INSTRUCTIONS:
 

Begin the answer to each question on a new page (i.e. Question I, II, etc.). Clearly identify the answer to each question and subquestion.

Your answer should include the relevant rule and a concise discussion of the application of the rule to the facts in this situation. Explain your reasoning process in reaching your conclusions. Answers should be no longer than two or three paragraphs per subquestion.
 

The following events took place in the State of Mitchell. Mitchell has a statute which reads as follows:

It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender, religion, color, ethnicity or sexual orientation in any commercial contracts for necessary services or goods.
 

A corporation will be liable for compensatory and punitive damages for discrimination under this statute if:
 

    1. An employee of the corporation has violated the statute.

    2. The corporation knew or had reason to know of the violation; and,

    3. The corporation fails to reform or rescind the contract in question to eliminate the effects of the discrimination. No action can be commenced more than one year after the act of discrimination.
 

Paul is a single father of three children who responded to an advertisement for "quiet, condominium apartments, at Greenbelt Arms, starting as low as $300.00 per month" in the local

newspaper in Mitchell. When Paul spoke with the salesman, a Mr. Slick, at the model on Oct.1, 1988, he was told that the last $300.00 per month apartments had just been sold, but that there were some lovely penthouses available for $750.00 a month, and that he was a "cinch to qualify."
 

Paul paid the non-refundable "application fee" of $750.00 and waited for his apartment. A few weeks later, on October 15, 1988, he was told by Slick that he was unsuitable for the condominium because children were not allowed in the development. He lost $750.00 and had to seek housing in a shelter. The $300.00 apartment had been occupied months before the ad ran.
 

On October 14, 1989, Paul filed a Complaint with the Clerk of the Federal District Court for the State of Mitchell against Greenbelt Arms, alleging a violation of Mitchell Statute 100.00. The Summons and Complaint were served on Mr. Slick at the Greenbelt Arms Condominium on October 20, 1989.
 

The Complaint read as follows:
 

Paul, Plaintiff

V. Complaint

Greenbelt Arms, Defendant
 

Paul, for his complaint against Greenbelt, states as follows:
 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
 

    1. On or about October 1, 1988, Greenbelt Arms advertised that a $300 condominium apartment was available in its complex.

    2. An employee of Greenbelt Arms accepted a deposit from plaintiff knowing that he did not qualify for an apartment.

    3. Defendant's fraudulent conduct damaged plaintiff in the amount of $750.00.
 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
 

    4. Defendant Greenbelt Arms knowingly and intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of Mitchell Stat. 100.00.
 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the amount of $750.00 plus punitive damages and an order requiring Greenbelt Arms to cease and desist from future acts of age discrimination.
 

The Defendant Greenbelt Arms is the trade name of a development owned by Greenbelt, Inc., a Mitchell corporation located in another city. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Megacorp, a Florida corporation-retirement housing. The salesman, Slick, is an independent commission broker who is not in employ of either Greenbelt, Inc. or Megacorp. He has left town and is beyond the reach of Mitchell's long-arm statute.
 

QUESTION I. (20%)
 

Assume Greenbelt, Inc. has come to you for advice on how to respond to the Complaint.
 

    1. How long will defendant have to respond to the Complaint and what pleadings might a defendant file? Explain briefly.

    2.     a. What motion would defendant employ to challenge the sufficiency of the Complaint on its face? Discuss the likely outcome.

            b. What motion would defendant employ to challenge the substance of the Complaint? Discuss the likely outcome.

            c. What motion would a defendant employ to challenge subject matter jurisdiction? Discuss the likely outcome.
 

Assuming pre answer motions are made and denied, what next?
 

QUESTION II. (20%)
 

Greenbelt, Inc. elected not to file a response. Plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint on December 15, 1989. In the Amended Complaint the plaintiff moved to substitute Greenbelt, Inc. and add Megacorp as a defendant. Greenbelt, Inc. has taken the position that it was not served until it received the Amended Complaint at its corporate office on December 16, 1989. The Amended Complaint added a valid federal civil rights claim as a Third Claim for Relief, a proper Statement of Federal Jurisdiction and proper state claims. Greenbelt, Inc. and Megacorp seek to dismiss the Amended Complaint as beyond the statute of limitations. All claims have a one year statute of limitations.
 

    1. Will plaintiff be able to amend the Complaint by adding the federal civil rights claim? Why or why not?

    2. Will plaintiff be able to amend the Complaint by adding the parties defendant? Why or why not?

        a. Greenbelt, Inc.

        b. Megacorp.
 

    3. What is the likely outcome of Greenbelt's and Megacorp's motions to dismiss the Complaint as being time barred? Why?

        a. Greenbelt, Inc.

        b. Megacorp.
 

QUESTION III. (20%)
 

Assume that Greenbelt did file pre-answer motions and they were denied. Assume further that the trial court found that the Amended Complaint is sufficient on its face, and that it properly states federal and state claims against Greenbelt, Inc. and Megacorp. Defendants have filed an answer to the Amended Complaint that includes general denials of all allegations in the Complaint, a motion to dismiss for improper venue and a motion to dismiss for failure to join Slick as a defendant.
 

    1. At trial, will Greenbelt be able to raise Slick's employment status as a defense to the state statutory claim? Why or why not?

    2. What is the outcome of the venue motion with respect to Greenbelt? Might the outcome differ for Megacorp? Why or why not?

    3. What is the likely outcome of the motion to dismiss based on the failure to join Slick? Why?

    4. Which party has the burden of pleading notice under the Mitchell statute, or the lack thereof? Why?
 
 

QUESTION IV. (20%)
 

Assuming the case is not dismissed, plaintiff has brought a motion to have the case declared a class action on behalf of all the applicants with children who have been denied housing by Greenbelt and who have lost deposits of $25.00 up to $1000.00 asking for injunctive relief placing plaintiffs in apartments and for those who no longer want apartments, the return of all deposits with interest and punitive damages for all plaintiffs. Defendants, who are insured for $1 million, have opposed the motion and have argued that plaintiffs must notify all 2,000 applicants, from 40 states including Mitchell, listed in their files at a cost of $200,000, if the case is certified as a class.
 

    1. What concerns must the court address in determining the availability of injunctive relief? What is the likely outcome here?

    2. May the case be heard as a class action in federal court? Why or why not?

    3. Discuss the likelihood that the plaintiff's motion for class certification will be granted.

    4. Assuming the plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted, what is the likely ruling regarding notice? Why?
 
 

QUESTION V. (20%)
 

After the class was certified, Megacorp's insurance company, Insco, filed a bill of Interpleader in Federal District Court in Florida, using the $1 million limit on the insurance policy as the stake, and moved to consolidate the cases in Florida, owing to attitudes more favorable toward the rights of retired persons in that state, lower judgments and decreased litigation costs.
 

In the case pending in Federal District Court in Mitchell, Megacorp filed a claim against Greenbelt for breach of a contract to abide by all state laws. Both Slick and the American Association of Retired Persons filed motions to intervene.
 

Megacorp filed a claim against Paul for back rent under a lease for the rental of another apartment owned by Megacorp. Greenbelt filed an indemnification claim authorized under Mitchell law against the employment agency that provided Slick under a "hold harmless"clause.
 

    1. Is this a proper use of Interpleader? Why or why not? Explain.

    2. Discuss the availability of ancillary jurisdiction with respect to:

        a. Megacorp's claim against Greenbelt.

        b. Megacorp's claim against Paul.

        c. Greenbelt's claim against the employment agency.

    3. Will Slick and AARP be allowed to intervene? Why or why not?