INSTRUCTIONS
 

Please limit your answer to 2 or 3 paragraphs for each subpart (Ia, Ib, etc.). Clearly identify each subpart and begin each new question (I, II, III, IV, V) on a new page.

Each question is weighted evenly; there are 100 total points on the exam. If you have questions that Prof. Kirwin cannot answer, please note the question on the exam and finish the exam.
 
 

Question I. (20%)
 

3N is a corporation, incorporated in Delaware, with a sales office in Minnesota and the 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, maintains 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. (Note statute at end of exam.)
 

3N filed a petition for removal from the state court to federal 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 motion 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.

    A. May 3N be sued in Minnesota state court? Why or why not?

    B. Was the removal petition properly granted? why or why not?

    C. Assuming the removal petition was properly granted, was the change of venue to Delaware proper? Why or why not?

    D. Assuming all previous issues were properly decided, was the notice sufficient? Why or why not?

    E. Was the motion to dismiss the Jones case properly granted on the facts as stated? Why or why not?
 
 
 
 

Question II. (20%)
 

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 stuck by another car driven by Bruce, Ralph's former business partner. Ralph that Bruce was a resident of Minneapolis. He filed a complaint in Federal court in Minnesota against Bruce alleging

property damage and physical injuries in the amount of $55,000. Bruce brought a claim against Ralph for contributory negligence of $5,000 and a contract claim for $15,000 arising from their former business. The trial court permitted joinder of all claims.
 

John, a resident of Minnesota, brought a motion to intervene as a defendant. 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 production, 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 the witnesses were not given copies of their statements and could no longer recall the contents. The motion was denied.

    A. Was John's motion to intervene properly decided? Why or why not?

    B. Were Bruce's claims against Ralph properly joined? Why or why not?

    C. Was Bruce's motion to compel production properly decided? Why or why not?

    D. Was Ralph's motion to compel production properly denied? Why or why not?

    E. Describe the procedure that Bruce will employ should Ralph fail to comply.
 

Question III. (20%)
 

Joyce, a deaf citizen of the State of Racine filed a complaint in Federal Court on November 8, 1989 alleging denial of Due Process in Count I; in Count II, use of excessive force; in Count III, a violation of a state statue 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, 1987. 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, 1987 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, 1990 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, 1987 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 State of Racine does not provide for jury trials in cases in which injunctive relief is at issue. The case went forward on the Due Process claim and was tried before a judge over plaintiff's objection.
 

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. The motion was denied and plaintiff has appealed. Discuss the following rulings of the trial court:

    A. Was the ruling on the amended Complaint as to parties correct? Why or why not?

    B. Was the ruling rejecting Counts II and III for lack of subject matter jurisdiction correct? Why or why not?

    C. Was the ruling rejecting the added claims as time-barred correct? Why or why not?

    D. Was the court correct in the use of collateral estoppel? Why or why not?

    E. Was the motion for a new trial correctly denied? Why or why not?
 

Question IV. (20%)
 

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 State Court for $6,500 due on a promissory note not related to the car 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 in which the plaintiff files a request with the clerk and is automatically granted a writ of attachment. 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).

    A. Can Forum properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Delta? Why or why not?

    B. Was the service of process proper with respect to Delta? Why or why not?

    C. In Delta v. Buyer, can Buyer rely on the default judgment as a defense? Why or why not?

    D. Assuming the preceding questions are answered in favor of Delta, what procedural steps might Delta employ to set aside the Forum judgment?

    E. How must service of process over Buyer be accomplished? why?
 

Question V. (20%)
 

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 on summary judgment prior to trial? Would they succeed? Why or why not?

    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?