Preclusion Practice - Day 2-1

docx

School

Belmont University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

6414

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by jmac2132

Question 1 Adam is the father of two grown children, Claire and Douglas. Adam is divorced from Barbara, who is Claire and Douglas’s mother. After Adam dies unexpectedly, Esme sues Claire and Douglas in Maryland state court. Esme claims to be Adam’s daughter by Francine, a woman with whom, Esme claims, Adam had a secret affair. Esme claims that because she is one of Adam’s three children, she is entitled to one-third of Adam’s estate. Claire and Douglas deny that Esme is Adam’s daughter. They also claim that Adam had a will leaving his estate to Claire and Douglas. Esme asserts that Adam told her that he had no will. She claims that Claire and Douglas must have forged Adam’s will. The parties and all others involved are citizens of Maryland. Under Maryland law, if Esme is Adam’s daughter and Adam had no will, Esme is entitled to one-third of Adam’s estate. If Adam had a will leaving his estate to Claire and Douglas, Esme is entitled to nothing from Adam’s estate. The case is tried by jury. The parties vigorously contest all the facts. The jury returns a special verdict. The jury states that (a) Esme is Adam’s daughter, and (b) Adam had a will leaving his estate to Claire and Douglas. Judgment is entered on the verdict. Esme appeals, but the judgment is affirmed. Five years later, Adam’s mother, Yvette, dies. Yvette had been living on the income generated by a trust left to her by Adam’s father, Zachary, who died before Adam’s death. The document creating the trust provides that Yvette will receive all the income from the trust during her life, and that following Yvette’s death, the money remaining in the trust will go to Adam if he is then living, and otherwise the money will be “divided equally among Adam’s children.” Esme again sues Claire and Douglas in Maryland state court. She claims that she is entitled to one-third of the money in the trust. Claire and Douglas again deny that Esme is Adam’s daughter. They also assert that the phrase “Adam’s children” in the document creating the trust should be understood to include only Claire and Douglas, as Zachary would have believed that Claire and Douglas were the only children Adam had. They also raise the defense of preclusion. Esme moves for summary judgment based on the preclusive effect of the first case. Claire and Douglas also move for summary judgment on the preclusive effect of the first case. Both sides make all appropriate arguments. The parties and all others involved are citizens of Maryland. On all matters of preclusion law, Maryland follows the modern, majority rules. What should the court do? Explain. Conclude your answer by clearly stating whether the motions for summary judgment should be granted or denied and what issues, if any, remain to be decided by trial.

Question 2 Andrej, a respected financier at a prominent Wall Street financial firm, is originally from Europe. His employer receives an anonymous letter providing a detailed accusation that before immigrating to the United States, Andrej committed war crimes in his home country. Andrej is fired. Andrej sues Branko in state court in New York for the tort of libel for $10 million. Andrej accuses Branko of being the author of the anonymous letter. Branko (1) denies being the author of, or contributing in any way to, the letter and (2) also asserts that the statements in the letter are true. Either of these points, if established, would, by itself, be a complete defense to Andrej’s claim. The case is tried by jury. The parties vigorously litigate all the issues. The jury returns a special verdict which determines (1) that Branko was not the author of, and did not contribute in any way to, the anonymous letter, and (2) that the statements in the letter are true. Judgment is entered on the verdict. Andrej does not appeal. Subsequently, Andrej sues Cvetko in state court in New York for libel for $10 million. Andrej now accuses Cvetko of being the author of the anonymous letter. Cvetko (1) denies being the author of, or contributing in any way to, the letter and (2) also asserts that the statements in the letter are true. Cvetko moves for summary judgment on the basis of the preclusive effect of the case of Andrej v. Branko. How should the court rule on Cvetko’s motion? Explain.

Question 3 When an inventor owns a patent on a valuable invention, competitors will sometimes try to get around the patent by selling a product that does not directly infringe the patent, but which can be easily modified by a purchaser so as to infringe the patent. A competitor who does this may be found to have “induced” infringement, in which case the competitor is fully liable for patent infringement, just as if its product had directly infringed the patent. Preston, an inventor, owns a patent on an improved home furnace that lowers home heating costs. Preston sues the Danforth Corporation (“Danforth”) in federal district court for selling a home furnace which allegedly infringes his patent. Danforth asserts that Preston’s patent is invalid. Danforth also asserts that its furnace does not infringe Preston’s patent, because, Danforth asserts, the configuration of its furnace is different from the configuration specified in Preston’s patent. Preston asserts that Danforth’s furnace infringes his patent despite the allegedly different configuration. Preston also asserts that if Danforth’s furnace does not directly infringe his patent, a homeowner could easily modify it to match the specification of Preston’s patented furnace, and that Danforth’s sale of its furnace constitutes induced infringement. The case is tried by jury and is vigorously contested. The judge directs the jury to return a general verdict. In the jury instructions, the judge states (among other things), “You should first determine whether the plaintiff’s patent is valid. If you determine that the patent is not valid, you should return a verdict for the defendant. If you determine the patent to be valid, you should then decide whether the defendant has infringed the patent. You may decide that the defendant has infringed the patent either because the defendant’s furnace directly infringes the patent or because the defendant’s furnace could be so easily modified to infringe the patent that its sale constitutes induced infringement.” The jury returns a general verdict for Preston and awards damages. The court enters judgment on the jury’s verdict. Danforth appeals, but the judgment is affirmed. Thereafter, Danforth changes its furnace. The configuration of Danforth’s furnace remains the same, and it is clear that if Danforth’s previous furnace directly infringed Preston’s patent, then the new one does too. However, the changes make it impossible for purchasers to modify the new furnace. Therefore, if Danforth’s new furnace does not directly infringe Preston’s patent, there is no possibility that its sale could constitute induced infringement. Preston again sues Danforth in federal district court for patent infringement. Danforth again asserts that Preston’s patent is invalid and that Danforth’s furnace does not infringe the patent. Both sides move for summary judgment on the basis of the preclusive effect of the first case. Both sides make all appropriate arguments. How should the court rule on the motions? Explain.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Question 4 Lyle Lipscomb is a lawyer. On January 30, 2020, Adam Parker walks into his office and tells this story: “Almost two years ago, on February 1, 2018, we were all in New York at a big 70 th birthday party for the matriarch of the Parker clan — my grandma, Grandma Delores. All of us were there, all five of her kids and all twenty of her grandkids. At one point during the party, with all of us gathered around her, Grandma looks right at me and my brother Bill — we drove all the way from Ohio to be at the party, you know — and says, ‘You two boys are the finest Parkers I know. You come back tomorrow, and I promise I’ll give you $100,000 apiece.” “That night, I went out and bought a $40,000 Dodge Dakota. Bill bought a red $50,000 BMW.” “To make a long story short, we went to Grandma’s house the next day, Bill and me, to collect so we could pay for the cars. We were going up the front stairs, and Grandma hadn’t shoveled off the snow and ice. So Bill was ahead of me and he slips. He knocks me down, and catches his chin on the stairs. I got me a few bruises, nothing special, but poor Bill. Now he’s a quadriplegic.” “And to make it all worse, when we ask Grandma for the dough, she denies she ever said any such thing. So neither of us has ever been able to collect our hundred grand. Boy do I wish we’d gotten that promise from her in writing!” Lyle decides it would be a good idea to file Adam and Bill’s cases together. After speaking with Adam, he contacts Bill’s attorney, Larry Levine. Larry and Lyle decide to file joint complaint on behalf of Adam and Bill in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The next page contains the complaint Lyle Lipscomb and Larry Levine file on behalf of their clients, Adam and Bill Parker.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Adam Parker and Bill Parker, Plaintiffs v. Civil No. 04-H-022057-JT Grandma Delores, Defendant COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Adam and Bill Parker are citizens of the State of Ohio. 2. Defendant Delores Parker is a citizen of the State of New York. 3. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 for each plaintiff. Count 1 – Breach of Contract 4. Defendant promised a payment in the amount of $100,000 to each plaintiff. 5. Defendant failed to fulfill the terms of her promise. 6. As a result of this breach, plaintiffs were damaged in the amount of $100,000 each. 7. Each plaintiff demands judgment in the amount of $100,000, together with such other relief as the court deems proper. Count 2 – Negligence 8. Defendant owns the property known as 2016 Link Trail in Buffalo, New York. 9. On February 2, 2018, while attempting to collect on defendant’s prior promise, plaintiff Adam Parker slipped and fell on the stairs of 2016 Link Trail. 10. Defendant negligently failed to discharge her duty to keep the premises safe for visitors. 11. Defendant’s negligence caused plaintiff Adam Parker to suffer bruises and other minor injuries. 12. Adam Parker demands monetary recovery for these injuries in the amount of $5,000.” Plaintiffs demand a jury trial. Respectfully Submitted, Lyle Lyle Larry Levine 48 Lovers Lane 84 Lovers Lane Dayton, Ohio New York City, New York 555-123-4567 555-987-6543 Bar No. 81482 Bar No. 121489 Note: Lyle and Larry did not include Bill’s more serious injuries in the complaint because Bill and Larry had already filed a different lawsuit against Grandma Delores for his injuries.

The case goes to trial and the jury returns a verdict for Grandma Delores on Adam and Bill’s contract claims. The jury awards $300 to Adam for the minor physical injuries he incurred on Grandma Delores’s steps. None of the parties file post-trial motions or an appeal. Meanwhile, the separate lawsuit Bill filed against Grandma Delores for his more serious physical injuries (quadriplegia) is still in the discovery phase. Although it was filed prior to Adam and Bill’s joint lawsuit against Grandma Delores, it has proceeded very slowly. It is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York What effect, if any, will the judgment in Adam & Bill’s case have in Bill’s separate lawsuit seeking recovery for his quadriplegia? Explain fully

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Preclusion Practice - Day 2-1

Related Documents