Day 1 Always Choose the Best Answer: B’s car hits A’s car. A sues B for personal injury and property damage, in the amount of $100,000. A is from CA. B is from AZ. (a) There would be exclusive, but not concurrent, subject matter jurisdiction in California’s state and federal courts; (b) A files an unlimited case in the CA Superior Court. A’s passenger wants to sue B for personal injury only, in the amount of $15,000. Passenger cannot join in A’s unlimited case against B—and must therefore bring a separate limited action in Superior Court. (c) If B (from AZ) attacks the court’s personal jurisdiction over B, California’s state and federal courts will apply different standards to resolve this jurisdictional issue. (d) Assume that in A’s unlimited action, A is likely to get a jury verdict of $20,000. Either B, or the court (on its own motion), may obtain a reclassification of this case as a limited civil case.

Day 2: Pam eats an Edible Widget (EW) at Dan’s Deli in Temecula. She gets sick and sues Dan in state court for personal injury. She alleges food poisoning against Dan, and products liability against WidgetCorp (WC)—the Oregon corporation that makes & ships EWs to the Deli. Which following is true: (a) Under the FRCP, “spouse in the house” substituted service is on par with personal service. In state court, Pam’s lawyer may also arrange to have Dan’s wife served immediately at their home, resulting in personal jurisdiction over Dan. (b) P’s lawyer mails service of process to WC in Oregon, via registered mail, requiring Return Receipt Requested. The President’s personal (not corporate) secretary, Jim, signs the receipt. Jim timely returns it to P’s lawyer. The court has personal jurisdiction over Widgetcorp.

(c) The Temecula Deli is in Riverside

County. Dan lives in San Diego County. Pam must sue in San Diego County.

(d) Pam sues in San Diego. Dan seeks a transfer to Temecula. The court should transfer. (If so, why? If not, why not?)

Day 3 Which of the following statements is false: (a) Re a true conflict choice of law (COL) issue, a CA state court will analyze which competing state’s interests would be more impaired, if its law were not applied. (b) Failure to provide pre-trial notice of suit against a health care service provider deprives the court of jurisdiction—but is not grounds for professional misconduct.

(c) A plaintiff normally has between six months and one year, from the breach, to file notice of her claim against a CA state agency. (d) A state court D’s “cross-complaint” may be filed against: (1) the P; and (2) any co-D, and (3) any third party D that the original D wishes to bring into the litigation.

Day 4 Pam consumes an Edible Widget at Dan’s Deli. She gets sick, and goes to Happy Hospital. While there, she almost dies as a result of its alleged professional negligence. Her lawyer (L) properly undertakes which of the following four options: (a) L pleads punitive damages in the amount of $25,000 against Deli. (b) L serves Deli and Hospital with: (1) summons, and (2) a complaint. Hospital timely responds to the complaint. Dan’s Deli does not answer. L seeks a default judgment against Dan’s Deli. (c) L sought punitive damages (but not an amount) in the original complaint against Dan. L later makes a motion to amend Pam’s original complaint−now hoping to allege a punitive damages claim against Hospital in a First Amended Complaint. (d) Hospital’s demurrer to the original complaint revealed that L did not plead all facts necessary to establish every element of Pam’s claim. L’s opposition responds that−under the

FRCP−the complaint need give only general notice of why Pam was suing Hospital, and what she wanted as a result of her suit.

Day 6 Pam’s suit v. Dan continues. L (Dan’s lawyer) files a motion to quash personal jurisdiction over Dan. L sends Pam’s attorney a written offer of settlement. Which statement below is the best answer: (a) L’s simultaneous or subsequent litigation-related conduct—the offer to settle the case with Dan—is not a general appearance. (b) Dan generally denies liability. At trial, Dan claims that Pam contributed to her own personal injury, by failing to wash her hands before eating at the Deli. Dan’s denial places Pam’s negligence in issue.

(c) The jury finds for Dan. Pam contacts a second lawyer, for the purpose of determining whether her original lawyer committed legal malpractice. The only SOL applicable to Pam’s potential malpractice claim is four years from the date of Lawyer One’s alleged malpractice.

(d) The CA P.I. SOL is two years from the date of accrual. Dan is a military reservist, whose unit was called to active duty shortly after Pam ate at Dan’s. The only applicable SOL for Pam’s claim is two years from the date she ate at Dan’s.

Day 7 Choose the best answer: (a) The P may usually change theories and causes of action in an amended complaint against the D, as long as the amendment is based on the same general set of facts which were stated in the original complaint. (b) An amended pleading supersedes any adverse admissions made in the original complaint. (c) P may amend the complaint, to convert a “Doe” defendant into a named defendant, as long as P sought out all possible facts, for determining the fictitious D’s actual name at the time of the filing of the original complaint. (d) A defendant seeking sanctions for a frivolous complaint should first file the

sanctions motion with the court, to establish her right to sanctions against the plaintiff. Day 12 Pam’s litigation against Dan’s Deli has now reached the discovery stage. Which of the following statements is the most accurate: (a) There is no time limitation for seeking additional discovery responses via court order.

(b) The lawyer and the client must both sign motions and discovery documents, but for different reasons. (c) All deposition notices must seek information from the “person most knowledgeable” about the facts of the case. (d) The attorney may be present for the client’s mental exam in state court, and for the client’s physical exam in federal litigation.

Day 15 Which choice(s) is(are) accurate? (a) Pam requests that Dan admit he fired the

cook who made the not-so-digestible Edible Widget (EW) for Pam’s lunch. Dan responds that he will neither admit nor deny Pam’s RFA. Pam may file a motion, at any time prior to trial, demanding a proper response to her RFA.

(b) Pam properly requests all e-mails that Dan has−regarding Dan’s prior cook, who made the suspect EW. Dan deleted those e-mails, long before Pam sued. Dan will likely pay the cost of retrieving those deleted e-mails from Dan’s hard drive. (Note: two-year SOL for P.I.) (c) The parties have identified only Dr. X and Dr. Y as their respective expert witnesses−and Dr. Z as Pam’s treating doctor. Absent an updated expert witness declaration by Pam, the judge will deny Pam’s request that her treating doctor also serve as a trial expert.

(d) In response to Dan’s early and only set of interrogatories, Pam did not identify Nurse Nancy as a fact witness. Pam’s lawyer later discovers Nancy’s involvement in Pam’s food poisoning treatment by Dr. Z. Nancy may testify as Pam’s fact witness at trial.

DAY 19 Which statement(s) is/are accurate: (a) The trial judge decides that a case is appropriate for judicial arbitration. That process usually does not toll the running of the five-year statute for bringing the case to trial. (b) The parties are either directed by the trial judge, or independently decide, to mediate a case that has been filed in court. There can be no exceptions to the CA Evidence Code’s mediation confidentiality provisions. (c) The parties usually file and serve a Case Management Statement on or with all other parties. (d) Trial judges have the general authority to dismiss the client’s case, when the responsible lawyer has repeatedly failed to comply with local rules.

DAY 20 Which statement is false: (a) The Dan’s Deli lawyer files a slam-dunk motion for summary judgment against Pam’s Edible Widget case. Pam’s lawyer files a response on the day of the hearing—long after a response was due—seeking a voluntary dismissal. The judge will most likely disregard P’s voluntary dismissal filing. (b) Earlier, Dan’s lawyer sought a dismissal for Pam’s unexcused failure to serve Dan for nearly 3 years after Pam filed the case. It will not be an abuse of discretion for the court to dismiss Pam’s case. (c) The judge, instead, denies the (b) motion to dismiss for lack of service. The case proceeds. He later grants D’s unrelated motion to dismiss Pam’s case, for failure to bring it to trial within 5 years of filing. Criminal trials had taken precedence—and no civil cases were tried in that county for the prior year. The appellate court will likely affirm the dismissal for lack of prosecution. (d) Dan’s co-defendant, WidgetCorp (WC), did not file an Answer to Pam’s complaint. Pam’s lawyer (L) files an application for a default judgment against WC on the 31st day after filing the complaint. L breached an ethical obligation to warn WC to respond.

DAY 24 Pam’s case against Dan’s Deli goes to trial. Which statement is accurate: (a) The trial will take place in Los Angeles County (LAC), one that is perhaps the most racially balkanized in the State. Jurors will thus be selected from all or most of LAC, to achieve racial diversity.

(b) To achieve an adequate representation of Mexican-American jurors, the jury commissioner appropriately transfers several Mexican-Americans from the overall jury pool (awaiting their potential assignment to various trial departments) to the jury venire awaiting voir dire in this courtroom. (c) Dan is a Mexican-American. There are 3 Mexican’s in the venire. During voir dire, Pam’s lawyer uses her peremptory challenges to strike all 3 Mexicans. Dan’s lawyer will necessarily succeed in a constitutional challenge to this voir dire process. (d) Dan’s lawyer did not use any of his peremptory challenges. But he did challenge a juror named Joe Sixpack for cause. Joe made disparaging remarks about “people who look like Dan.” The judge denies the challenge. Dan looses the case. Assuming this was a valid challenge for cause, Dan will not be able to appeal on the basis that Joe should have been excused from service on this jury.

Day 26 Assume that the Edible Widgets Pam v. Dan’s Deli case goes to trial. Which one of the following is most likely to occur: (a) Dan makes a motion for nonsuit, at the close of Pam’s opening statement. (b) Pam’s evidence survives a trial day one Motion for Nonsuit (effectively a delayed demurrer); thus, Dan’s subsequent Motion for Directed Verdict, at the close of Pam’s evidence, must necessarily fail. (c) Dan cannot make a successful Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)−because Dan failed to make an in-trial Motion for Directed Verdict, which is a condi- tion precedent for moving for a post-trial JNOV. (d) The lack of sufficient evidence is the basis for a JNOV; thus, Dan cannot make a Motion for New Trial which is also on the basis of insufficient evidence.

Day 27 Which following statement is true? (a) A plaintiff (P) can obtain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant via an attachment application−in which P claims irreparable injury because the defendant is likely to close its local bank account. (b) A TRO is, effectively, a very short-term preliminary injunction, issued on the basis of extraordinary circumstances.

(c) Assume a family law respondent fails to pay any spousal and/or child support, as recently ordered by the judge. At the ensuing contempt hearing−for missing his/her first payment− ability to pay is an affirmative defense.

(d) Both civil and criminal contempt require payment of a fine to the court, and/or jail time for the contemnor.

Day 28 The Pam v. Dan’s Deli litigation approaches the finish line. The following choice is accurate: (a) There is a defense verdict. Dan will thus get both allowable costs of defense and his atty’s fees. (b) The parties previously agreed that the loser would pay attorney’s fees. Dan’s lawyer will most likely obtain a fee award matching the exact amount of fees she charged her client Dan in this case. (c) Assume that Dan had filed a cross-complaint (c-c) against Pam. Pam’s summary judgment motion successfully terminated Dan’s c-c. As in federal court, Dan would be able to immediately appeal the then final disposition of his c-c—on the basis that his dismissed claim is separable from Pam’s original complaint. Dan may thus lodge a pre-judgment appeal in a state appeals court. (d) Assume that Pam had filed a class action, on behalf of all patrons who were sickened by Dan’s not-so-Edible Widgets. The court denied Pam’s motion to certify this class. Unlike in federal court, Pam could immediately appeal the denial of her state court class action—under the “death knell” doctrine. Last Rev: 11/30/17