

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The final exam for civil procedure i, fall 2011. The exam consists of essay questions related to four court decisions: one involving a civil rights case where a protester sues the city for violation of her constitutional rights, and another involving a product liability case where a plaintiff sues a mexican pharmacy for providing bad medicines. The exam asks the student to discuss the legality of each decision and provide an analysis in support of their conclusion.
Typology: Exams
1 / 3
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Part II: Essay Question Recommended Time: 1 hour
Maria James is a dedicated political activist and a lifelong resident in Oakland, California. When she heard about the protest called “Occupy Oakland” assembling in tents in a park next to Oakland City Hall in California, she went to the park to participate. She found the protesters and soon joined a group who had a large tent and were producing protest signs.
One night the Oakland police decided to move the protesters out of the park. As Maria was trying her best to leave peaceably, one of the Oakland police offers hit her with a baton and another Oakland police officer fired a rubber bullet at her causing her to stumble and hit her head. She suffered a concussion and debilitating headaches. As a result, she had to leave work and be taken care of by her parents who now live in Seattle Washington.
At her parents’ urging, Maria consults with a Seattle attorney who specializes in civil rights cases. She is angry about the way she was treated. She believes her first amendment constitutional right to peaceably assemble was violated.
The attorney suggests she sue Oakland and she should sue in Seattle while she is recuperating to avoid Oakland courts that might favor the City and police. He has found that the Oakland police regularly train for riots at a special police school in Seattle. And as luck would have it, the Oakland Mayor, who under California and Washington law is the City’s agent for service of process, is coming to visit the school next week.
Maria sues Oakland in Washington state court for violation of her federal civil rights (the federal civil rights act allows suits in state or federal court) and serves the Mayor in Seattle. The complaint also includes related state law claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Oakland within 30 days files a removal notice to Seattle Federal District Court. Maria timely moves to remand the state claims back to state court. The court denies the remand, saying the federal claim’s essence requires a determination of whether she had the right under the constitution to assemble at the park and if not, whether police used unnecessary force. The judge says these are federal issues, which predominate.
Oakland then files a motion to dismiss, arguing that there is no general or specific personal jurisdiction over Oakland in Washington. The federal judge denies the motion. Oakland then files a new motion arguing improper venue, or in the alternative, change of venue requiring the Court to dismiss or transfer the case to San Francisco Federal Court (Oakland Division). Cities under federal and state law only reside where the City is located. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The court determines that venue is improper and that transfer would be appropriate and orders the entire case transferred to San Francisco Federal Court. [EXAM CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]
After six months of pre-trial proceedings, Oakland successfully moves for summary judgment on the federal claim resulting in the Judge dismissing the Civil Rights Act claim. Oakland then moves pursuant to 1367 to dismiss the state claims. Maria opposes, fearful of being trapped in Oakland state court, which will favor the City. The Court grants the motion to dismiss, simply saying now that the original federal claim is dismissed, it has no authority to maintain the state claims in federal court and Maria can proceed in Oakland state court if she wishes.
Please discuss whether the following court decisions were according to law and your analysis in support of your conclusion:
[ EXAM CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]