Principal Place of Business - Civil Procedure - Past Paper, Exams of Civil procedure

Download Principal Place of Business - Civil Procedure - Past Paper and more Exams Civil procedure in PDF only on Docsity! UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW FINAL EXAMINATION: CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURSE: LAW 105 41) PROFESSOR WILLIAM A. FLETCHER SPRING SEMESTER 1994 THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1994 TIME: 3 HOURS OPEN BOOK/OPEN NOTES EXAMINATION INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCTOR: The total time for the examination is 3 hours. At the end of the examination, students must hand in their examinations and their bluebooks. DIRECTIONS 1. This examination has two questions. Each question has subparts, based on motions made by the parties. The answers to some subparts are more complicated than to others. Answer each subpart as fully as appropriate, but it is not necessary to devote equal space to each subpart. 2. The total time for the examination is 3 hours. I suggest that you divide your time equally between the questions, devoting I hour and 30 minutes to each. I will weight the questions equally in grading. 3. This examination is intended to test not only what you know, but also what you can reason out from what you know. If you are unsure of the answer on a specific point, make the best arguments you can based on what you do know. 4. The examination is designed to be written in the time allowed, but you will have to move right along to do so. Please keep careful track of your time. Question One begins on the next page. Question Two (suggested time: 1 hour and 30 minutes) Drugs, Inc., (D) is an American pharmaceutical company, incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. D manufactures Vitalin, a powerful antidepressant. Vitalin has not been approved for sale in the United States because early clinical tests indicate that a small percentage of people taking Vitalin may become violent as a result of taking the drug. D sells Vitalin in foreign countries, including France, that permit its sale.- Francois Dupont (Dp) takes Vitalin in Paris to combat depression. Shortly after taking the drug, Dp becomes violent and permanently injures his 12-year-old son Pierre (P). P was born in the United States when his parents were living in Berkeley, California, as graduate students. P returned to France when he was 6 months old. He does not speak English, and his parents have no plans to return to the United States for anything other than tourism. His parents are both French citizens. The United States Constitution provides that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents. French law provides that anyone born of French parents is a French citizen regardless of where he or she is born. After Pierre gets out of the hospital, Pierre and his parents come to Florida to visit the Everglades and Disney World. While in Florida, Pierre files suit (through a guardian) against D and Dp in federal District Court in Florida. He alleges that D sold an unsafe product without proper warning of its dangerous qualities, in violation of French law, and that D shipped an improperly labeled product, in violation of federal law. He alleges that Dp assaulted him without justification, in violation of French law. D does business nationwide, and Dp is served with process while physically present in Florida. You may assume that in personam jurisdiction and venue are proper in Florida for both D and Dp. You may also assume that subject matter jurisdiction is proper, based on diversity and federal question jurisdiction, and on supplemental jurisdiction. P sues D in Florida because he hopes for a jury verdict that is more generous than any judgment he could obtain from a French judge. France does not allow juries to hear civil damage cases. P sues Dp in Florida because he hopes thereby to avoid a French rule that immunizes defendants from damage suits brought by immediate family members. Florida does not recognize intra- family immunity in damage suits brought in Florida courts. Florida state courts deny a forum non conveniens dismissal if the plaintiff is an American citizen, irrespective of other factors that might lead to a dismissal. Motion (1): D and Dp move for a forum non conveniens dismissal. How should the District Court rule? Discuss. Assume that the motion is denied. D's headquarters are in Philadelphia, which is located in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Among other things, D points out that employees knowledgeable about Vitalin work at the corporate headquarters, and can easily participate in the trial if the case is transferred to the Eastern District. Notion (2): D and Dp move to transfer the suit to federal District Court to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. How should the District Court rule? Discuss. Assume that the motion is denied. After the motion is denied, P and Dp reach a settlement, and P dismisses his claim against Dp. D, now the sole defendant, renews its motion to transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The motion is granted. Pennsylvania state courts grant a forum non conveniens dismissal under the standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Piper v. Reyno. Motion (3): D moves to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. How should the District Court rule? Discuss. END OF EXAMINATION