Section A: Mean: 9.106/10; Median: 10/10
Section B: Mean: 9.24/10; Median: 10/10
There is no need for me to hand papers back. You can compare your saved paper with this and calculate your points. If you have questions, come see me.
1) B.
Need same transaction-or-occurrence and common question of law; C covers only the latter.
2) A.
Certificate of Merit is a legal requirement, so it would go to legal sufficiency or insufficiency. Plaintiff still must plead sufficient facts to establish factual sufficiency.
3) C
15(a)(1)(B) controls because it is a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required. SXSW has 21 days from when Federal moved. (B) is incorrect because a motion triggers the 21-day clock.
4) C
Count I seeks contingent liability for current claims against SXSW, so 14(a)(1) allows it. Count II seeks liability for claims unrelated to the current action. But Count I makes SXSW and Federal opposing parties so 18(a) kicks in for Count II.
5) C
This is futility--the amended pleading will not survive a Rule 12 motion (here a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
6) D
It is not futile if it properly pleads jurisdiction. Whether SMJ is waivable is irrelevant to the issue.
7) B
7(a)(5) provides the designation and this is the second time SXSW tried to amend it.
8) C
Because the entire contract was attached to the pleading, the entire contract is part of the pleading, regardless of which parts the pleading expressly discussed. The 12(b)(6) can address anything in the attached written instrument.
9) A
Application of the facts pleaded to the law of insurance exclusions. None of the others have any legal meaning.
10) D
This is legal insufficiency and thus dismissal with prejudice. SXSW has no existing claim against Federal because the insurance exclusion applies. It does not matter what additional facts SXSW could plead--plaintiffs seek a refund, SXSW wants Federal to indemnify it for that refund, and the insurance exclusion precludes that claim.
