Suppose that the attorney the Metzgars hired agreed to represent them on a contingency-fee basis. What does that mean? How would the Metzgars’ attorney likely have served process (the summons and complaint) on Playskool, Inc.? Should Playskool’s request for summary judgment be granted? Why or why not?

/in /by

Court Procedures


Ronald Metzgar placed his fifteen-month-old son, Matthew, awake and healthy, in his playpen. Ronald left the room
for five minutes and on his return found Matthew lifeless. A toy block had lodged in the boy’s throat, causing him to
choke to death. Ronald called 911, but efforts to revive Matthew were to no avail. There was no warning of a choking
hazard on the box containing the block. Matthew’s parents hired an attorney and sued Playskool, Inc., the manufacturer of the block, alleging that the manufacturer had been negligent in failing to warn of the block’s hazard. Playskool
filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the danger of a young child’s choking on a small block was obvious. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.

1. Suppose that the attorney the Metzgars hired agreed to represent them on a contingency-fee basis. What does that
mean?

2. How would the Metzgars’ attorney likely have served process (the summons and complaint) on Playskool, Inc.?

3. Should Playskool’s request for summary judgment be granted? Why or why not?

4. Suppose that the judge denied Playskool’s motion and the case proceeded to trial. After hearing all the evidence,
the jury found in favor of the defendant. What options do the plaintiffs have at this point if they are not satisfied
with the verdict?

Compare and contrast a motion to dismiss with other pretrial motions. Identify their chief differences. Why did the appellants in this case file a motion to dismiss? What is the effect of granting a motion to dismiss?

/in /by

Court Procedures 55


The venue with respect to any action pertaining to this Agreement shall be the State of Illinois. The laws of the State of Illinois shall govern the application and interpretation of this Agreement.However, Appellee filed a lawsuit against Appellants alleging a breach of the agreement in MiamiDade County, Florida. In fact, Appellee filed four subsequent complaints—an initial complaint, amended complaint, second amended complaint, and third amended complaint—after each and every previous pleading’s dismissal was based upon venue as provided for in the agreement’s mandatory forum selection clause. Appellee’s third amended complaint alleges the forum selection clause was a mistake that was made at the time the agreement was drafted. Additionally, Appellee attached an affidavit [a sworn statement] which states that, in drafting the agreement, Appellee

* * * copied a form version of an agreement between different parties, and by mistake, forgot to change the venue provision from Illinois to Florida. In response, Appellants filed their motions to dismiss the third amended complaint, which the trial court denied.Florida appellate courts interpret a contractual forum selection clause under a de novo standard of review. [The courts review the issue anew, as if the lower courts had not ruled on the issue.] Likewise, as the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss is based on the interpretation of the contractual forum selection clause, this court’s standard of review is de novo. Therefore, the narrow issue before this court is whether the * * *

Agreement provides for a mandatory forum selection clause that is enforceable under Florida law.Florida courts have long recognized that forum selection clauses such as the one at issue here are presumptive valid. This is because forum selection clauses provide a degree of certainty to business contracts by obviating [preventing] jurisdictional struggles and by allowing parties to tailor the dispute resolution mechanism to their particular situation. Moreover, forum selection clauses reduce litigation over venue, thereby conserving judicial resources, reducing business expenses, and lowering consumer prices. [Emphasis added.]Because Florida law presumes that forum selection clauses are valid and enforceable, the party seeking to avoid enforcement of such a clause must establish that enforcement would be unjust or unreasonable. Under Florida law, the clause is only considered unjust or
unreasonable if the party seeking avoidance establishes that enforcement would result in no forum at all. There is absolutely no set of facts that Appellee could plead and prove to demonstrate that Illinois state courts do not exist. Illinois became the twenty-first state in 1818, and has since established an extensive system of state trial and appellate courts. Clearly, Appellee failed to establish that enforcement would be unreasonable since the designated forum Illinois—does not result in Appellee’s having “no forum at all.”Further, as we have said on a number of occasions, if a forum selection clause unambiguously mandates that litigation be subject to an agreed upon forum, then it is error for the trial court to ignore the clause. Generally, the clause is mandatory where the plain language used by the parties indicates exclusivity. Importantly, if the forum selection clause states or clearly indicates that any litigation must or shall be initiated in a specified forum, then it is mandatory. Here, the agreement’s plain language provides that the venue for any action relating to a controversy under the agreement * * *

“shall be the State of Illinois.” The clear language unequivocally renders the forum selection clause
mandatory.Appellee would have us create an exception to our jurisprudence on mandatory forum selection clauses
based on their error in cutting and pasting the clause from another agreement. Of course, the origin of “cutting and pasting” comes from the traditional practice of manuscript-editing whereby writers used to cut paragraphs from a page with editing scissors, that had blades long enough to cut an 811⁄⁄1⁄11⁄1⁄2⁄2⁄2⁄2⁄inch-wide page, and then physically pasted them onto another page. Today, the cut, copy, and paste functions contained in word processing software render unnecessary the use of scissors or glue. However, what has not been eliminated is the need to actually read and analyze the text being pasted, especially where it is to have legal significance. Thus, in reviewing the mandatory selection clause which Appellant seeks to enforce, we apply the legal maxim “be careful what you ask for” and enforce the pasted forum.Accordingly, we reverse [the] trial court’s denial of the motions to dismiss Appellee’s third amended complaint on
the basis of improper venue, and remand for entry of an order of dismissal.Case 3.1 Continued

Legal Reasoning Questions
1. Compare and contrast a motion to dismiss with other pretrial motions. Identify their chief differences.
2. Why did the appellants in this case file a motion to dismiss?
3. What is the effect of granting a motion to dismiss?

On what basis might the federal district court in Illinois exercise jurisdiction in this case? Does the federal district court have original or appellate jurisdiction? Suppose that Garner had filed his action in an Illinois state court. Could an Illinois state court have exercised personal jurisdiction over Foreman or his manager? Why or why not?

/in /by

Courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution


Stan Garner resides in Illinois and promotes boxing matches for SuperSports, Inc., an Illinois corporation. Garner
created the concept of “Ages” promotion—a three-fight series of boxing matches pitting an older fighter (George
Foreman) against a younger fighter. The concept had titles for each of the three fights, including “Battle of the Ages.”
Garner contacted Foreman and his manager, who both reside in Texas, to sell the idea, and they arranged a meeting
in Las Vegas, Nevada. During negotiations, Foreman’s manager signed a nondisclosure agreement prohibiting him
from disclosing Garner’s promotional concepts unless the parties signed a contract. Nevertheless, after negotiations fell
through, Foreman used Garner’s “Battle of the Ages” concept to promote a subsequent fight. Garner filed a suit against
Foreman and his manager in a federal district court located in Illinois, alleging breach of contract. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.

1. On what basis might the federal district court in Illinois exercise jurisdiction in this case?

2. Does the federal district court have original or appellate jurisdiction?

3. Suppose that Garner had filed his action in an Illinois state court. Could an Illinois state court have exercised personal jurisdiction over Foreman or his manager? Why or why not?

4. Now suppose that Garner had filed his action in a Nevada state court. Would that court have had personal jurisdiction over Foreman or his manager? Explain

What is “diversity of citizenship”? How does the presence—or lack—of diversity of citizenship affect a lawsuit? What did the court conclude with respect to the parties’ diversity of citizenship in this case?

/in /by

30 U N I T O N E The Foundations


Mala argues that the District Court had both admiralty and diversity jurisdiction. As a preliminary matter, the court certainly had admiralty jurisdic–tion. The alleged tort occurred on navigable water and bore a substantial connection to maritime activity.The grounds for diversity jurisdiction are less certain. District courts have jurisdiction only if the parties are completely diverse. This means that no plaintiff may have the same state or territorial citizen–ship as any defendant. The parties agree that Mala was a citizen of the Virgin Islands. [Emphasis added.]Unfortunately for Mala, the District Court concluded that Crown Bay also was a citizen of the Virgin Islands. Mala rejects this conclusion.Mala bears the burden of proving that the District Court had diversity jurisdiction. Mala failed to meet that burden because he did not offer evidence that Crown Bay was anything other than a citizen of the Virgin Islands. Mala con–tends that Crown Bay admitted to being a citizen of Florida, but Crown Bay actu–ally denied Mala’s allegation.Absent evidence that the parties were diverse, we are left with Mala’s allegations. Allegations are insufficient at trial. And they are especially insufficient on appeal, where we review the District on appeal, where we review the District on appeal Court’s underlying factual findings for clear error. Under this standard, we will not reverse unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that Crown Bay was in fact a citizen of Florida. Mala has not presented any credible evidence that Crown Bay was a citizen of Florida—much less evidence that would leave us with the requisite firm conviction. [Emphasis added.]
* * * Accordingly, the parties were not diverse and Mala does not have a jury-trial right.* * * *
* * * For these reasons we will affirm the District Court’s judgment

Legal Reasoning Questions
1. What is “diversity of citizenship”?
2. How does the presence—or lack—of diversity of citizenship affect a lawsuit?
3. What did the court conclude with respect to the parties’ diversity of citizenship in this case?

 

Who are the parties (the plaintiffs and the defendant) in this lawsuit? Are the plaintiffs seeking a legal remedy or an equitable remedy? What is the primary source of the law that is at issue here?

/in /by


Reviewing: Law and Legal Reasoning


Suppose that the California legislature passes a law that severely restricts carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles in
that state. A group of automobile manufacturers files suit against the state of California to prevent the enforcement of
the law. The automakers claim that a federal law already sets fuel economy standards nationwide and that fuel economy
standards are essentially the same as carbon dioxide emission standards. According to the automobile manufacturers, it
is unfair to allow California to impose more stringent regulations than those set by the federal law. Using the informa–
tion presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.

1. Who are the parties (the plaintiffs and the defendant) in this lawsuit?
2. Are the plaintiffs seeking a legal remedy or an equitable remedy?
3. What is the primary source of the law that is at issue here?
4. Where would you look to find the relevant California and federal laws

Should You Consent to Have Your Business Case Decided by a U.S. Magistrate Judge? Can a Person Who Is Not a Member of a Protected Class Sue for Discrimination? When Is a Warning Legally Bulletproof?

/in /by


MANAGERIAL STRATEGY


Should You Consent to Have Your Business Case Decided by a U.S. Magistrate Judge? Chapter 2, p. 38
Marriage Equality and the Constitution Chapter 4, p. 72
When Is a Warning Legally Bulletproof? Chapter 7, p. 142
The Criminalization of American Business Chapter 10, p. 191
Creating Liability Waivers That Are Not Unconscionable Chapter 12, p. 257
Commercial Use of Drones Chapter 14, p. 295
Can a Person Who Is Not a Member of a Protected Class Sue for Discrimination? Chapter 17, p. 376
Union Organizing Using a Company’s E-Mail System Chapter 22, p. 483
The SEC’s New Pay-Ratio Disclosure Rule Chapter 28, p. 59

Is It Ethical (and Legal) to Brew “Imported” Beer Brands Domestically? Forced Arbitration: Right or Wrong? Should There Be More Relief for Student Loan Defaults? Should Eminent Domain Be Used to Promote Private Development?

/in /by

ETHICS TODAY


Stare Decisis versus Spider-Man Chapter 1, p. 9
1) Is It Ethical (and Legal) to Brew “Imported” Beer Brands Domestically? Chapter 11, p. 217

2) Forced Arbitration: Right or Wrong? Chaper 13, p. 267

3) Should There Be More Relief for Student Loan Defaults? Chapter 15, p. 337

4) Is It Fair to Classify Uber and Lyft Drivers as Independent Contractors? Chapter 19, p. 418

5) Is It Fair to Dock Employees’ Pay for Bathroom Breaks? Chapter 20, p. 442

6) Should Eminent Domain Be Used to Promote Private Development? Chapter 26, p. 562

Was this action legal under U.S. domestic law? Under international law? Are there any foreign law consequences? What additional factual information, if any, would you need to?address legality? Do you see any meaningful distinction between what acceptable legal and policy options the executive had in this instance?

/in /by

National security

On January 2, 2020 the United States killed Major General Qassim Suleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, by a drone missile strike. Write a legal explainer memorandum, assuming an audience of lawyers and non-lawyers alike, that addresses the following questions:

-Was this action legal under U.S. domestic law? Under international law? Are there any foreign law consequences? What additional factual information, if any, would you need to?address legality? Do you see any meaningful distinction between what acceptable legal and policy options the executive had in this instance?

-Please address all reasonable arguments and counter-arguments: you may certainly take a stance, but your analysis should be thorough to be cogentPlease address all reasonable arguments and counterarguments: you may certainly take a stance, but your analysis should be thorough to be cogent You need not address international human rights law. Likewise, you need not address the question of the executive ban on assassinations. When introducing constitutional and international case law, you should apply that law with a rigorous comparison of the precedent case’s facts to your facts.

-Your legal analysis should rely on National Security Law, Seventh Edition, Stephen Dycus, William C. Banks, Peter Raven-Hansen, Stephen I. Vladeck. p. 1 – 263

-Use the factual backdrop provided by two New York Times articles, “Seven Days in January . . . ” and “White House Memo Justifying Suleimani Strike . . .” and the White House memo released on February 14, 2020.

-Do not add any factual material from other sources in preparing your answer

-Your answer may not exceed 1750 words. Use 12-point font and double-space your answers

Explain what is meant by “common law” and the importance of the doctrine of precedent. Explain what rights are attached to the ownership of shares when becoming a shareholder. Mention and explain under what circumstances an offer may come to an end.

/in /by

Business Law

Question 1) Explain what is meant by “common law” and the importance of the doctrine of precedent.
(10 marks)

Question 2) Mention and explain under what circumstances an offer may come to an end. (10 marks)

Question 3) Explain what rights are attached to the ownership of shares when becoming a shareholder
(10 marks)

 

Select another regional trade bloc, and critically evaluate the level of integration it has achieved. Also highlight any barriers to securing the level of integration required to create a single market like the European Union’s.

/in /by

European Union

Using the European Union as the basis for comparative analysis, select another regional trade bloc, and critically evaluate the level of integration it has achieved. You should also highlight any barriers to securing the level of integration required to create a single market like the European Union’s.