Legal Process
Professor Rhonda Wasserman
Exam from Fall 2005
LEGAL
PROCESS
SECTION B1
Final
Examination Three and ½Hours
December 15, 2005 9:00 AM - 12:30 PM
THIS EXAMINATION MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROCTOR WITH YOUR SCANTRON ANSWER SHEET AND BLUEBOOK(S)
INSTRUCTIONS
This is an open-book exam. The exam consists of ten (10) multiple choice questions and one (1) essay question with two (2) sub-parts. Suggested time limits, which reflect the relative weight of each sub-part or group of questions, in the case of the multiple choice questions, are indicated at the beginning of each sub-part or group of questions. Although the exam is three and one half hours long, the suggested time limits total three hours. You should use the remaining half hour to read through the essay portion of the exam before you start writing. You should apportion your time carefully.
This exam has fourteen (14) pages. If you do not have all fourteen pages, please inform the proctor immediately.
Please write your exam number in the space provided in the upper right-hand corner of each page of the exam and be sure to return the exam to the proctor at the conclusion of the exam. Please be sure to include your exam number in the appropriate space on the Scantron answer sheet for the multiple choice questions and on the cover of each blue book that you use to answer the essay questions. Do not include your name. If you use more than one blue book, please number your blue books (e.g., "1 of 3," "2 of 3," and "3 of 3"). When answering the essay questions, please write legibly and on every other line and on only one side of each page.
When answering the multiple choice questions on the Scantron answer sheet, please use a No. 2 pencil to facilitate the machine-grading of your answers. Each of the multiple choice questions will be weighted equally. Except where otherwise expressly provided, the facts of each multiple choice question stand on their own.
When answering the essay question, please raise, discuss, and decide all issues presented, whether or not they are dispositive, and whether or not your resolution of one issue in a problem makes discussion of other issues in the same problem technically unnecessary. If you need to assume additional facts, please state what those facts are and how they affect your analysis.
If a rule of procedure, statute, or constitutional provision is relevant, you should refer to it specifically. You are encouraged to refer to other relevant authority, including cases. You should explain fully the relevance of all authority cited. Unless otherwise indicated in the exam question, all references to a "Rule" or the "Rules" are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Best of luck, and enjoy the holidays!
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
Suggested Time: 60 minutes (6 minutes per question)
[the multiple choice questions have been omitted from the web]
ESSAY QUESTION
As they do every year, Harold and Maude and their three sons -- Eric, Scott and Benny -- drove to New Jersey to celebrate Thanksgiving with Maude's family of origin. This year, the celebration was bittersweet because Maude's parents were moving to a smaller house and this would be the last opportunity Maude and her family would have to stay in her parents' beloved family home. The kids decided to make the most of the visit doing all the things they love to do at their grandparents' house: collect acorns outside, play football on the big lawn, race around the house, play the piano and watch lots of cable television. (As underprivileged children, they don't have cable TV at home. Sigh.) The crowd at Thanksgiving dinner was huge: Maude, Harold and their kids; Maude's parents; her sister; her brother and his wife and their two kids; and another large extended family (of six adults and four kids) with whom Maude's clan celebrates Thanksgiving every year. The meal was stupendous: stuffed mushrooms; shrimp cocktail; turkey and stuffing, mashed potatoes; several types of homemade cranberry sauce; fresh rolls; cauliflower; health salad; and, of course, wonderful pies and other desserts.
For the kids, dessert was not complete without a special treat that one of the family friends -- Susan -- brings every year to Thanksgiving dinner: chocolate turkeys! Susan, a citizen of New Jersey, owns a successful business in New York. Every year, Susan goes to a fancy candy store in New York to buy beautiful, foil-wrapped chocolate turkeys for all of the kids. (Each year on the drive from Pittsburgh to New Jersey, Maude's kids ask whether Susan is coming to Thanksgiving dinner. . . just to be sure the trip will be worthwhile.) Eight of the nine kids in attendance at Thanksgiving dinner gobbled up the turkeys as soon as Susan handed them out. One of the kids -- Eric -- was too full to eat the chocolate turkey on Thanksgiving Day. Eric decided to wait to eat his chocolate turkey until he returned home to Pittsburgh, where he resides with his family.
The long ride back to Pittsburgh was uneventful. At dinner that evening, Eric decided to eat his chocolate turkey for dessert. Unfortunately, he became violently ill shortly after ingesting the chocolate turkey. Maude took him to the local hospital in Pittsburgh. The emergency room doctors were unable to diagnose the problem and Eric had to be admitted and observed for several days. He was in severe pain throughout the hospital stay. The doctors ran many expensive and invasive tests. Ultimately, the doctors concluded that Eric was suffering from a severe case of food poisoning caused by the chocolate turkey. The doctors further concluded that Eric would have ongoing digestive problems for an indeterminate period of time. Eric has required ongoing medical care from a pediatric gastroenterologist in Pittsburgh and has been forced to adhere to a restrictive diet, which he detests.
Susan bought the chocolate turkeys at a fancy candy shop located on Madison Avenue in New York called Charley's Chocolates ("CC"). CC is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York. CC makes the chocolate turkeys on site in New York by melting chocolate morsels, mixing them with other ingredients, pouring the liquid chocolate mixture into turkey molds and packaging the turkeys in foil wrappers once the turkeys are fully cooled. CC purchases the foil wrappers from a foil manufacturer in California. CC buys the chocolate morsels used to make the chocolate turkeys (and all its other chocolates) from Choco, a chocolate supplier incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
CC's annual gross income is $1,500,000. For each of the past five years, CC has purchased approximately $250,000 in chocolate morsels from Choco (in twelve equal monthly shipments made on the first Monday of each month).
CC sells the chocolate turkeys only in the Madison Avenue store. In addition to the chocolate turkeys, CC sells many other chocolate candies, including a line of chocolate bunnies. CC manufactures many more chocolate bunnies than it can sell in its Madison Avenue shop. Accordingly, it sells approximately $500,000 worth of chocolate bunnies each year to Basketco, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut. Basketco distributes ready-made Easter baskets to retail stores throughout the Northeast. The beautiful baskets include chocolate bunnies, marshmallow bunnies, jelly beans and other Easter candies, along with fake green "grass." Each year, Basketco provides CC with a statement, which reports, by city, all sales of Basketco Easter baskets containing CC chocolate bunnies. For the past several years, Basketco has sold approximately one-quarter (¼) of all its Easter baskets to retail stores in Pennsylvania.
As the legal representative of her son Eric, Maude filed suit against CC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In her complaint, Maude alleged that CC was strictly liable in tort for the defective chocolate turkey and the resulting illness and medical complications suffered by Eric. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in excess of $75,000. CC was served with a copy of the summons and complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For purposes of both subparts of the essay question, please assume that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate all claims presented and that venue is proper.
SUBPART
A
(60 minutes)
For purposes of Subpart A only, please assume that the Pennsylvania long-arm statute authorizes personal jurisdiction over "a nonresident who, either in person or through an agent, commits a tortious act within this state." CC has made a motion to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Should the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grant the motion? Why or why not? Please explain your answer fully.
SUBPART
B
(60 minutes)
For purposes of Subpart B only, please assume that the district court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. CC very much doubts that Eric's illness was caused by the chocolate turkey. After all, none of the eight children who ate the chocolate turkeys on Thanksgiving Day became ill even though Susan bought all of the turkeys on the same day, and none of its other customers has complained about a chocolate turkey-induced food poisoning incident. If, however, CC's chocolate turkey did cause Eric's illness, CC believes that there must have been something wrong with some of the chocolate morsels it purchased from Choco. CC would like to bring an indemnification claim against Choco in the context of Maude's lawsuit against CC. In other words, CC believes that if it is found liable to Maude, then Choco should be found liable to CC. CC does not want to have to wait until after Maude's suit is over before bringing its claim against Choco; it wants to bring the indemnification claim in the same suit as Maude's claim against it.
Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a defendant to join as a third-party defendant "a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff." (This rule is the federal analogue to the state rule invoked by Cheng Shin to join Asahi as a third-party defendant in the Asahi case.) Rule 14's liberal standard for joinder of third parties is designed "to avoid [] unnecessary duplication and circuity of action" and to ensure "efficient allocation of judicial resources." Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC, 166 F.3d 389, 395 (1st Cir. 1999).
A Pennsylvania statute provides that a defendant may join a third-party defendant to seek contribution or indemnification "if and only if the plaintiff in the principal action agrees." Under the Pennsylvania statute, if the plaintiff does not consent to the joinder of the third-party defendant, the defendant may still obtain contribution or indemnification but not until after judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff in the principal case. In other words, if the plaintiff withholds consent, the defendant must bring its contribution or indemnification claim against the prospective third-party defendant in a second lawsuit following the conclusion of the plaintiff's action against the defendant. The Pennsylvania law is designed to reinforce the plaintiff autonomy rule, which vests the plaintiff with significant control over the size and scope of her lawsuit.
CC has made a motion seeking leave to file a third-party complaint against Choco in the context of Maude's suit against it. Maude opposes the motion, arguing that the district court must apply the Pennsylvania law, which prohibits the joinder of a third-party defendant unless the plaintiff consents. Maude has withheld her consent to the joinder of Choco for two reasons: first, because Choco is a beloved Pennsylvania company and she is afraid that a Pennsylvania jury will rule against her if it knows that Choco ultimately will have to pay the judgment; and second, because she fears joinder of Choco would delay discovery and require a postponement of the scheduled trial date.
How should the court rule on CC's motion to file a third-party complaint against Choco? Please explain your answer fully.