Assignment 3

Instructions

Again, work in groups and submit a single assignment for your team.  Here's what I recommend.   Everyone should write out their 2 page outlines on Res Judicata.  Then, meet with your team and try to answer these questions in an exam-like condition.   10 minutes for each question is very, very generous.  Ideally, you can pace yourself closer to 5 minutes.  Type out succinct but complete essay answers.

After everyone's done, compare your answers.  Try to learn from each other's weaknesses and strengths. Then, try to produce the "best" composite answer for each question, which is what you should turn into me.

Due date:  Monday, November 17, 5 p.m.

Res Judicata Problems

1.   During her Los Angeles vacation, Paula falls off a MTA bus and breaks her leg because the bus driver started driving before she completely stepped off. As Paula clutches her leg in pain, she stumbles for a few feet, makes it to the curb, then falls into a sinkhole caused by MTA construction and also breaks her arm. Paula files suit against the MTA in California state court and wins a jury verdict on the theory that the bus driver started driving too soon. Six weeks later, Paula files suit against the MTA for damages to her arm caused by the tumble into the sinkhole.  MTA raises the affirmative defense of claim preclusion and moves for a judgment on the pleadings. What result?

2.  Peter contracts with ArtCorp for DaVinci's Mona Lisa. Peter offers to pay the purchase price, but ArtCorp refuses. Peter sues for breach of contract in the central district of California, wins a jury verdict, and the court orders specific performance as relief (i.e. ArtCorp must hand over the Mona Lisa to Peter). Subsequently, Peter brings a second suit against ArtCorp, this time in California state court, for incidental damages suffered in delaying a scheduled unveiling of the Mona Lisa. ArtCorp raises claim preclusion. What result?

3.   Alicia is taking batting practice. The mechanical pitcher fires a wild pitch at Alicia's head. She dives out of the way, throwing her bat in the process, which strikes Billy, her friend, in the knees. Alicia sues the manufacturer of the mechanical pitcher on a negligence theory for injuries (including a broken nose). Billy testifies as a witness on Alicia's behalf. Alicia wins a jury verdict. Billy then sues the manufacturer for his knee injuries. What res judicata possibilities in Billy's suit?

4.  Pam slipped off of a ladder manufactured by Acme Ladder.  She sues Acme in Arizona state court on a negligence theory.  The Acme Ladder moves for summary judgment on two grounds, that it did not manufacture the ladder and that there was no genuine issue of material fact that there was no negligence in the ladder's manufacture.  The judge grants summary judgment to Acme Ladder finding specifically that Acme was indeed the manufacturer but that there was no evidence of negligence worth taking to the jury.  Two months later, Pam sues Acme Ladder again, but this time raises the theory of products liability.   Acme Ladder again moves for summary judgment based on claim preclusion, that it was not the manufacturer, and that there was no defect.  Pam files a cross motion for summary judgment on the issue that Acme Ladder was indeed the manufacturer of the ladder, invoking issue preclusion.  What result on the preclusion issues?

[This last one's tricky, and you'll be more comfortable answering it after studying Joinder, but take a shot.]

5.  As Ann is roller-blading down Hilgard Ave., she is struck simultaneously by Bob on a bicycle and Charles in a car. Ann sues  both Bob and Charles as co-defendants for negligence. In his defense, Bob argues only that he was (1) not negligent, and (2) Ann was contributorily negligent. Charles, in his defense, argues only that he was (1) not negligent, and (2) Ann was contributorily negligent. The jury renders a verdict in favor of Bob, but against Charles.   
    a. Which Rule allows A to join B and C as defendants?
    b. In a subsequent suit, Bob sues Charles for negligence. Charles argues that he is (1) not neglient, and (2) Bob was contributorily negligent. Could Bob have raised this claim against Charles in the first suit? What Rule, if any, permits this?
    c. Charles argues claim preclusion against Bob. What result?
    d. Can Bob use issue preclusion to his advantage? Is this mutual or non-mutual? Offensive or defensive?