Law Enforcement - Civil Procedure - Past Paper, Exams of Civil procedure

Download Law Enforcement - Civil Procedure - Past Paper and more Exams Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity! Exam # Retain by College X Return to Student UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW MIDYEAR EXAMINATION: CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURSE # 10543) PROFESSOR VIKRAM AMAR * * * * * FALL SEMESTER 2002 MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2002 TIME: 2.5 HOURS * * * * * OPEN-BOOK EXAMINATION Page 1 of 8 Pages (Directions Begin on N xt Page) DIRECTIONS: I. This is an open-book exam. You may consult any books, notes and other inanimate objects of your choice. II. This exam and all exam materials must remain in the examination room at all times. Both the exam and your blue books must be turned in at the end of the examination time. III. I designed this exam to last two and one half hours. I have indicated the approximate amount of time you should spend on each of the questions. These time allocations, which add up to two and one half hours, correspond to the relative weights I will give to the questions when I grade the exams. IV. Order your thoughts before you write your responses. Be thorough and be clear. Your grade will be based in part on the organization, clarity and precision of your responses. Use your imagination as well as your analytic powers. Refer to principles, ideas, doctrines, cases, constitutional provisions, statutes and rules to the extent they are relevant to your discussion. And remember to answer the questions being posed. V. It is possible that you may not have been given all of the facts or information as to governing legal rules that a lawyer would need to resolve each problem. In any such cases, do not assume new facts or legal rules to solve the problem. Rather, briefly state what additional facts or information as to governing rules you would seek and why. VI. Write (or type) legibly; I cannot appreciate remarks that I cannot read. VII. Please refrain from doing anything that will jeopardize your (or anyone else's) anonymity on this exam before the exams have Also, since some may take the exam late, been graded. please do not discuss the contents of the exam with anyone during finals period. DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DO SO Page 2 of 8 Pages (Examination Continues on Next Page) 7) After 4 hours in the San Francisco police station, Mr. Naser and his cousin were finally released. They were forced to miss their party. 8) The clerks actions, in treating Mr. Naser differently from other customers and in calling the police to investigate him, were based primarily on Mr. Nasers skin color and ethnicity, criteria that the California Constitution makes presumptively inappropriate as a bases for government action. Mr. Nasers complaint names as defendant Johnsons Department Store. The complaint alleges two causes of action. The first is under 42 U.S.C. §1981, which has been held by the U.S. Supreme Court to prohibit private racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of sales and other contracts. The language of section 1981 provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens. $10,000 compensatory damages is sought on this claim. The second cause of action is brought under the CITLA. (This is the first case in which the recently-enacted CITLA has been invoked.) $10,000 in compensatory and $250,000 punitive damages are sought on this claim. Mr. Naser has alleged in his complaint that subject matter jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. The district court judge has before it two motions made by Johnsons. One is to dismiss the CITLA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The other is for a declaration that the jury will not be instructed until after the close of evidence. Johnsons bases its latter motion on the longstanding federal practice ordinarily to instruct juries only after all evidence has been submitted, and on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51, which provides in full: At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time during the trial as the court reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the requests. The court shall inform counsel of its proposed action upon the requests prior to their [closing] arguments to the jury. The court, at its election, may instruct the jury before or after the argument, or both. No party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of Page 5 of 8 Pages (Examination Continues on Next Page) the objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury. You are a clerk to the district court judge. Please advise her on these two requests made by Johnsons. QUESTION II -- (45 minutes) The Supreme Courts due process personal jurisdiction cases, beginning with International Shoe, are a nightmare. The standards the Court purports to apply are fuzzy, and are not tied in any meaningful way to the Constitution itself. The results reached in the cases seem poorly defended and hard to predict. No wonder people think the Supreme Court simply enforces its own subjective will under the guise of the constitutional adjudication. Please evaluate this statement. Page 6 of 8 Pages (Examination Continues on Next Page) Part III -- (45 minutes; 7+ minutes each) Each of the following 6 statements about procedure is in one or more respects false. Explain briefly why and/or to what extent each statement is false. If your answer turns on a specific provision of a statute or rule, make sure you cite to such provision. If a statement is false because it contradicts a case, be sure to name the case. Be brief: you should be able to provide an answer that will receive full credit in a few sentences. An example follows: Example Statement: A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim by a plaintiff against a non-diverse impleaded third-party defendant, where the courts subject matter jurisdiction over the claim between the plaintiff and the third-party plaintiff is based upon diversity of citizenship. Sample Answer: Under 28 U.S.C. 1367(b), such a claim cannot be brought in federal court, because §1367(b) exempts claims by plaintiffs against persons made party by virtue of Rule 14, as impleaded third-party defendants are. This provision in §1367(b) preserves the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Owen v. Kroger. A. Any case that could have been brought originally in federal district court is ultimately reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court. B. There is no significant difference in the analysis a court goes through in deciding to rule on a request for a preliminary injunction versus a permanent injunction. C. The personal jurisdictional limits the 5th Amendment places on federal courts are identical to those that the 14th Amendment places on state courts. D. The text of 28 U.S.C. §1367 clearly preserves the rule of complete diversity in cases like Mas. v. Perry. E. The well-pleaded complaint rule in its current form is absolutely required by Article III of the Constitution. Page 7 of 8 Pages (Examination Continues on Next Page)