FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE ONE

............... PROBLEM #1

................................................................................... PART ONE: Note: The course problems typically require a review of the last few weeks of material. Alternatively, instead of doing so in smaller units, you can wait until finals week to review the entire course(s). Capite? Able lives in Nevada. Baker lives in New York. Charlie lives in California. They decide to market a new 686 prototype computer chip in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. They plan to generate enough revenue to undertake a second stage of marketing development further south in the Georgia/Florida area. Dave, an employee of Deftco, Inc. hears about this chip and AB&C's related marketing plan. Dave decides to "rip it off" so that he and a friend can use it to sell the chip throughout South America. Dave's friend, Fredrico, is a citizen of Argentina. Dave lives in Arizona. Able, Baker, and Charlie begin to market their chip when a strikingly similar chip begins to appear all over South America. They therefore sue Dave, Fredrico, and Deftco in federal court. Deftco is an Arizona corporation doing much of its business in California and New York. Abe, Baker, and Charlie's lawyer alleges that her clients have suffered an unspecified measure of damages that is "within the court's jurisdiction." The lawyer thus sues in federal court--alleging Federal Question jurisdiction, because the chips are being sold in interstate commerce, and Diversity of Citizenship jurisdiction. Question 1: Does the court have jurisdiction to hear this case?

.................................................................................  PART TWO: The plaintiffs amend their complaint to add defendant George who is domiciled in California. This amendment also seeks a specific amount in controversy against all defendants of $100,000,000.00. This amount is for alleged losses incurred prior to the filing of the complaint--and that more damages will be proven by the time of trial. The amendment contains allegations charging that certain "Doe" defendants, in the chain of distributing the misappropriated 686 chip, have also harmed the plaintiffs in the same way as charged against the named defendants. The defendants' lawyer makes a motion to dismiss on several bases, including that this case could not possibly be worth the amount alleged and should thus be dismissed. The defendants' motion further points out that there is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The plaintiffs respond that George moved to California after the filing of the complaint. Further, the amendment's failure to fully allege the charging allegations to include the names of those absent "Doe" defendants effectively deprives the court of jurisdiction because one or more may be domiciled in the same state as one or more of the plaintiffs. Question 2: Does the court have Diversity Jurisdiction?

............................................................................... PART THREE: Abe, Baker, and Charlie amend the above federal complaint against Deftco. Assume that D's principal place of business is in Arizona. The new complaint seeks $40,000.00 for the tort of interference with contractual relations (arising under state law) and $40,000.00 for Deftco's attempt to monopolize the new 686 chip industry (arising under federal antitrust law). Question 3: Would the federal court have jurisdiction to hear the amended complaint ....................against Deftco and Parentco?

Problem Page
Course Page
Home Page