Civil Procedure Keyed to Coundback
0 of 3 questions completed
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to pass the previous Module’s quiz in order to start this quiz:
you have successfully completed the quiz.
Paul sued his employer, Acme Corporation, in the proper U.S. District Court in State X, claiming that (1) Dan (an Acme supervisor) had defamed him by informing the president of Acme that Dan was an ineffectual employee, and that this statement was within the scope of Dan’s employment at Acme, and (2) Acme owed Dan $15,000 in unused vacation pay.
As a consequence of both harms, Paul claimed damages in the aggregate amount of $80,000. Acme responded to Paul’s complaint on the ground that Dan was an indispensable party and that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking since the two claims aggregated by Paul to satisfy the “in excess of $75,000” requirement did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. (You may assume that the court could not obtain personal jurisdiction over Dan.) This motion was denied. Acme then filed an answer that admitted Dan’s statement, but denied that it was made within the scope of Dan’s employment and asserted the affirmative defense of truth. Paul then filed a summary judgment motion, with his personal supporting affidavit, describing facts that demonstrated that he had performed his job competently. Acme failed to respond to Paul’s summary judgment motion.
Assume for the purposes of this question that (1) Paul never made a motion for summary judgment, (2) the jury rendered a general verdict in favor of Acme, and (3) the mutuality rule has been repudiated in this jurisdiction.
If Paul now sues Dan (claiming the latter had defamed him), what can Dan assert? Would it be successful?Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.
You may assume that this jurisdiction has abandoned the “mutuality rule” pertaining to collateral estoppel. Paul is the executor of the estate of Carol. Paul files an action on behalf of the estate in the applicable state court against Doris (Carol’s nurse) alleging that Doris converted Carol’s money. Although Doris was authorized to deposit funds into Carol’s account at the local bank (“Bank”), Paul claims that Doris also withdrew funds for her own use. At trial, the jury found that Carol had made an inter vivos gift to Doris of the money in question. Thereafter, Paul commenced an action against Bank in the applicable U.S. District Court, alleging that Carol did not authorize the withdrawals by Doris, and therefore Bank had breached its contractual relationship with Carol.
Does issue preclusion preclude liability?Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.
Jake owns Scarsdale, a palatial residence. Bob owns the adjoining residence. One day Mike, Bob’s butler, started a fire on Bob’s estate to burn some excess rubbish. Unfortunately, the fire got out of control, and burned down Jake’s residence. It also caused considerable damage to the rest of Scarsdale. Jake sustained some injuries and was hospitalized for ten days. Jake files an action against Bob, in which he seeks damages in excess of $300,000 for property loss caused by the fire.
If Jake obtains a judgment against Bob, and then sues Mike, will the judgment against Bob bind Mike in any subsequent lawsuits?Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.