Law 501 Civil Procedure For Assessment Answers

Q2. Penelope drove from her home in Minneapolis to visit her brother, Ilia, an attorney living in Chicago, Illinois. On the way, Penelope stopped to get her brakes tightened at Don’s Tune-Ups Inc., which is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business and only shop in Eastern Wisconsin. After Don’s Tune-Ups Inc., finished its work on her car, Penelope continued driving toward Chicago. After she passed into Northern Illinois, however, Penelope was seriously injured in a crash resulting from the failure of her brakes. Penelope files a tort claim in the Northern District of Illinois against Don’s Tune Ups Inc. The defendant files the following motions: 1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 2) a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; 3) motion to dismiss for improper venue; 4) an alternative motion to transfer for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. How should the court rule on each of these four motions?

Q3. Paulie sued Damascus Corporation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination. Paulie worked as a carpenter for Damascus Construction Company for the last three years. A position for a shift-manager opened up, and Pablo applied for the promotion; he was not given the job. In his complaint, Pablo asserted that the only reason he was not given the job was because he was too attractive. Pablo stated that he was the most qualified applicant, and that he had been with the company the longest of all applicants.

i) Damascus denied all the allegations in the complaint and filed the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Following the grant of the motion, Damascus filed a motion seeking sanctions under Rule 11(b). Can the court rule on this motion?

ii) Assume for this question only, that the judge granted Damascus’ motion, and his order, included an offer for show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed for a violation under Rule 11(b)(2). Assume there is no legal claim under Title VII for discrimination for being too good looking. Has the court followed the proper procedures under Rule 11(c)(3)?

Q4. On Match 30, 2017, Attari, a cement truck driver, was electrocuted when his truck’s boom contacted an overhead power line while transferring concrete from his truck to a pumper truck. Attari, a resident of Houston, Texas, died at the site of the accident. His wife, Janice Attari, filed a wrongful death action against Amigo Energy Company, a Tennessee corporation, alleging negligent maintenance and operation of the power line that caused Attari’s death. The lawsuit claiming $2.5 million in damages was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Amigo Energy filed an answer to the complaint and immediately impleaded Tasco Equipment Company, incorporated in New Mexico, alleging that Tasco, the company that built the power line pillars was negligent in the erection of the pillars, as a result of which Attari was killed. After Amigo Energy impleaded Tasco, Janice Attari amended her complaint to assert a claim against Tasco for $1 million dollars.

i) Will Janice Attari’s claim against Tasco prevail?

ii) How would your answer differ if Tasco was incorporated in Texas, and not New Mexico? Please explain fully.

Q5. Mona Lisa Vito, a resident of New York, enrolled in Nationwide Vocational School’s (NVS) automotive service technician program in August 2017 and was the program’s only female member. Vito alleged that Johnny Gambino, one of the school’s instructors, began a campaign of sexual and gender-based harassment, threatening behavior, unwanted touching, and verbal abuse against her. Vito made repeated complaints to the school’s director, Rosalie Moretti, but the situation did not improve, instead, it worsened. Vito hired a well-known lawyer, Rusty Hardin, to represent her, and decided to sue Gambino and the vocational school in a Houston district court. She chose to sue in Texas because NVS is incorporated there, and it seemed convenient since she was doing her 18-month program at the school. Gambino, a permanent resident of New Jersey, was brought to the Houston location on a temporary basis because of his expertise as an electric systems technician. Vito claimed $175,000 in damages from each defendant. Both defendants were served, ad NVS immediately filed a Notice of Removal to the U.S. Southern District Court, which was properly joined by Gambino. Vito filed a Motion to Remand to the Texas district court. How should the court rule?

Answers

1.

• Court may accept the objection made by Denial regarding the improper venue as per the Rule 12(b)(3)  because the suit can be filed at the place where contract has been initiated or at the place where the party in default resides (Barriage, Harger, & de la Peña McCook, 2016).
• Court only may allow an alternative motion to the place at where the defendant is practicing his business or he resides.
• Court may also dismiss the suit on the basis of improper jurisdiction of lawsuit. Patricia cannot file the case at Arizona due to the reason that Arizona law would be more favorable to her (Barriage, Harger, & de la Peña McCook, 2016).

• As per the rule 12(b) (3), it is suggested that the Court if satisfied may accept the fact and dismiss the case by considering the lack of subject matter. It is the best defense mechanism use by the parties at any point of litigation.
• Court shall consider that whether the trial Court has the power to entertain the suit or not. On the basis of that point Court may dismiss the lawsuit.
• It is a different concept from jurisdiction; it is the location of court where the trial of case initiated. In case of improper venue, the Court may transfer the case to the proper venue instead of dismiss the case.
• Court may take the action to transfer the case at Court of Wisconsin as the case can be filed at the place of business of defendant (Hamm, 2017).

3. i) The civil Rights Act states that any discrimination on the basis of color, race, sex, religion and national origin will not be accepted in any field. The given case is related to the racial segregation. Pablo is good looking guy and it becomes a hurdle for him in his employment. Irrelevant of the fact that he is the most qualified candidate for such job. The reason and discrimination defined by Pablo is not justified and mentioned in the provision of Civil rights (Hamm, 2017).

ii) Court may at its discretion be able to order the defendant to show cause for the rejection of Pablo from appointment. However the Rule has no provisions for such matter but the discrimination has been occurred against the Pablo. Thus Court can call for the proper reason showing non-discrimination with Pablo at any place of appointment (Barriage, Harger, & de la Peña McCook, 2016).

4. i) As per the FRCP 12(b) (3) it is found that Janice Attari can claim against Tasco and the claim will prevail because Tasco is the actual defendant in the case. If during the trial or judicial proceedings new facts get revealed then the plaintiff can file the suit against the revealed defendant. Janice can file against Tasco at the place where its business place is situated or at the place where the event has occurred ((Henslee, 2015).

ii) If Tasco was incorporated in Texas then Janice could file the case in the Court having jurisdiction of Texas. In that case the law of Texas would be more favorable for Janice as that is her native place ((Atlas, 2015).

5. As per the rule 12(b) (3), it is suggested that court may entertain the trial at Texas because NVS is incorporated there but the other defendant does not fall under the jurisdiction of Court of Texas. Hence Court on its discretion can decide the proper jurisdiction of the matter and transfer the case in appropriate jurisdiction (Cho, & Smith, 2015).

References

Atlas, A. G. (2015). Who Says You Can't Go Home: Retroactivity in a Post-Daimler World. Cornell L. 1(2) 101, 1597.

Barriage, S., Harger, E., & de la Peña McCook, K. (2016). Union Library Worker Blog: 2016 Review. Progressive Librarian,1, (45), 135.

Cho, S., & Smith, J. (2015). Chen v. Major League Baseball: Hybrid Collective Action under Rule 23 and the Fair Labor Standards Act 216 (b). Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 25(2), 154-175.

Coleman, B. D. (2016). One Percent Procedure. Wash. L. 1(2), 1005.

Hamm, R. (2017). Off the Streets: The Origins of the Doctrine of Commercial Speech. American Journal of Legal History, 57(4), 495-520.

Henslee, E. (2015). Down the Rabbit Role: E-Books and User Privacy in the 21st Century. Creighton L. Rev., 49, 23.

Morley, M. T. (2017). Nationwide Injunctions, Rule 23 (b)(2), and the Remedial Powers of the Lower Courts. BUL Rev., 97, 615.

Silberman, L. J., Stein, A. R., & Wolff, T. B. (2017). Civil Procedure: Theory and Practice. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.