From: Boss Partner
Re: Smith v. Johnson
Thanks for your help last week. You really gave me a good sense of what that case was about and it got me thinking about what this case is going to entail. As you may have heard, we met with Jane Johnson by teleconference from Portland yesterday and my distinct impression is that she has no interest in settling any of these claims. So, I can see we really have our work cut out for us in this matter. Thankfully, Jane was able to afford our request for a $10,000 retainer and so we really need to get moving on this case.
To start with, I’m going to ask you to prepare kind of an initial analysis of the issues they were going to be dealing with in this case. To begin with, the issue of personal jurisdiction will be of utmost importance in any motion to dismiss. In addition, we will likely want to move to dismiss each of the substantive causes of action based on the argument that Jane’s actions can not constitute defamation, invasion of privacy, or Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Please prepare a memorandum for me, discussing a brief synopsis of all the all of the issues mentioned above, both jurisdiction and substantive, that are likely to come up in our representation of Jane. I do not need you to analyze these issues in depth at this point or to try to make a determination as to whether Jane will be liable and to whom. All I am looking for at this point is that you determine what issues might be relevant to this case and, for each issue, let me know what the applicable rule is. In other words, what is the plaintiff going to have to show to win on each issue against Jane? As sources for these rules, you can use any applicable California (based on Erie) or federal statute and/or case law. Of course, binding case law is best but nonbinding case law is certainly better than nothing. I believe that the case you briefed last week also mentioned in a footnote an interesting federal statute that is probably applicable to our case. Please discuss that statute as well and whether it may or may not be helpful to Jane, and why.
Please discuss each issue separately, including what is the plaintiff is going to have to show to prove that a California court has jurisdiction over Jane, and, for each potential cause of action against Jane, what are the elements that have to be proven. Also discuss any defenses you find that we may want to use on behalf of Jane. Again, at this point I do not expect you to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the case against Jane or her defenses. All I’m looking for is a little lesson on the applicable law that is relevant to our client. Because I’m not looking for in-depth analysis or application to this case, I think that the entire memo could be done in maximum five typed (single spaced, with paragraph breaks) pages or less.
From: Boss Partner To: Grizzled Veteran of the Legal Wars Date: 05/08/YR01 Re: Smith v. Johnson Thanks for your paper on the jurisdictional issue. I think it’s time though that we face the possibility that there is going to be personal jurisdiction over Jane and her company. Therefore, I’d like you to start working on our appeal for the other issues. Basically, I’d like you to do the same thing as you did earlier regarding jurisdiction, only this time with regard to the substantive tort issues in the case. Again, I’d like you to review Judge Haas’ decision and prepare an appellate brief that we can use to appeal his judgment. Thanks for all your help in this case. With legal talent like you on our side, I just know we’re going to emerge victorious eventually.