The Supreme Court writes a new Rule of Civil Procedure, FRCP 100, which provides that For all

claims arising out of breach of contract claims, it shall be a defense that the defendant making the promise was not yet 18 years old. Pam sues Dora, who is 17, for breach of contract. Dora responds that FRCP 100 is a defense to the action. Pam replies that FRCP 100 is invalid. Does Pam prevail on this question? a. Yes, because the Rules Enabling Act provides that the Supreme Court may not amend the FRCPs without authority from Congress. b. Yes, because the Rules Enabling Act authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate Rules that are procedural only, and not substantive. c. No, because the Rules Enabling Act permits the Supreme Court to write rules without a further delegation of authority. d. No, because the Rules Enabling Act does not permit the Supreme Court to rewrite the rules of Evidence. In colonial New York, David and Paul contract for David to deliver a barrel of wine to Paul. As he was unloading the barrel at Pauls store, David dropped the barrel on Pauls foot, breaking Pauls foot and spilling the wine all over the ground. Paul seeks a writ from the Court of Common Pleas to recover damages from David for his injuries and for breach of their agreement for the delivery of a barrel of wine. Does Paul prevail? a. Yes, because the Court of Common Pleas could adjudicate both torts and breach of contract actions. b. Yes, because there is no factual dispute surrounding Pauls claims. c. No, because Paul attempted to join multiple claims in the same action. d. No, because the Court of Chancery had jurisdiction over suits for personal injury. Dora agreed to sell Pam a diamond but actually delivered to her a piece of glass cut like a diamond. When Pam discovered that her purchase was glass, she filed a complaint that properly alleged jurisdiction and a demand for relief. The complaint contained one paragraph about the facts of the case, which stated Dora committed fraud. Dora moves to dismiss the case. What is the result? a. Doras motion is denied because Pam provided her with notice of the claim and there are a set of facts under which she could recover for fraud. b. Doras motion is granted because Pam failed state with particularity the circumstances that constituted fraud. c. Doras motion is granted because, based on the facts of this case, Pam improperly alleged fraud rather than breach of contract.

d. Doras motion is denied because the Pam made a short and plain statement showing that she is entitled to relief. Dora agreed to sell Pam a diamond but actually delivered to her a piece of glass cut like a diamond. When Pam discovered that her purchase was glass, she filed a complaint that properly alleged jurisdiction and a demand for relief. Pams complaint also contained paragraphs that state: 1. On March 1, Dora promised Pam that she was delivering a diamond. 2. On March 2, Dora delivered glass cut like a diamond, knowing that it was glass. 3. For the reasons given in paragraphs 1 & 2, Dora committed fraud. 4. Also, Dora intended to deliver a diamond but mixed up the real diamond with the glass imposter. 5. For the reasons given in paragraph 4, Doras delivery of the glass imposter was a mistake. Dora moves to dismiss. What is the result? a. Doras motion is granted because Pams allegation of fraud and mistake are not plausible when read together. b. Doras motion is granted because Pams allegations and fraud and mistake are inconsistent with one another. c. Doras motion is denied because inconsistent allegations are not prohibited and the claims otherwise satisfy the FRCPs pleading requirements. d. Doras motion is denied because pleading requirements do not apply to claims for fraud and mistake under Federal Rule 9(b). On Monday, Portia asked Dennis to bring her a muffin on Tuesday for breakfast in class. Dennis forgot to bring her muffin but did bring one for himself. Portia files a complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming that Dennis unconstitutionally denied her breakfast. There is no law that permits recovery for people who are denied breakfast due to the forgetfulness of their friends. Dennis moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Does Dennis prevail on his motion? a. Yes, because Dennis is permitted to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion any time after Portia files her complaint with the district court. b. Yes, because Portia has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. c. No, because Dennis must file an answer to Portias complaint before or at the same time as moving to dismiss the complaint under 12(b)(6). d. No, because taking the facts in the complaint as true, Portia has stated a claim on which relief can be granted. Same facts as above. The court denies Denniss motion to dismiss. He files an answer and then, within 14 days, files another motion, arguing that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. Portia opposes the motion. Does Dennis prevail?

a. Yes, because Dennis is permitted to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings after filing his answer. b. Yes, because jurisdictional defenses are never waived. c. No, because a defendant may not file a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after filing an answer. d. No, because the proper avenue for asserting lack of personal jurisdiction is in a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Dawn is driving at a safe speed. Priam runs off the sidewalk and jumps in front of Dawns car and is injured. Priam sues Dawn, alleging negligence in his complaint. Dawn answers the complaint, alleging that Priam was contributorily negligent. Ten days after Dawn answers the complaint, Priam moves to dismiss the allegation that he was contributorily negligent. Is Priam successful? a. Yes, because Dawn is not permitted to assert new allegations in an answer. b. Yes, because contributory negligence is not an appropriate affirmative defense. c. No, because Priam is not permitted to move to dismiss allegations made in an answer. d. No, because Dawn is permitted to allege contributory negligence as an affirmative defense in an answer. Same facts as above except that five days after Dawn answers the complaint, Priam seeks to amend the complaint to add a count based on a federal safe driver statute, which requires drivers to stop whenever pedestrians are in the street. Dawn objects to the amendment. Does Dawn prevail? a. Yes, because Dawns consent is necessary for an amendment as a matter of course. b. Yes, because the claim for negligence is based on the same transaction or occurrence as her claim under the federal safe driver statute. c. No, because Priam is permitted to amend his complaint once as a matter of course. d. No, because Priam is always permitted to amend his complaint as a matter of course when justice so requires. On September 1, 2012, Dawn is speeding down Secor Road. Priam runs off the sidewalk, jumps in front of Dawns car, and is injured. On October 1, 2012, Priam sues Dawn, alleging in his Complaint that Dawn injured him through her negligent driving. On October 14, 2012, Dawn answers the complaint, alleging in her answer that Priam was contributorily negligent. On October 19, 2012, Priam seeks to amend the complaint to add a count based on a federal safe driver statute, which requires drivers to stop whenever pedestrians are in the street. Dawn opposes the amendment. Does Dawn prevail? a. Yes, because Dawns consent is necessary for an amendment as a matter of course.

b. Yes, because Priams claim for negligence is not based on the same transaction or occurrence as his claim under the federal safe driver statute. c. No, because Priam is permitted to amend his complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days of receiving Dawns answer to the complaint. d. No, because Priam is always permitted to amend his complaint as a matter of course when justice so requires. Same facts as above, except that Priam seeks to amend his complaint to add a count based on the Federal Safe Driver Statute on October 19, 2013. The Federal Safe Driver Statute has a 2 year Statute of Limitations. The Statute of Limitations for claims for negligence is 3 years. Dawn opposes the amendment. Does Dawn prevail? a. No, because Priams claim for negligence is based on the same transaction or occurrence as his claim under the federal safe driver statute. b. No, because Priams claim under the federal safe driver statute relates back to his claim for negligence. c. Yes, unless the court grants Priam leave to amend. d. Yes, because Priam is always permitted to amend his complaint as a matter of course when justice so requires. Thru class 9