Edible Widgets Facts
These are the facts, as told to the plaintiffs' lawyer: Pam and Paul are senior law students at a university in California. On April 1, 1995, they decided to take a break from their studies when they were preparing for their first year final examinations. They went to Dan's Deli, a fast-food delicatessen near campus. The deli's menu included "Edible Widgets," an entree that Pam and Paul could not resist. After consuming their Edible Widgets, they returned to the law library, began to read the next assignment for their state civil procedure course, and become sick (from food poisoning). Pam's illness was short-lived. She recovered by the next day. Paul was hospitalized, however, for several days. He suffered some residual discomfort, especially because he missed his classes for several weeks.
Now that they are senior law students, and thus have too much time on their hands, they decide to visit the Law Offices of William Doolittle, Sr. They want his law firm to assess the potential for filing a case against the deli to recover damages. After some preliminary investigation, Billy Doolittle, Jr., of the Doolittle Office, learns the following information: the Edible Widgets were in fact served to Pam and Paul by Dan's Deli. The edible widgets were made by an Oregon food processor named Widgetcorp, Inc. Widgetcorp sends its Edible Widgets to fast food restaurants all over the country. Widgetcorp sent only one shipment of Edible Widgets into California, when it learned about Pam and Paul's getting sick. Since then, Widgetcorp has sold no products in California.
Billy decides to sue both Dan's Deli and Widgetcorp. Billy must first determine whether this case falls within the jurisdiction of the Municipal or Superior Court system. Billy first examines the California Code of Civil Procedure, which establishes the subject-matter jurisdiction of each tier of courts. It also addresses whether Billy can join the respective plaintiffs' large and small claims in the same action. Pam's damages appear to be under $25,000.00 while Paul's damages appear to be over $25,000.00.
There are a number of pleading considerations which will affect the overall progress of this case in California's state-court system. Billy's federal procedure course made passing reference to the difference between state "fact" pleading and federal "notice" pleading. State pleading practice will likely require more at the pleading stage, in terms of the amount of information necessary to survive a demurrer. Billy should thus be prepared for documents attacking the complaint, such as a demurrer (the functional equivalent of the FRCP 12b Motion to Dismiss). Further, Billy did not practice law very long before he realized that it may border on malpractice to omit fictitious "Doe" defendants as co-defendants in most cases (a theme not likely mentioned in his federal procedure course which focused on national rather than state practice rules).
Finally, one or both of these claims will likely be subject to compulsory
arbitration under California's judicial arbitration system. Since Billy
decided to join the non-resident defendant Widgetcorp, he has hopefully
assessed the applicability of California's long-arm statute to the Oregon
corporate defendant (Widgetcorp). California's basic venue rule authorizes
actions to be tried in the county of the defendant's residence.
Edible Widget Case Complaint:
BILLY R. DOOLITTLE, Jr.
California State Bar No. 150505
2121 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone (619) 297-9700
Attorney for Plaintiffs
MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
_____ FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Pam Jones _____________________) __________Case No. 688174
Paul Smith _____________________)
Plaintiffs, ______________________)
vs. ___________________________) __________PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
Dan's Deli _____________________)
Widgetcorp, Inc. ________________)
Defendants _____________________)
______________________________)
Plaintiffs file this complaint on the following grounds:
1. Pam Jones and Paul Smith ate at Dan's Deli, in San Diego, California, on August 1, 1995, where after they became sick.
2. Various "Doe" defendants conducted their activities in a like manner, whereby they too are subject to suit.
3. Plaintiffs thus incurred injuries, caused by the defendants, in the following amounts: $15,000.00 and $30,000.00.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment in the specified amounts, including costs, and any other amount which may be ascertained at the time of trial.
This complaint is filed in good faith and not for the purpose of delay.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
DATED: August 6, 1997 LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R. DOOLITTLE, Sr.
By:________________________________
BILLY DOOLITTLE, Jr.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Pam Jones and Paul Smith
Click on Problem 1, 2, or 3 for directions.
Note: Should there be any clarification
needed (to the Hypo facts or any
of the three Problems), send an e-mail to slomansonb@worldnet.att.net.
I will then decide whether to implement and post the suggested change to
our e-Class, via an e-mail amendment.
Index
Last rev: 8/6/97