paralegal test 3 COMPLETED 11.9.22

Grayson Griffin REDO Test Three: Legal Documents and Legal Analysis CLS by BARBRI ASU Student ID: 900598086 Paralegal I Assignments@legalstudies.com 11/10/2022 REDO Test #3 ______________________________________________________________________________ Section One Directions: Read the following rule and hypothetical situation. Using your knowledge of legal analysis, break the rule down to its elements, present a comprehensive phrasing of the issue/s involved and, applying the rule to the facts provided, analyze the rule as to the given hypothetical to answer the questions below: How does rule 4 apply to this case? Was the service valid? Why or why not? Rule 4 Elements of Rule 4 + Facts + Issue/s + Application = Conclusion A civil action is commenced (1) by filing a complaint with the court and serving the summons and complaint within ten days of the court filing date, or (2) by service of a summons and complaint. The summons and complaint must be served by a non-party who is at Civil actions begin with the filing of a complaint, and the serving of a summons upon a defendant. Nancy is a party and cannot serve the complaint or the complaint and summons, which must be served by a non- party on the defendant. Nancy is suing Ned for Divorce. Nancy served a summon s on Ned, and then filed it with the court. 1. Did Nancy properly file her complaint for divorce? 2. Did Nancy properly serve Ned with divorce summons ? 3. Can Nancy properly serve the summons on Ned prior to filing the complaint with the court? Rule 4 FRCP dictates that Nancy either files a complaint with the court and within ten days served said complaint along with the summons on the opposing party, or she may serve both the summons and the complaint. Service must be 1. Nancy’s civil action is not properly filed with the court. 2. Nancy’s civil action for divorce was not properly served. 3. Service of summons cannot be made prior to filing complaint with the court. 4. The service was not valid, Nancy is

least eighteen years of age. made by a non-party individual who is at least 18 years old. Nancy is party to the suit and is prohibited from being an eligible “server” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(c) (2). a party and cannot serve the complaint and summons . Memo #1: Complete Interoffice Memo #1: The Case of Sam Kant (see handout). Use chapters 10 & 16 in PCD and the section entitled “Memorandum of Law” in Chapter 12 of 8 th Statsky to aid in this assignment. Office Memorandum of Law To: Grayson Griffin, Paralegal From: Kip Douglas, Supervising Attorney Date: 05/02/2022 Case: People v. Sam Kant RE: Whether Mr. Kant can be convicted of shoplifting pursuant to Criminal Statute § 142.33 Shoplifting I. Statement of Assignment Your memorandum requested that I analyze the above captioned cased to discuss the likelihood of Mr. Kant prevailing in his shoplifting case. Please find a brief recitation of the facts followed by my legal analysis, conclusion, and recommendation. II. Facts On Wednesday, September 11 th, 2020, Sam Kant was arrested for shoplifting at Bilmart Department Store. Mr. Kant purchased a case of six four ounce cans of Hoover’s Baked Beans with Bacon. Upon arrival at his residence, which he shares with his wife, he was scolded for choosing a brand which she detests. Mrs. Kant planned to serve the beans

considered “taken” until the “suspect” or “suspected shoplifter has left the store and/or the premises, which Mr. Kant obviously had not. VI. Conclusion Applicable statutory law as well as case law, dictate that Mr. Kant would not be found guilty of shoplifting. Section Two Review the case of The People of the State of Colorado v. Liggett (see Appendix A) and prepare a thumbnail brief as illustrated on page 350 in 8 th Statsky. CITATION: People v. Liggett, CSC CO 72 No. 14SA88 (2014) FACTS: An extensive recitation of the facts can be found in the appellate brief. For the purposes of this brief we will recite only the most pertinent facts. Mr. Liggett was stopped by a police officer while driving a vehicle that was associated with a missing person (Liggett’s mother) and an armed and dangerous suspect (Liggett himself). Officers attempted to detain Liggett, to which he responded by leading officers on a high speed pursuit which culminated in his detainment after a car wreck and a brief foot chase. During this period, Liggett made several unsolicited statements alluding to his inability to discern between right and wrong, His overall mental health and his likelihood of being prosecuted based on these two factors. Without acknowledging Liggett’s assertions, the officers placed him under arrest. On the suspicion that he was somehow involved with his mother’s disappearance, Liggett was asked if he would be willing to accompany Sergeant Peterson to the sheriff’s office to speak with some investigators. Replying in the affirmative, Liggett was taken to jail and to an interview room where he had agreed to meet and speak with investigators (Inv. Clark and Sgt. Peterson). Liggett spoke initially and primarily with Investigator Clark, then subsequently and separately with Sergeant Peterson. Statements were made in the interview, both voluntary and involuntary, prior to Appellant being read his Miranda rights. Liggett asked Clark, “Can you call a public defender to be here now?”. Clark replied “No.” Liggett didn’t directly respond to Clark’s denial of his request, but asked where he should initial and sign the Miranda waiver, which he did. Clark then tried several methods, yet Liggett held fast to his supernatural ramblings, and his position that his mother committed suicide. Liggett was charged with first degree murder, crime of violence, and vehicular eluding. Liggett pled not guilty by reason of insanity and made a pretrial motion to suppress statements made during the interview as involuntary. The trial court ruled that Clark violated Liggett’s Miranda rights by denying him access to an attorney when he requested one. The trial court also ruled that statements made prior to the Miranda violation were admissible. The People filed an interlocutory appeal. ISSUE: Whether the investigators coerced Liggett into speaking with them so as to overbear his will and render his statements involuntary.

HOLDING: No. REASONING: The critical issue in determining voluntariness is whether the interviewer actually overbore the defendant’s will. In the case at bar, trial court never considered the nexus between the investigator’s action and Liggett’s statements to them. Liggett’s own insistence to be heard was never taken in consideration. The appellate court applied the “totality of the circumstances”-analysis to the facts of this case to arrive at their judgment. DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded to the trial proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s decision. Section Three Directions: Prepare the common pleadings as specified in the directions for Exercise #13 in Workbook. You may use the generic format as illustrated in the PCD book. Mrs. Hatter is a new client. While standing in the check-out line at the local grocery store, Foods Deluxe , the automated conveyer belt caught her sleeve as she was placing her groceries on the belt. Flustered by Mrs. Hatter’s screams for help, the clerk was temporarily unable to turn off the belt. By the time the belt was shut off by another customer, Mrs. Hatter’s shoulder was dislocated and she had fainted, cutting her head on the counter as she fell. Mrs. Hatter does not have health insurance or disability insurance. She has not been able to work and has used all of her savings to pay her medical bills. She is unlikely to have a complete recovery and may never again be able to resume her work as an artist. Mrs. Hatter is also very upset about the loss of her one good outfit which was torn in the accident. Using the facts of this scenario and the format illustrated in Paralegal Career for Dummies, prepare a complaint on behalf of Mrs. Hatter. Also prepare the answer to the complaint on behalf of Foods Deluxe. You may embellish the facts to support the claim as long as you remain within the facts provided above. The names and addresses of any law firms, attorneys, etc., should be fictional.

5. The incorporation of said company in South Carolina, while the location of the place of business out of which the civil action arises, establishes a “diversity of citizenship” thus vesting this honorable Court with subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this case. 6. The Defendant acted negligently in failing in their duty to properly train their employees and agents thus giving rise to claims for respondeat superior and vicarious liability. Wherefore the Plaintiff prays for judgement against the Defendant in the amount to be proven at the time of trial, including medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, costs expended in filing this this suit, interest from the date of the commencement of this action, expert witness fees, attorney’s fees, and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper. Dated: ___________________ s/_______________________________________ Timothy Clay Kulp, Esq. Post Office Box [21] 5 Correctional Road Ridgeland, South Carolina [29936] Certificate of Service I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint was served this 8 th day of November, 2022, by placing the same in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Alex Mardaugh P.O. Box [2039] 15 Yellow Brick Rd. Walterboro, South Carolina 29726 ` s/___________________________________

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LEXINGTON Madeline Hatter, ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) Answer to Complaint On Behalf of Defendant ) Civil Action No. : -vs ) Jury Trial Demanded ) Foods Deluxe ) DEFENDANT. ) _________________________________________ ) Now comes the Defendant, Foods Deluxe, by and through their attorney, Mr. Alex Murdaugh, who does hereby answer the Plaintiff’s complaint, and assert the following defenses: 1. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and therefor the Defendant must be dismissed as a party pursuant to SC. R. Civ. P. 8 & 12. 2. The Defendant asserts as a defense “contributory negligence” on behalf of the Plaintiff, Madeline Hatter. Plaintiff’s blatant disregard for Food Deluxe’s conspicuously placed store disclaimer warning against the wearing of “loose-fitting” clothing directly contributed to her alleged injuries. For this reason, the Plaintiff’s allegations are barred as a matter of law. 3. The Defendant asserts as a defense “comparative negligence” on behalf of the Plaintiff, Madeline Hatter. Plaintiff’s blatant disregard for Food Deluxe’s conspicuously placed store disclaimer warning against the wearing of “loose-fitting” clothing contributed, either in whole or in part, to her alleged injuries. For this reason, the Plaintiff’s allegations are barred as a matter of law.