CIVIL PROCEDURE I SECTIONS N & X
FINAL EXAMINATION
JUDGE GARCIA & PROFESSOR OPPENHEIMER
FALL 2002

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This is a closed book exam. You may not consult any notes, books, or other materials, nor may you discuss the question among yourselves or with any other persons.

2. You have two (2) hours to complete this exam.

3. It consists of two parts: Part I is twenty (20) multiple-choice questions, which will account for one third of your final grade. Part II consists of one (1) essay question, which will also account for one third of your final grade. We recommend you spend one (1) hour on each section.

4. Please record your answers to the multiple choice questions on the ParScore answer sheet.

5. Please write your essay in the blue books) provided. Please write on one side of each page, and on every other line. Please write legibly. (If you are typing your exam, the exam administrators will double-space your exam when it is printed.)

6. Write your exam number on your exam envelope, all used blue books, at the top of this exam question packet, and on the ParScore answer sheet. Do not use your name, student ID number, or Social Security Number on any exam materials.

7. At the conclusion of the exam, return all test materials, including blue books, the ParScore answer sheet, scratch paper, and this exam packet to the envelope and submit it to the proctor.


PART II. ESSAY

Pat Pedestrian, a life-long California resident on vacation in New York City, was hit by a car while crossing the street. The car's brakes had failed, causing the accident. Pat was seriously injured, and returned to San Francisco for treatment.

The car had been manufactured in New York by "Deadly Auto, Inc.," a New York corporation with its headquarters and production plants in New York It had been sold in New York a few months earlier by Deadly Auto to Dan Carol, the driver, a life-long California resident who was in New York on a temporary job assignment. Had Dan been offered the job on a permanent basis, he would have moved to New York. He wasn't, so he didn't.

Soon after the car was manufactured, it became widely known that a design defect made the brakes unreliable. Deadly Auto did not contact Dan Carol to correct the problem. Nonetheless, Dan Carol learned of the defect through news accounts, yet neglected to take steps to have the car repaired.

Pat Pedestrian brought a civil action against Deadly Auto and Dan Carol in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco (a California state court). The action had two counts. The first count was an action against Deadly Auto under the Federal Auto Safety Act (FASA). FASA permits individual claims against auto manufacturers for producing unsafe cars. It provides for exclusive jurisdiction in the United States district courts. The second count was against Dan Carol for negligence. Pat alleged that Deadly Auto designed and built a dangerous car, and that both defendants knew it was dangerous, but that Deadly Auto failed to warn Dan Carol, and that Dan Carol, knowing of the danger, negligently failed to fix the car, thereby causing Pat's injuries.

Deadly Auto and Dan Carol removed the case from the Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located in San Francisco. Pat Pedestrian immediately moved to remand, arguing that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. The motion was denied.

Deadly Auto and Dan Carol then moved to transfer the case from the Northern District of California to the Southern District of New York, in New York City. Pat Pedestrian opposed the motion. The motion was granted.

Dan Carol then filed a cross-claim against Deadly Auto for the property damage to his car caused by his striking Pat. Deadly Auto moved to dismiss Dan's claim, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The motion was denied.

Please discuss whether the courts ruled correctly in:

END OF EXAM