Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[annapach]

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

[Pleasye]

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.

[paulshortys10]

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.

[paulshortys10]

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?

[Pleasye]

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]

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]

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

[lilypad144]

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

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

[chipperjones]

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.

[hephaestus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Pleasye]

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]

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.

[somuchbooty]

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]

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.

[UnamSanctam]

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]

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]

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?