Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
1
Chapter 3
Judicial, Alternative, and E-Dispute Resolution
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
3.1 Summary Judgment
No, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment should not be granted. The U.S. district court found
that substantial issues of fact needed to be decided at trial, which included whether the butter popcorn
flavoring made by the defendants was dangerous, and if so the extent of the danger caused to someone
who smelled and ate microwave popcorn, the amount of popcorn flavorings eaten by Deborah that was
3.2 Service of Process
No, plaintiff Jon Summervold did not properly serve defendant Wal-Mart, Inc. South Dakota law requires
that service of process on a corporate defendant be made on president, officer, director, or registered
agent of a defendant corporation. Here, plaintiff served a nonofficer employee of Walmart, the assistant
manager of the apparel department of the Walmart store in Aberdeen, South Dakota. Based on the fact
that the president, directors, or officers of Wal-Mart, Inc. were not located in South Dakota at the time of
3.3 Summary Judgment
Yes, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. should be granted summary judgment. Summary judgment can be granted by
a court where there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case. Here, the court of appeals held that
there were no issues of material fact that needed to be heard by a jury and that the judge could therefore
make a decision in this case. The court held that Wal-Mart did not provide a dangerous display and that
summary judgment to Walmart. Primrose v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 So.3d 13, 2013 La. App. Lexis
1985 (Court of Appeals of Louisiana, 2013)
3.4 Class Certification
2
plumbing, whether they have experienced water damage or not, seek class certification to bring a class
action against Zurn to have Zurn repair or replace Pex plumbing systems according to the warranty. The
U.S. district court noted that the class is readily identifiable, the Pex product that is claimed to be
defective is the same product that has been installed in all of the covered homes, the defendants are easily
3.5 Summary Judgment
No, the court must not grant defendant Bad Boy Enterprises’ motion for summary judgment. The injured
plaintiff Elle Silver has raised substantial factual issues that a court cannot address on a motion for
summary judgment. Based on the alleged facts of the case, there remains substantial issues which must be
summary judgment, thereby allowing the case to go to trial in front of a jury. Silver v. Bad Boy
Enterprises, 2013 U.S. District Lexis 117562 (United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, 2013)
3.6 Summary Judgment
moved for summary judgment, contending that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition and that
plaintiff’s deposition testimony, to the effect that she walked to the soda aisle immediately after entering
the store and did not see any soda on the floor before falling, shows that she cannot establish how long the
soda had been on the floor before she fell. The appellate court found that the motion court correctly held
Division, 2004)
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
3.7 Ethics Case
3
defendants replied to the court with many emails but failed to appear in court or to file an answer to the
complaint filed against them. After giving the defendants ample opportunities to appear and file an
answer, the court issued a default judgment against the defendants holding them liable for trademark
infringement. In the default judgment, the court permanently enjoined the defendants from engaging in
trademarks. Trademark owners lose hundreds of millions of dollars each year from counterfeiters illegally
selling knock-off s bearing their trademarks. BMW of North America v. Dinodirect Corporation, 2012
U.S. Dist. Lexis 170667 (United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2012)
3.8 Ethics Case
appeals. The court of appeals held that the parties had entered into a binding arbitration agreement and
that the dispute between the parties had been properly decided by the arbitrator. The court noted
“Attempts to obtain judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision undermine the integrity of the arbitral
process.” The district court and court of appeals affirmed the arbitrator’s decision that Johnson had
avoid the arbitrator’s decision and award. In regards to Johnson’s attempt to avoid the arbitrator’s award
by appealing to the courts, the court of appeals noted “Although arbitration is supposed to be a procedure
2013)
