybe I passed. Maybe I didn't. Won't know for a few months and gonna try not to sweat it now.

Sorry what's DO again?

Yeah. Idl liketo know that too.