July 2015 MEE - 예제 답안: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

안녕하세요. 미국 변호사 장수훈입니다.

​

MEE 작성에 어려움을 겪는 분들을 위해, 제가 작성한 답안지를 올려드리고자 합니다. 제가 쓴 답안지를 보고, 통찰력을 얻으셨으면 합니다. 관건은 Application입니다. 한번 본인의 답안지와 비교를 해보시면 좋을 것 같습니다.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 2015 MEE - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

​

1. The State A federal district court had the personal jurisdiction over the corporation because the corporation earned financial profit from the transaction, which was pertinent to a perpetual avail.

The federal court has the personal jurisdiction over a party who satisfies the minimum contact such as continuous and systematic contact, perpetual avail.

Here, a plaintiff, a woman, attended a corporation’s sales presentation in State A. She relied on its presentation with respect to “super solar panels”, buying it in reliance on its salesperson. Before her purchase, the corporation did not have something to do with State A when it comes to the business transaction. For her installation of the penal, the corporation earned the profit in State A. It indicates that the corporation consummated the perpetual avail under the personal jurisdiction. Under the Federal rule of civil procedure, the court considers that the personal jurisdiction in the state is created when a party takes a profitable benefit in the state. Since the corporation sold her $20,000 for its solar penal, the corporation triggered the personal jurisdiction over State A in which the corporation had not contacted before.

If the corporation had earned nothing about any financial profit before she filed a lawsuit in federal court in State A, the corporation might have raised the dismissal for defense as the lack of personal jurisdiction. However, she had damage in fact, which was in the complaint. Thus, the corporation created the personal jurisdiction to the State A.

 

​

2. The federal court in State A did not have the personal jurisdiction over the engineer because the engineer did not make any minimum contact to State A.

To satisfy the personal jurisdiction, a party should have minimum contact to the State as follows; continuous and systematic contact, perpetual avail.

Here, the engineer prepared the brochures which had been distributed to the plaintiff. The brochure contained the information about the solar penal. Since the plaintiff purchased it in reliance on the brochure, the engineer could not avoid the liability to this transaction in a condition that there were some material misstatements about the solar product.

Assuming that the liability occurred in fact, the engineer had nothing to do with the State A through the engineer’s career history. The engineer had never been in State A, which was far from any continuous and systematic contact to the State A. Plus, the engineer did not have profitable activities in State A at all. Those facts indicate that the engineer had no personal jurisdiction in State A but State B.

However, the plaintiff might assert the State A’s long-arm statute to bring the engineer in the State A. According to the long-arm statute, since it complied with the constitution, the due process, it cannot ignore the personal jurisdiction with respect to the minimum contact basis. It is unconstitutional that the engineer is brought into the State A without any minimum contact to State A. The extension of the personal jurisdiction does not mean the destruction of personal jurisdiction. Thus, the State A did not have the personal jurisdiction to the engineer.

 

​

3. The federal court had the subject matter jurisdiction over the woman’s claim against the corporation and the engineer because of the federal question.

The subject matter jurisdiction is confirmed when one of the events occurs; diversity of jurisdiction, federal question.

Here, the plaintiff articulated the reason for the lawsuit against them that the presentation was false, and it misled her to buy the solar penal. According to the federal statute, it prohibits the material misstatement or omissions of facts about the sales. She relied on corporation’s presentation and its brochure which indicated that the penal was 100 times as efficient as a traditional one. However, it turned out that the truth was far behind the information that the corporation had provided. Those facts were related to the argument about the misrepresentation in the federal statute. It indicates that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit under the federal question. Thus, the federal court had the subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants.

Note that the diversity of jurisdiction was not satisfied that the amount of jurisdiction did not exceed $75,000. This lawsuit only claimed $30,000 although both parties had the diversity of citizenship. However, the result was not changed because the federal question gave the ground for the subject matter jurisdiction.

 

​

4. The court had the subject matter jurisdiction over cross claim because it satisfied the supplemental jurisdiction.

The supplemental jurisdiction makes other lawsuit combined with the previous lawsuit in the federal court.

Here, the first lawsuit was proper to be put into the federal court because of the federal question. It is because the plaintiff filed it on the ground of the federal statute violation.

The engineer filed a lawsuit against the corporation, in which they were bound in as the defendants. Under FRCP and USC, the cross-claim can be combined with the original federal lawsuit with respect to the supplemental jurisdiction. The second lawsuit of the engineer was the indemnification for the damages occurred due to the woman’s claim. It shows that both claims were under the same transaction and occurrence with the misrepresentation. Namely, the first lawsuit was the misrepresentation, itself. The second lawsuit, the cross-claim, was the result of the first one.

Since both suits were connected with each other to the federal statute violation, the cross-claim was in the supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, the court had the subject matter jurisdiction over the cross-claim.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

감사합니다.

 

*본 내용의 전부 또는 일부를 재사용, 또는 강의에 사용하려면

반드시 저작권자의 동의를 받으셔야 합니다.

저자의 허락 없이 사용시 민형사상 불이익을 받을 수 있습니다.

이 글에 대한 저작권 문의는

uslawacademy@naver.com으로 해 주시기 바랍니다.

​

*위 자료는 개인적 견해이므로, 이를 통한 결정에 책임을 지지 않음을 알려드립니다.

​

미국 변호사 시험 책 개정판이 출간 되었습니다. 책 내용이 많이 보강되었습니다. 많은 도움 받으셨으면 합니다.

 

이번 [개정판]이 미국 로스쿨 1L과 2L 기간을 좀 더 수월하게 보낼 수 있는, "좋은 도구"가 되었으면 합니다.

​

그리고

​

미국 변호사 시험을 준비하는 분들에게, 좋은 길잡이가 되었으면 합니다.

http://www.bookk.co.kr/search?keyword=%EC%9E%A5%EC%88%98%ED%9B%88