Question I.
 

Remco is a corporation incorporated in Minnesota and having its principal office and sale manufacturing plant in Iowa. It manufacturers pressure valves for use on scuba gear. It purchases the rings which attach the valves to the scuba tank from Costeau, Inc. Costeau is incorporated in Iowa and has its sole place of business there. (The ring is a minor portion of the tank assembly.)
 

The Remco valve on a scuba tank owned by Peter and Quincy and used by them in Wisconsin exploded during an outing on the Mississippi. They were both injured. Quincy was a resident of Iowa at the time of the explosion but later moved to Minnesota. Peter is a resident of Wisconsin.
 

Peter and Quincy wish to sue Costeau and Remco on the theory that the valve was defective. Remco has been successful in three other suits claiming that the valve had been recalled and the plaintiffs in those cases ignored the warning.
 

    A. Peter brings an action against Remco in Wisconsin. Remco wishes to bring Costeau into the case or have the case dismissed. What procedural mechanism(s) will Remco use? Discuss.

    B. Peter and Quincy institute an action against Remco for $100,000.00 in U.S. District Court in Wisconsin. Briefly discuss the potential issues which might be raised and how the trial court should rule with regard to:

        1. Joinder of parties plaintiff

        2. Joinder of parties defendant

        3. Joinder of causes of action

        4. Jurisdiction over the defendants

        5. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
 

    C. If an action is brought by Peter against Remco in Federal District Court in Minnesota.
 

        1. Where is venue proper? Why?

        2. What arguments would Remco be likely to make to secure a change of venue.

        3. Assuming the change of venue is granted, which jurisdiction's substantive law should the trial court apply on the issue of contributory negligence. Why?

        4. Remco wishes to assert collateral estoppel on the issue of contributory negligence. Discuss.
 

Question II.
 

Abel, an atheist resident of State X, attempted to rent an apartment from the largest rental agency in the state, James Baker Enterprises, a State X corporation. Abel's application was refused because of J.B.E.'s "Christians only" policy.
 

Abel moved to State Y and sued J.B.E. in a state court of general jurisdiction alleging religiously motivated discrimination in violation of federal law. The complaint "prayed" for an injunction granting access to a "JBE" apartment and money damages. Abel also moved for class certification.
 

JBE maintained a bank account in State Y but had no other business dealing except for occasional ads which it places to advertise its apartments. The "Y" long arm statute is the same in Minnesota. After notice and hearing, the account in Y was attached.
 

A federal statute allows jury trials in this type of case in federal court. Y state law does not provide for jury trials in such cases, otherwise Y procedural rules are the same as the Federal Rules.

    1. What motions are reasonably available to J.B.E. under Rule 12 and discuss the likely outcome.

    2. What is the likely outcome of J.B.E.'s motion to dismiss asserting State Y in an inconvenient forum? Discuss.

    3. The trial court denied Abel's motion for class certification. Abel wishes to appeal since his monetary damages are so slight that he cannot possibly recover the costs of litigation. Was the trial court correct? May Abel appeal? Discuss.

    4. J.B.E. makes a motion to remove the case. Decide the outcome. Describe the procedure to be employed by J.B.E. and Abel.

    5. Assuming a motion to remand is granted, J.B.E. makes a demand for a jury trial. How should the court rule? Discuss.
 

Question III.
 

Arnold and Bates, residents of Mitchell, are plaintiffs in an action brought in United States District Court in the State of Anxiety against Manco, a State of Confusion corporation and Storeco, an Anxiety corporation.
 

Manco's plant and office are in Confusion. Manco has never had an office or salesperson in Anxiety. Storeco's sole place of business is in Anxiety.
 

The complaint alleges that each of the plaintiffs sustained serious injuries when the blade on a power lawn mower broke while it was being demonstrated in Storeco's store. Each plaintiff asked for $50,000.00.
 

The mower had been manufactured by Manco, and shipped to Roe Distributors in Mitchell. Roe had a contract with Manco to act, as exclusive distributor in 12 states including Anxiety and Mitchell. Process was served personally on the President of Manco at his office in Confusion and on Storeco's President in Anxiety.
 

    a. Manco moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. What is the likely outcome? Why?

    b. Storeco files a counterclaim against Arnold for $900.00 allegedly due for merchandise previously sold to Arnold. Discuss Arnold's response and the likely outcome.

    c. Manco filed a claim against Storeco for $12,000.00 for merchandise sold earlier. Discuss Storeco's response and the likely outcome.

    d. Storeco files a claim against Bates for $ 50.00 for damage to the store. Discuss whether Storeco may or must be allowed to being one claim.
 

Question IV.
 

Jones is a resident of State Red. Stanford is a resident of State White. On August 20, 1984 in State White, Jones was allegedly defamed by an article written by Stanford in State White and circulated there. A Red State resident took a copy home and showed it to Jones. The statute of limitations is one year in White and two years in Red.
 

On August 16, 1986, Jones filed suit in Federal Court located in Red. Red applies Minnesota's Long Arm Statute. The complaint set forth "August 10th or thereabouts" as the date of the publication and named one "Sanford" as the defendant. On August 30, while Stanford was visiting his aging mother in Red, just hours before her death, Jones served Stanford with a summons and complaint. On September 1, 1986, Stanford filed a motion to dismiss for failure of personal jurisdiction together with his answer. Jones filed a motion to withdraw his complaint on September 2. The motion was denied.
 

A law professor at a local college, located in White, received a copy of the offending article and told Jones of the effect it had on Jones' reputation at the school. The professor had spoken to several dozen faculty members and had taken detailed notes on their comments. Jones' lawyer asked that copies be forwarded to her for her evaluation. In exchange for a sizeable retainer, the professor agreed to testify about the reputation issues and the falsity of legal conclusions which were in the article. Stanford moved to discover the notes of the professor and the names of the persons he talked to. The motion was denied.
 

On September 1, 1987, Jones sought to amend his complaint to correct the date of publication and the name of the defendant. This was granted over objection. Jones filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the professor's affidavit. Stanford responded by re-alleging his original denials. No expert evidence was offered by Stanford.
 

    a. Was the trial court correct in denying Stanford's motion to dismiss? Discuss.

    b. Was the Court correct in denying Jones' motion to withdraw? Discuss.

    c. Was the Court correct in denying Stanford's motion to discover the notes of the Professor? Discuss.

    d. Was the trial court correct in granting Jones' motion to amend? Discuss.
 

Question V.
 

Meese manufactures a chemical fertilizer which is a derivative of "Agent Mauve," a defoliant which was found to be highly toxic during a recent Southeast Asian War. A large number of farmers (some 1000) agreed to allow Meese to test the new fertilizer over 5 years on demonstration plots in States A and B in exchange for a promotional fee. Meese, a corporation incorporated in State C applied the fertilizer as agreed but failed to pay the promotional fee. The fertilizer failed to work as planned. Due to a manufacturing error, the fields covered with "Agent Mauve" were rendered useless.
 

Farmer Smith brought suit in State A for breach of contract for payment of the promotional fee and for damages arising from the chemical application. Meese failed to answer and a default judgment was entered on January 1, 1987. Farmer Jones brought a separate action in State B asking that Meese be required to clean up the toxic mess and to protect the ground water which is slowly being polluted. Jones filed a motion to use the Smith judgment to prevent re-litigating the issue of liability. The trial court denied the motion. Meese announced that "in recognition of its social responsibility" it would pay a sum of $1,000,000 into account in State C and bring an interpleader action in Federal Court in State C to determine the total liability owed to each farmer and asked that the state proceedings be stayed. The Federal Court rejected Meese s Bill of Interpleader.
 

Jones noticed a deposition of Meese, seeking "quality control procedures and the results of testing." A Meese attorney appeared and objected to the deposition of "experts" employed by Meese. Jones moved for sanctions but the trial court held the information was "privileged" and "based on expert testimony." Meese filed a demand for a jury trial on all issues, which was granted.
 

At trial, the evidence introduced by Jones indicated that the substance in the fields was highly toxic according to numerous tests and that it was already in the groundwater in the region. Meese introduced evidence that strict production controls were used and in the opinion of Meese experts, "could not" be harmful. Meese admitted spraying the fields. Jones moved for directed verdict, which was denied.
 

    a. Was the Court correct in denying the Jones' motion regarding the use of Smith's default judgment? Explain.

    b. Was the Federal Court correct in rejecting Meese's Bill of Interpleader? Discuss.

    c. Describe briefly the procedures which Jones' attorney must have employed prior to the discovery hearing. Was the Court correct? Explain.

    d. Was the jury demand properly granted? Why or why not?

    e. Should Jones' motion for Summary Judgment be granted? Why or why not?
 

Question VI.
 

Following the close of evidence, Jones' argued that the case should not go to the jury. The trial court rejected Jones" argument and after deliberating the jury returned a verdict in favor of Jones with damages of $10.00. Jones argued that the verdict was illogical. Some weeks after the trial, it was discovered that during jury deliberations a juror had brought a sample of "Agent Mauve" fertilizer home from her National Guard training exercises and had reported to jurors that she felt fine and her plants were "growing like crazy."
 

    A. What procedure(s) should Jones' attorney follow to attempt to have the judge decide the case prior to the verdict? Evaluate the judge's ruling.

    B. Following the verdict, what procedural mechanism(s) should Jones' attorney have employed to challenge the verdict? Explain.

    C. What procedural mechanism(s) should Jones' lawyer employ in light of the juror deliberations? Explain.

    D. Can Jones appeal? Explain.
 

543.19 PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER NON-RESIDENTS.
 

Subdivision 1. As to a cause of action arising from any acts enumerated in this subdivision, a court of this state with jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise personal jurisdiction over any foreign corporation or any non-resident individual, or his personal representative in the same manner as if it were a domestic corporation or he were a resident of this state. This section applies, if in person or through an agent, the foreign corporation or non-resident individual:
 

    (a) Owns, uses, or, possesses any real or personal property situated in this state, or

    (b) Transacts any business within the state or

    (c) Commits any act in Minnesota causing injury or property damage, or

    (d) Commits any act outside Minnesota causing injury or property damage in Minnesota subject to the following exceptions; when no jurisdiction shall be found:

        (1) Minnesota has no substantial interest in providing a forum; or

        (2) the burden placed on the defendant by being brought under the state's jurisdiction would violate fairness and substantial justice; or

        (3) the cause of action lies in defamation or privacy.
 

Subd. 2. The service of process on any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court of this state, as provided in this section, may be made by personally serving, the summons upon the defendant outside this state with the same effect as though the summons had been personally served within this state.
 

Sub. 3. Only causes of action arising from acts enumerated in subdivision I may be asserted against a defendant in an action in which jurisdiction over him is based upon this section.
 

Subd. 4. Nothing contained in this section shall limit or affect the right to serve any process in any other manner now or hereafter provided by law or the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.
 

Subd. 5. Non-resident individual as used in this section, means any individual, or his personal representative who is not domiciled or residing in the state when suit is comrnenced.
 

History: 1967 c.427 s.1; 1978 c.780 s.2.