Question I.
 

3N is a corporation, incorporated in Delaware, its sales office in Minnesota, its headquarters in Missouri. It sells only by mail order and advertises in national magazines. Poe, a law student in Minnesota who clerks for the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals sued 3N in State Court in Minnesota on behalf of himself and others similarly situated for fraud and misrepresentation in the sale of certain securities sold in Minnesota. Mr. Poe attends classes in St. Paul, maintain apartments in St. Paul and St. Louis. He spends 6 months a year in each city, is registered to vote in Missouri and has a Minnesota driver's license.

He alleges that some 2,000 persons were induced to purchase worthless securities and each suffered a loss of at least $50.00 and as much as $9,000. He asked for total damages exceeding $1,000,000.00. The process was served on 3N in Missouri.

3N filed a petition for removal from the-State Court to the United States District Court in Minnesota. After removal, 3N moved for a Change of Venue to federal court in Delaware. That motion was granted. Poe then filed a notion to remand to the Minnesota State Court. That motion was denied and the case went to trial in federal court in Delaware as a class action. Class members were notified by ads run in the wall St. Journal. Judgment on the merits was rendered in favor of 3N.

After the judgment was final, Jones, another resident of Minnesota, filed an action in Minnesota state court on claims of misrepresentation and fraud in the sale of 3N securities. 3N, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Poe judgment was a bar to the action by Jones. The motion was granted.

Discuss whether the District Court was correct in its rulings and why.
 

    A. Change of Venue;

    B. The motion to remand;

    C. The class issues;

    D. The motion to dismiss in Jones v. 3N.
 

Question II.
 

Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court in the State of Exeter alleging the following:

Plaintiff resides in Exeter. Plaintiff read in a national magazine an advertisement for a product called "Radwarn" which, when installed in a home in accordance with instructions, was designed to sound an alarm when radiation levels reached dangerous levels. "Radwarn" is manufactured by Defendant, Radwarn Corporation, incorporated and having its sale place of business in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. It sells "Radwarn" to retailers throughout the United States. Plaintiff purchased a "Radwarn" from Plywood Nicaragua, a retailer in the State of Minnesota. The device went off one night shortly after a radioactive cloud was reported to be drifting toward EXETER from the most recent nuclear accident. The plaintiff, fearing radiation contamination locked himself in his lead shielded basement for two weeks. The "Radwarn" danger signal was an error, the device functioned improperly. He claims property damage of $5,000 as a result of anti-radiation measures taken to protect the house after the "Radwarn" alert and $100,000 for mental anguish resulting from the two weeks in the basement.
 

The summons and complaint were served upon the President of "Radwarn" by personal delivery at the point of purchase as required by the EXETER Long Arm Statute, for product liability cases.
 

The Supreme Court of the State of EXETER has recently ruled that recovery for mental anguish may be had when conduct is intentional or when the anguish results from physical conduct. The defendant has filed motions under:

    A) 12(b)(1);

    B) 12(b)(2);

    C) 12(b)(5);

    D) 12(b)(3); and

    E) 12(b)(7).
 

Fully discuss how would the court be likely to rule on each and why.
 

Question III.
 

While Ralph, a Wisconsin resident, was stopped in his car at an intersection in Washington County, he was struck from the rear by a car driven by John. Seconds later he was struck by another car driven by Bruce, Ralph's former business partner. Ralph learned that Bruce was a resident of Minneapolis. He filed a complaint in Minnesota Federal Court against Bruce alleging property damages and physical injuries in the amount of $25,000. Bruce brought a claim against Ralph for contributory negligence of $5,000 and a contract claim for $15,000 arising from their former business. John, a resident of Minnesota, brought a motion to intervene as a defendant and he asserted claims against both Ralph and Bruce for contributory negligence in the amount of $5,000 each. John's motion was denied and the case went forward on the claims between Ralph and Bruce.
 

While investigating the collisions, Bruce learned that John's attorney had gotten a report from an expert who had examined the car. The expert kept a copy of the report but delivered all other copies to John's attorney. Bruce wrote a letter to the expert demanding a deposition and copies of the report. The witness did not respond, Bruce filed a motion to compel product in which was granted.
 

Ralph filed a motion to require Bruce to produce copies of statements by six independent witnesses. In support of the motion Ralph showed that witnesses were not given copies of their statements and could no longer recall the contents. Discuss the arguments which might reasonably have been made to the trial court and the propriety of the Court's rulings on:
 

    A. John's motion to intervene.

    B. The joinder of Ralph's claims.

    C. The motions to compel production by:

        1. Bruce

        2. Ralph
 

Question IV.
 

Joyce, a deaf citizen of the State of Racine filed a complaint in Federal Court on November 8, 1985 alleging denial of Due Process in Count I; in Count II, use of excessive force; in Count III, a violation of a state statute requiring officers to report all incidents involving deaf citizens to a Governor's Commission. Damages claimed totaled $750,000 and injunctive relief was requested.

The subject of the suit was an incident which occurred on November 9, 1983. The State of Racine has a 2 year statute of limitations for all claims sounding in tort. The Complaint set forth the date of the occurrence as November 7, 1983 and named Major City police officer Stanford James as the defendant and gave his badge number as 0764.

The defendant filed an answer which denied that the occurrence took place and that Stanford Jones had badge number 0764.
 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 15, 1986 which corrected the date, named the defendant officer as having badge number 0746 and added another count alleging injuries for another incident involving the same parties which occurred on November 7, 1983 and which the plaintiff alleged was a part of the "pattern" of harassment.
 

The defendant made a motion to dismiss the amended complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed Counts II and III and the claims added in the amended complaint. The case went forward on the Due Process claim and was tried before a judge over plaintiff's objection. The State of Racine does not provide for jury trials in cases in which injunctive relief is at issue. At trial, the defendants made a motion that plaintiffs be collaterally estopped from raising the issue of the existence of a "pattern or practice" based upon the trial court's earlier denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction in which the court found that "there is insufficient evidence that a pattern and practice existed to grant an injunction." The court granted the motion and a directed verdict for defendants. Plaintiffs made a motion for a new trial alleging their right to a jury trial had been abrogated and that collateral estoppel was improperly applied by the trial court. Discuss the property following rulings of the trial court:

    A. The ruling on the amended complaint as to parties.

    B. The ruling rejecting Counts II and III for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

    C. The ruling rejecting amended claims as time-barred.

    D. The motion for a new trial.
 

Question V.
 

Delta resides in the state of Xenia and operates a rental car company. All cars are registered in Xenia, all contracts made there, customers pick up and drop off cars in Xenia. The use of rented cars is not limited to Xenia and customers frequently drive to the next state, Forum, but Delta is not notified whether particular cars are going to Forum.
 

Park, a Forum resident sued Delta in Forum Federal District Court for $6,500 due on a promissory note executed by Delta in Xenia. Park had a friend drive a Delta car to Forum where a sheriff seized the car under a prejudgment writ of attachment issued in the case of Park V. Delta under a Forum procedure. Park mailed a copy of the complaint to Delta's office on Xenia by certified mail and received a receipt showing acceptance by the personal secretary to the president.
 

Delta failed to appear and a default judgment was entered. Pursuant to court order the car was sold to Buyer, a resident of Xenia, for $2,500.00. Delta learned that the car was in Xenia and has filed suit in Xenia seeking recovery of the car from Buyer.
 

The Forum long arm statute is identical to that of Minnesota (attached).

    1. What procedural mechanism(s) might Delta reasonably employ to attack the federal court judgment?

    2. What issues will Delta raise and what is the likely outcome of Delta's action? Why?

    3. Assuming the foregoing issues have not yet been decided, what issue(s) is Buyer likely to raise in a motion to dismiss. What is the likely outcome? Why?
 

Question VI.
 

Johnson and Smith were killed in a two-car accident. Johnson's estate brought an action against Smith for $450,000. Smith's estate filed an answer which denied liability and counter claimed for $750,000. After discovery was completed, Johnson's estate filed a motion for summary judgment. In support the Johnson estate submitted the deposition of an expert witness who examined the wreckage and the scene and who testified that the accident could only have been caused by Smith's negligence. The motion was denied.
 

The plaintiff challenged the trial court's ruling in the appellate court. The trial court ruling was not reversed and the case went to the jury. The jury returned a $2,500,000 verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff sought to overturn the verdict and filed a motion for a new trial and a judgment N.O.V. The trial judge upheld the verdict but reduced the award to $1,250,000 in a memorandum which was mailed to both parties. Plaintiff and defendant both appealed. All issues are governed by state rules which are identical to the Federal Rules.
 

    A. Was the trial court correct in its ruling on the motion for summary judgment? Why or why not?

    B. What procedural mechanisms might the plaintiff use to attempt to reverse the trial court's ruling in summary judgment prior to trial. Would they succeed?

    C. Would your answer be the same if the trial court had decided the issue in favor of the plaintiff? Why or why not?

    D. Was the trial court correct in denying the motion for a new trial and judgment N.O.V.? Why or why not?
 
    E. Will the appellate court hear the appeal? Why or why not? Assuming the appellate court hears the appeal, what standard of review will the appellate court apply? What is the likely outcome? Why?