Examination in

FEDERAL JURISDICTION

PROFESSOR ERIC S. JANUS

FALL 1997

General Instructions:

This is a take home examination. Your answer must be returned to the Student Services Office at William Mitchell College of Law no later than 72 hours after you picked the exam up. Exceptions: (a) If your exam would be due on Saturday afternoon after Student Services closes, or on Sunday, then your exam must be turned in to Student Services during the first hour of business on the following Monday. (b) If you wish your 72 hours to begin on Sunday, you may pick the exam up at Student Services during the last hour of business on the preceding Saturday. If you do not begin work on the exam until Sunday, then you may return the exam to Student Services during the first hour of business on Wednesday.

This examination consists of 7 pages, numbered sequentially, counting this page. If you are missing any pages, contact the Student Services Office at once.

After you have opened the envelope containing the exam, you may not use or refer to any materials other than: the assigned casebook, class notes, class handouts, outlines and other materials which you have personally participated in preparing. After you have opened the examination envelope, you may not discuss this exam or any federal jurisdiction issues with anyone else.

Your examination answer must be typed. It must not exceed 12 pages of doubled spaced type with normal margins. Material in excess of stated page limits will not be considered in grading.

The examination has two parts. Each has equal weight in the grade. Part I requires you to write an essay which may be no longer than 6 pages. The essay will be evaluated on the following factors: breadth and depth of understanding exhibited, organization and clarity, incisiveness and originality of thought and analysis.

Part II of the exam consists of a single factual situation. You are to write an essay not longer than 6 pages discussing the issues of federal court jurisdiction which arise out of or concern these facts. This answer will be evaluated on its completeness, organization, analytical clarity, and depth. Further instructions about this part of the exam are stated below.

Part I. Answer the following question. Limit your answer to this part to no more than 6 typed pages, double spaced.

Question:

A great theme informing the law of federal courts concerns the allocation of responsibility for the enforcement of federally protected rights. Three major arenas in which this theme has played out are state sovereign immunity, section 1983, and Younger abstention. Write an essay (a) comparing the allocation of responsibility as it has developed in each of these areas, and (b) assessing whether there is a set of principles that can coherently explain the varying ways in which the Supreme Court has allocated this responsibility in these arenas.

Part II.

Instructions

In this part you are given one factual situation. Your answer, which may not exceed 6 double-spaced, typed pages, should identify the federal jurisdiction issues arising from or concerning this factual situation, and discuss and analyze those issues. Your answer should discuss not only those issues which were raised by the parties, but also those which could have been or could in the future be raised in the lawsuits described.

You may choose to structure your answer in one of two ways. Method 1: Identify all issues, and give approximately equal emphasis to discussion and analysis of each of the issues. Method 2: Identify all issues, but give disproportionate emphasis in your answer to one or more issues which you consider to be most difficult or complex. If you choose this option, your answer should explain why the issue(s) you have chosen to focus on are most difficult or complex. In either case, you "identify" an issue by naming the doctrine or area of law (e.g., "diversity jurisdiction"), pointing out which facts implicate that doctrine or area of law (e.g., plaintiff and defendant are both citizens of Minnesota), and briefly stating the legal problem or issue raised by the application of the doctrine or law to the facts (e.g., whether complete diversity is required by §1332). The object is to state the issue in a way which demonstrates to the reader that you have an understanding of the operation of the doctrine or area of law and its application to the facts.

In the event you conclude that some portion of the facts is ambiguous, incomplete, or logically inconsistent, please follow this procedure: Note in your answer the ambiguity, incompleteness or inconsistency. Then, make an assumption or extension of the facts which will enable you to answer the question in a manner which meaningfully demonstrates your knowledge of the subject matter. State in your answer the assumption or extension you are making.

Facts:

The State of Williams has the following law:

Williams Protection of Children Act

Section 100. Every commercial or industrial establishment located within 1000 feet of a school, day care center, or place of worship must have in place policies that insure that mentally disordered employees, customers, residents or patients of the establishment will not cause any harm to the children of said school, day care center, or the members of the place of worship.

Section 200. The Commissioner of Public Safety shall promulgate rules implementing Section 100. A violation of those rules shall constitute a violation of this Act.

Section 300. Any establishment that violates section 100, or Rules promulgated pursuant to Section 200, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable in an action in damages to any person harmed thereby. Damages under this section shall not exceed $75,000.

Section 400. In any action concerning the provisions of this Act (sections 100-400), trial shall be to the court without a jury, and no court shall have jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment regarding the adequacy of any plan under section 100.

Pursuant to the Protection of Children Act, the Williams Commissioner of Public Safety promulgates the following rule:

Rule 1000. No commercial or industrial establishment, located within 1000 feet of a school, day care center, or place of worship, may employ or house any person who has, or has a history of, schizophrenia or bipolar affective disorder.

The following is a law of the United States:

42 U.S. Code, Section 1997.

(a) No state or person under color of state law shall discriminate against any person with physical or mental handicaps.

(b) Any person or corporation aggrieved by a violation of paragraph (a) may bring an action for legal or equitable relief. The federal district courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction of such actions.

In lawsuit I, A, B, and C sue the Williams Commissioner of Public Safety and the State of Williams in federal district court. A has been threatened with prosecution by the Commissioner for violation of the Protection of Children Act. B is currently being prosecuted for violating the act, and C was prosecuted in the past under the act and convicted. She is not appealing her conviction. They seek injunctions against the enforcement of Rule 1000 on the grounds that it violates section 1997 and goes beyond the authority granted to the Commissioner under the Protection of Children Act. C also seeks damages for violations of her rights arising from the prosecution and conviction. All seek a preliminary injunction against prosecution. The court denies the preliminary injunctions.

In Lawsuit II, E sues the Commissioner of Public Safety and the State of Williams in federal district court. E's suit is a class action brought on behalf of all individuals with, or who have a history of, schizophrenia or bipolar affective disorder who, as a result of Rule 1000, were terminated from, denied, or otherwise prejudiced in their employment. E seeks an injunction against the enforcement of Rule 1000 on the grounds that it violates the 14th amendment equal protection clause, and is beyond the authority granted to the Commissioner under the Protection of Children Act. E further seeks an injunction requiring the defendants to notify all affected employers of the invalidity of Rule 1000, and to provide training and other remedial services to members of the class to enable them to perform their employment duties at the level they would have been at had it not been for the discrimination of Rule 1000.

M Corporation has a manufacturing plant in the State of Williams, located within 1000 feet of a day care center. M has 10 plants in 10 different states. Its corporate headquarters is located in West Virginia. It is incorporated in Wisconsin. Its Williams plant is the largest of the 10 plants. M's Williams plant manufactures war simulation software under a procurement contract with the U.S. Navy.

In Lawsuit III, F, a citizen of West Virginia, sues M Corporation in Williams State District Court. F's complaint seeks damages under the Protection of Children Act, in the amount of $75,000, and damages under a common law state tort claim of $100,000. M removes the case to Federal Court. F moves to remand. The Court denies the motion. M seeks a jury trial.

In Lawsuit IVa, G, a citizen of Williams, files a lawsuit in Williams State District Court against M, seeking damages on the grounds that M employed S, in violation of Rule 1000, and that S caused harm to G's child. M raises, as a defense, that Rule 1000 violates section 1997. M then immediately files lawsuit IVb against G. This is a lawsuit filed in Federal District Court. M seeks a declaratory judgment that Rule 1000 violates section 1997. It also seeks a declaration that Rule 1000 is beyond the authority of the Commissioner under state law, and is therefore void. G moves to dismiss the state law claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the unavailability of declaratory judgment, and asks the court to abstain because of the pendency of the parallel state court action. The Court denies all motions. Subsequently, the State Court strikes M's defense from its answer, giving two grounds: First, defenses based on federal law must be "stated with particularity." M's defense, the court says, was stated in an impermissibly conclusory fashion. Second, on the merits of the defense, the court states that the term "mental handicap" in section 1997 does not include schizophrenia or bipolar affective disorder. After trial, the state court enters judgment for damages against M. On appeal to the Williams State Supreme Court, the Court affirms in all respects. With respect to the striking of the federal-law defense, the Court says: "Our normal pleading rules allow statements of claims and defenses to be 'short and plain.' Certain defenses, however, must be stated with particularity. Under our Rule 8(b), fraud and mistake must be stated with particularity. We now announce that federal defenses must follow the particularity rule, since federal defenses are akin to fraud defenses." M seeks review of the state court judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court.

After the commencement of lawsuit I, but before discovery, the state commences a prosecution under section 300 against A.

N Corporation is a Williams Corporation with its principle place of business in Williams. In lawsuit V, H, a citizen of Williams, sues the Directors and Officers of N in Williams State District Court. Most of the defendants are citizens of Williams, but one is a citizen of the State of Washington. The suit is a shareholders derivative suit, in which the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. The essence of the claim made in the suit is this: The Officers and Directors have violated their fiduciary duty to N Corp. by allowing the company to discharge mentally handicapped employees (in compliance with Rule 1000). The discharges violate their fiduciary duty because the discharges subject the company to liability under section 1997. The defendants remove to Federal District Court. The plaintiff moves to remand to state court.

End of Exam

Notice re:

FEDERAL JURISDICTION

PROFESSOR ERIC S. JANUS

FALL 1997