Judgments and appeals — MCQs

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare an objective memorandum to the supervising attorney assessing whether the plaintiff's federal jury demand was timely after removal, whether the court may nevertheless order a jury trial if the demand was untimely, and whether the defendant should oppose the plaintiff's pending motion. Address the strongest arguments for both parties, distinguish the contract claim from the equitable claim, and recommend a practical response that protects the client's litigation position.

Using only the supplied client file and legal resources, prepare an advisory email to the general counsel evaluating Northstar's available appellate paths and recommending a coordinated litigation and settlement strategy. Assess finality, certification, mandamus, preservation of trial objections, commercial consequences, and the proposed settlement. Give practical advice without guaranteeing an appellate outcome or relying on outside law.

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare an objective counseling email to the supervising attorney assessing whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion supports an early motion in the federal action. Identify factual uncertainties requiring prompt investigation and recommend a procedurally responsible next step.

An employee sued an employer in federal court for retaliatory discharge. At trial, the employee introduced evidence that a supervisor expressly threatened termination after the employee reported misconduct. After the employee rested, the employer moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing only that the employee had not proved damages. The court denied the motion. The employer presented its evidence but did not make another motion before the case went to the jury. The jury found for the employee. The employer then timely filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing for the first time that no reasonable jury could find a causal connection between the report and the discharge. Is the court likely to consider the employer's new argument?

A plaintiff sued a manufacturer in federal court for injuries caused by an allegedly defective product. During discovery, the plaintiff moved to compel production of internal safety-testing reports, and the court granted the motion. The manufacturer nevertheless failed to produce the reports. The plaintiff then moved for sanctions under the discovery rules. Which sanction is the court most likely authorized to impose?

A software company sued a former distributor in federal court for breach of contract, seeking $500,000. After discovery, the distributor moved for summary judgment, arguing that an email conclusively established the company's consent to terminate the agreement. The company submitted a declaration stating that the email concerned a temporary suspension, not termination. The district court denied the motion because a reasonable jury could interpret the communications in either party's favor. The court did not certify the order for interlocutory appeal, and the order neither granted nor denied an injunction. The distributor wants immediate appellate review to avoid trial expenses. The distributor has not identified any immunity or right that would be irretrievably lost by awaiting final judgment. Which of the following is the most appropriate advice?