Provisional relief and the right to jury trial — MCQs

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare a persuasive motion and supporting memorandum requesting the most appropriate route to a final appealable judgment on Rowan's resolved claim. Address finality, separability, reasons for and against certification, preservation, and any separate relief needed to protect Summit during appellate proceedings.

A pedestrian filed a negligence action in federal district court seeking compensatory damages from a driver. The complaint did not demand a jury trial. The driver timely answered, denied negligence, and asserted comparative negligence. Ten days after service of the answer, the pedestrian served and filed a written demand for a jury trial on all issues triable by a jury. The driver objected, contending that the pedestrian had waived a jury by omitting the demand from the complaint. The jurisdiction follows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and neither party has filed any other pleading directed to the negligence issues. Is the court likely to recognize the pedestrian's jury demand as timely?

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare a persuasive opposition outline addressing Titan Manufacturing's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternative motion for a new trial. Analyze preservation, the distinct standards for each motion, the evidentiary record, the proper scope of any new trial, and the steps counsel should take to protect Bell's position on appeal.

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare an objective memorandum assessing the preclusive effect of the prior judgment on Metro Workspace's new action and recommending Harbor's most appropriate procedural response.

A pedestrian sued a delivery company in federal court for negligence after one of the company's vans struck her in a crosswalk. After discovery, the company moved for summary judgment and submitted an affidavit from the driver stating that the traffic signal was green for the van. The pedestrian submitted deposition testimony from an eyewitness who stated that the signal was red and that the driver was looking at a phone. Both witnesses had a clear view of the intersection, and the governing negligence law is undisputed. The company argues that its driver gave a more detailed account and has a stronger memory than the eyewitness. Is the court likely to grant the motion?