exam2a - |BookPreview 207 CHAPTER7 PROBLEM#1.BESTANSWER(A...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 29 pages.

4/8/2017 Study Aids Subscription | Book Preview 1/29 207 CHAPTER 7 P ROBLEM #1. B EST ANSWER (A). Problems #1 and 2 are based on Bayan v. Sullivan , 2015 WL 1780873 (D. Conn. April 20, 2015). These questions test the student’s understanding of the motion for a judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), and the doctrine of res judicata . In this case, the court held that res judicata did not bar the federal suit, and therefore the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. “The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.” Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir.2001). “In both postures, the district court must accept all allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the non­ moving party’s favor.” Id. “The court will not dismiss the case unless it is satisfied that the complaint cannot state any set of facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Id. ANSWER (B) is incorrect because it misstates the standard governing a motion for a judgment on the pleadings; the opposite is true: the court must construe all inferences in the non­moving party’s favor. ANSWER (C) is incorrect because there is no authority for the proposition that courts should “probe beyond the pleadings” on a Rule 12(c) motion to ascertain the “actual nature” of the case. ANSWER (D) is incorrect because courts can consider affirmative defenses if raised on a Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss. ANSWER (E) is incorrect because proper dismissals under Rule 12(c) do not violate a plaintiff’s due process or jury trial rights. P ROBLEM #2. B EST ANSWER (E). Problem #2 is a continuation of Problem #1, and it requires analysis of the underlying challenge based on res judicata. The court held that res judicata did not bar the federal action as the prior state court decision was jurisdictional, and not a judgment on the merits. Dr. Sullivan moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Dr. Bayan’s § 1983 claim is barred by res judicata because it could have been brought in the state court action. The application of that doctrine, however, required that her motion be denied. Under Connecticut law, the dismissal of the state court action on jurisdictional grounds was not a judgment on the merits and, therefore, the doctrine of res judicata did not preclude this current action. Under the doctrine of res judicata , “a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore , 439 U.S. 322, 326 n. 5 (1979).
Image of page 1

Subscribe to view the full document.

Image of page 2
  • Spring '08
  • Bracha
  • The Land, Study Aids Subscription

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern