Final Exam (Both Sections)

Exam Instructions. Sec. A Assignments. Sec. B Assignments.

Download Regular Type; Download Large Type.

Good luck.

FInal Exam Assignments--Section A

After the Jump.

Final Exam Assignments--Section B

After the jump.

Final Exam Instructions

Download Regular Type. Download Large Type. Read after the break.

Civil Procedure

Professor Howard Wasserman

FIU College of Law

Spring 2025

Final Examination

Format:

 

This is a take-home final examination. It consists of sixteen (16) questions. You will answer three (3).

   • One question requires a short answer (it should take you fewer than 45 words) and is worth twenty (20) points. Everyone will answer this question. It is clearly identified.

   • One question requires an essay of a maximum of 1000 words. It will involve forum selection. It is worth fifty (50) points. It will be randomly assigned,

   • On question requires an essay of a maximum of 1000 words (although you may need fewer words). It  will involve some other issue from the class material. It is worth fifty (50) points.

 

Assignments will be posted on the FIU Civ Pro Blog (www.fiucivpro.blogspot.com) at 9 p.m. Sunday, April 27, 2025.

 

The exam will be available for download from the FIU Civ Pro Blog (www.fiucivpro.blogspot.com) at 9 a.m. Monday, April 28, 2024; papers are due outside my office by 1 p.m. on Tuesday, April 29, 2024. You have 28 hours to work on this exam, which is more than you will need. You cannot work for 28 hours; don’t try.

Study Break

The original blog posts for the class included this video from two prior FIU students (this was their creative project) and this video from a former student at Indiana University. I said they would make no sense in January. But I promised that you would understand everything by the end of the class.

And so you do.

Final Creative Projects (Section B)

Links to the two projects we were unable to present today. My apologies for the tech glitches.

Sarah and Francis 

Zach and Garrett

Essays ## 9 and 10

Available outside my office after 10 a.m. Wednesday.

Sec. A:

Essay # 9: Mean: 17.93; Median: 17

Essay # 10: Mean: 19.64; Median: 19

Sec. B:

Essay # 9: Mean: 17.85; Median: 19

Essay # 10: Mean: 19.43; Median: 20 

Final Classes

Section B, Section A.

Sec. B Q&A begins at 10 a.m. Friday in RDB 2006. Sec. A Q&A begins at 1 p.m. Friday in RDB 2008. You may attend the session for both sections, although the first 30 minutes-or-so will be devoted to creative projects.

Send me recorded and other online projects. If you did something visual and non-interactive, please print it out to display in the room. Make sure the name of all participants is on it.

The exam will post here at 9 a.m. Monday. It is due outside my office by 1 p.m. Tuesday.

Claims and Defenses

Cunningham v. Cornell University (decided last week) offers a different angle on the differences between claim elements and affirmative defenses and the pleading consequences of each.

The case shows a piece we did not discuss in class--the role of statutory interpretation in figuring out which is which. Where § 1 of a statute prohibits some conduct and § 2 provides exemptions from § 1, the best reading is that § 1 lays out the elements the plaintiff must plead and § 2 is an affirmative defense.

The case also discusses the role of FRCP 7(a)(7) and replies to answers as a mechanism to control weak cases. A court can order a plaintiff to file a Reply to an Answer without a request, allowing a 12(c) motion to resolve the affirmative defense early in the case.

For Final Class on Monday

Part II of Section B audio glitched out; here is Part I. Section A--Part I, Part II. Both classes cover the same material, so everyone can use the Section A audio for both parts.

Essays ## 9 and 10 due at the start of the Monday make-up classes (11 a.m. Section B, 4 p.m. Section A). Essay # 8 outside my office.

Quick clarification on # 4: The prevailing view rests with the plaintiff--Rules 12 and 56 occupy the field and leave no room for the state law motion.

For preparation:

    • Return to Puzzle # 1. What is the argument that the state disclosure law should apply? Consider the (likely) purposes behind that law--what is the legislature trying to achieve by requiring disclosure of funders?

    • What is the argument for the invalidity of FRCP 15(c)(1)(B) and (C)?

Finally, here is the additional problem; this presents a question about the source of judicial analysis that matters to the § 1652 question.

Doe v. X (SD Fla).

    A sues X for sexual battery. A wishes to proceed pseudonymously as "Doe," rather than including her real name in the caption of the complaint. (Her identity would be disclosed to the court and the parties--it just would not appear in the complaint). State law provides that victims of sexual torts can sue under a pseudonym; federal courts apply a multi-factor balancing test, balancing the plaintiff's reasonable fear of harm from litigating under her own name against the presumptively open nature of judicial proceedings.

    What are the arguments and analysis in both directions--in favor of state law applying and against state law applying? Again, consider why the rules exist and what they seek to achieve.

For Friday (Double Session)

Thursday audio--Section A, Section B.

With the analytical framework presented in class Thursday (derived from §§ 1652 and 2072, Erie, and Hanna and as elaborated upon in the Glannon reading), work through these cases. You can also work through the problems in Glannon to help, as they show much of the same analysis.

Each case involves a state law claim in federal court on diversity jurisdiction (the necessary predicate to ever having to do an RDA/REA/Erie/Hanna analysis). Each case introduces a state-law provision; the question is whether the federal court must apply that provision.

In prepping, consider how each issue arises procedurally--what parties do to trigger consideration of choice of law and what law will apply. Unless indicated otherwise, it is on you to figure out what federal laws or FRCP provisions are in play based on your knowledge of the rules (hint: Some discuss rules we have learned, others require you to identify and interpret new rules in the FRCP--you are familiar enough with the rules as a whole). You must consider (even if speculating) the underlying purpose of both the federal law (whether FRCP, statute, or judge-made rule) and the underlying purpose of the competing state law--what are the various rules designed to achieve. To the extent you see two possible answers to a problem (including competing paths through the analysis or competing conclusions), be ready to argue both.

Be ready to walk through the analysis beyond the broad outline from the board--use the precise language from the rules, statutes, and cases.