2000

In re Application Specialists, Inc. (February 2000, MPT-1). Applicants represent Application Specialists, Inc. (ASI), a Franklin corporation that has recently offered a job to Maria Pedroza, a former employee of SEA, an Olympia corporation that is one of ASI's competitors. SEA has threatened to sue Pedroza for breach of the non-competition clause in her contract of employment, in which she agreed not to accept employment with a competitor for one year after termination from SEA. Employee non-competition agreements are not enforceable under the law of Franklin but are enforceable under the law of the state of Olympia. Applicants are instructed to write a memorandum analyzing which state's law the Franklin District Court will apply and what the likely outcome will be on the issue of the enforceability of the non-competition agreement. The File includes the transcript of a client interview, the demand letter from Sea's General Counsel, an excerpt from Pedroza's employment agreement with SEA, and the ASI job announcement to which Pedroza responded. The Library consists of sections of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, two Franklin cases, and one case from Olympia.

Proffet v. Dinsdale Instruments, Inc. (February 2000, MPT-2). Applicants represent defendants in a claim for quantum meruit filed by Mary Proffet, a former high-level employee. She claims her work for Dinsdale Instruments was the principal factor that resulted in growth in the company's worth from $500,000 to $198 million over the ten-year period in which her annual compensation grew from $26,500 to $650,000. Proffet believes she should have been given stock in the company. At the close of the evidentiary phase of the trial, the judge has tentatively accepted plaintiff's jury instruction on the measure of damages to be applied but has directed the parties to brief the issue. Applicants are instructed to write a brief that persuades the court to adopt defendants' instruction and to explain why plaintiff's instruction is erroneous. The File includes guidelines for writing persuasive briefs, excerpts from the trial transcript, and the contending proposed jury instructions. The Library consists of sections of the Restatement, Restitution and two cases.

In re Lewis T. Travin (February 2000, MPT-3). Applicants work in the firm that has been retained by Lewis T. Travin to represent him in a disciplinary action before the Franklin State Bar Office of Lawyer Discipline. Travin is alleged to have assisted a criminal defendant, George Clausen, whom he knew to be using the false identity "Frank Bogason," in perpetrating a fraud on the court. Applicants are instructed to write a memorandum identifying Travin's potential acts of misconduct, arguing that none of the acts violates the Franklin Rules of Professional Conduct, and, assuming one or more acts were violations, arguing that the acts were done in good faith, were at worst only technical violations, and that the Office of Lawyer Discipline should therefore dismiss the charges. The File includes notes of an interview with Travin, the letter of complaint, and a preliminary investigation summary. The Library consists of excerpts from the Franklin Rules of Professional Conduct (which are identical to the ABA's Model Rules) and an ABA opinion regarding client perjury.

Pauling v. Del-Rey Wood Products Co. (July 2000, MPT-1). Applicants represent Letitia Pauling, who was recently fired from her job as a shipping and receiving clerk at Del-Rey Wood Products Co. Pauling has filed suit to recover three years of unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Del-Rey has answered, denying that it is covered by the Act. There are two bases for establishing the application of the Act: "enterprise coverage" and "individual coverage." Applicants are instructed to draft six interrogatories designed to obtain information on whether there is any basis for asserting "individual coverage" of the Del-Rey employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to follow each interrogatory with a brief explanation of how it will serve its intended purpose. The File includes notes of an interview with Pauling and, as exemplars to guide applicants, the supervising attorney's draft of three interrogatories regarding "enterprise coverage." The Library includes excerpts from a treatise on discovery techniques, excerpts from the Fair Labor Standards Act and Regulations, and one case.

March v. Betts (July 2000, MPT-2). In this pro bono matter, applicants represent Arlene March, a disabled woman who must wear a specially fitted back brace. The back brace was inadvertently left in the trunk of a Sun Cab taxi when the driver, Gary Betts, drove away after arguing with March over the amount of her fare. Efforts to retrieve the back brace have failed, and Sun Cab has denied responsibility. March has complained to the Porter City Taxi Commission, and the Commission has ordered mandatory mediation of the matter. Applicants are instructed to write a persuasive mediation statement relying on three legal theories: that Betts breached a contract of bailment; that Betts was negligent; and that Sun Cab is vicariously liable. The File includes an interview with March, the Commission's procedures for mediation, March's complaint, and correspondence with Sun Cab. The Library includes three cases.

Franklin Asbestos Handling Regulations (July 2000, MPT-3). Applicants work in the Environmental Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General. The Office has been asked to review proposed regulations under the recently enacted Asbestos Handling Act (AHA). The supervising attorney anticipates a challenge to the AHA and the proposed regulations on the ground that they are preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and the implementing federal regulations (OSHA regulations). Applicants are instructed to write a memorandum that states the best case for why the statutory and regulatory scheme is not preempted in its entirety and discusses whether each provision of the draft regulations can survive a preemption challenge. The File includes the Franklin Asbestos Handling Act, the draft regulations, and a research report on the dangers of asbestos. The Library consists of excerpts from the OSH Act, excerpts from OSHA regulations, and two cases.