2002

In re Franklin Construction Company (February 2002, MPT-1).  Applicants’ law firm has been retained by Ralph Dirksen, the CEO of Franklin Construction Company (FCC), for advice on FCC’s financial obligations to its former joint venturer, MDI. Initially, FCC obtained an exclusive right to negotiate with the local Redevelopment Agency (Agency) to purchase land for and build a $35 million hotel, but FCC was unable to secure the needed financing before its exclusive right was about to expire. FCC then sought MDI’s expertise to secure financing. The Agency granted FCC an extension of its exclusive negotiation right provided that FCC deposit $350,000 with the Agency. MDI advanced FCC the $350,000 deposit in consideration of an Assignment Agreement in which FCC assigned its exclusive negotiation right to MDI. MDI and FCC then signed a Joint Venture Agreement that detailed how profits would be distributed, but was silent on how losses would be shared. The FCC-MDI joint venture was unable to secure loans, thus prompting the Agency to terminate FCC’s exclusive negotiation right. The Agency kept the $350,000 deposit, claiming it was non-refundable. MDI then gave FCC notice that it was going to terminate the Joint Venture Agreement and demanded that FCC recover the $350,000 from the Agency and pay back that sum. Applicants’ task is to draft an opinion letter advising Dirksen, a non-lawyer, what FCC’s obligations are under the Joint Venture Agreement, the Assignment Agreement, and Franklin case law. The File consists of an instructing memo from the partner, an excerpt from the partner’s interview with Dirksen, the Assignment Agreement, the Joint Venture Agreement, and various related documents. The Library contains provisions of the Franklin Business Associations Code and two cases.

Applicants’ law firm has been retained by Ralph Dirksen, the CEO of Franklin Construction Company (FCC), for advice on FCC’s financial obligations to its former joint venturer, MDI. Initially, FCC obtained an exclusive right to negotiate with the local Redevelopment Agency (Agency) to purchase land for and build a $35 million hotel, but FCC was unable to secure the needed financing before its exclusive right was about to expire. FCC then sought MDI’s expertise to secure financing. The Agency granted FCC an extension of its exclusive negotiation right provided that FCC deposit $350,000 with the Agency. MDI advanced FCC the $350,000 deposit in consideration of an Assignment Agreement in which FCC assigned its exclusive negotiation right to MDI. MDI and FCC then signed a Joint Venture Agreement that detailed how profits would be distributed, but was silent on how losses would be shared. The FCC-MDI joint venture was unable to secure loans, thus prompting the Agency to terminate FCC’s exclusive negotiation right. The Agency kept the $350,000 deposit, claiming it was non-refundable. MDI then gave FCC notice that it was going to terminate the Joint Venture Agreement and demanded that FCC recover the $350,000 from the Agency and pay back that sum. Applicants’ task is to draft an opinion letter advising Dirksen, a non-lawyer, what FCC’s obligations are under the Joint Venture Agreement, the Assignment Agreement, and Franklin case law. The File consists of an instructing memo from the partner, an excerpt from the partner’s interview with Dirksen, the Assignment Agreement, the Joint Venture Agreement, and various related documents. The Library contains provisions of the Franklin Business Associations Code and two cases.

In re Madert (February 2002, MPT-2).  Allie and Bruce Madert have met with the supervising partner at applicants’ law firm regarding a noise dispute with their next-door neighbors, the Doyles. The Doyles are aspiring rock musicians who conduct loud jam sessions with other aspiring musicians at all hours of the day and night in their house and in a shed behind their house. The music is so loud that when the Doyles and their friends are practicing, the Maderts and their children have trouble sleeping. Their children also are distracted while trying to do homework. The Maderts have repeatedly complained to the Doyles about the noise, but the Doyles have done nothing to make their practice sessions less disruptive. The Maderts recently wrote a letter to the Doyles asking them to stop making so much noise or face legal action. While they wish to resolve the noise problem short of litigation, the Maderts are prepared to seek injunctive relief as well as damages if that is necessary to abate the nuisance. Applicants are asked to write a letter to the Doyles’ attorney to persuade him that the noise from the Doyles’ band constitutes a private nuisance and that if the Maderts were to sue, a court would likely grant an injunction and award damages. The letter should include suggestions of steps the Doyles could take to abate the noise. The File contains the instructing memo, a transcript of the supervising partner’s interview with the Maderts, the Maderts’ letter to the Doyles, and a University of Franklin report on noise pollution and control. The Library contains three cases.

Whitford v. Newberry Middle School District (February 2002, MPT-3). Applicants are asked to write out their closing argument to the court following a hearing on their client’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Applicants represent seventh grader Annie Whitford, who has been prohibited from trying out for her school’s boys-only interscholastic volleyball team by a Newberry Middle School District rule. There is no coed or girls’ volleyball team. Annie’s federal complaint alleges that the School District rule violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and related regulations because the rule deprives her of an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular athletics. On Annie’s behalf, applicants are seeking a court order requiring the School District to allow her to try out for the boys’ volleyball team. The File consists of the instructing memo from the senior partner and the transcript of the hearing on the preliminary injunction. The Library contains excerpts of Title IX and related regulations, and two cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifteenth Circuit.

State v. Tweedy (July 2002, MPT-1) Applicants, assistant district attorneys, are asked to draft a persuasive memorandum to the district attorney convincing him that there is sufficient evidence to seek a felony indictment against James Tweedy on two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. Applicants are also asked to identify additional facts that would assist in prosecuting Tweedy for the death of his two young children in an apartment fire. On the night in question, Tweedy, a single parent, put the children to bed, secured the bedroom door, locked the apartment door, and went out with friends, leaving the children alone. While Tweedy was out, a fire started in a defective TV set that he had left on. An unidentified visitor tried to rescue the children, but couldn’t enter the bedroom because of the way Tweedy had secured it. Tweedy claims that a neighbor had agreed to watch the children. The neighbor is reported at one place in the record to have said she declined Tweedy’s request, and in another place that Tweedy never asked her to watch the children on the night in question.  As part of their investigation, the police learned that there was a small electrical fire in Tweedy’s same apartment four years earlier, which started when Tweedy’s late wife left a curling iron on.  No one was home at the time of that fire. The File contains police and fire marshal reports, a memorandum from the County Medical Examiner assigning the cause of death, and a transcript of a police interview with Tweedy. The Library consists of excerpts of the Franklin ?endangering? statute as well as excerpts from the Franklin Rules of Evidence and two cases.

In re Al Merton (July 2002, MPT-2) Applicants work in a law firm that has been asked to update a client’s will the day before he is to undergo open-heart surgery.  The client, Al Merton, has met with the supervising partner to discuss putting his affairs in order.  Applicants are to draft the introductory and dispositive clauses of Merton’s will according to his wishes and following the firm’s will drafting guidelines. Merton’s only living relatives are his four grown nephews and niece. When his brother and sister-in-law died several years ago, Merton adopted their two younger children, Stuart and Sara, who were minors at the time. Merton’s father died last year, leaving him sole ownership (150 shares) of the Merton Office Supply Corporation (MOSC), as well as the Lincoln Street land and building where MOSC is located. He wants the adult nephews and Sara (but not Stuart) to share in MOSC’s profits while giving Sara alone the power to run MOSC. Merton and the supervising partner also discuss creating an endowment in his father’s name at the University of Franklin and how to dispose of the rest of his property. In addition to the firm’s will drafting guidelines, the File contains Merton’s father’s will, Merton’s latest will, a family tree, a transcript of the interview with the partner, and an appraisal for MOSC. The File also has an excerpt of Walker’s Treatise on Wills on how to classify bequests. The Library contains two Franklin cases and excerpts of the Franklin Probate Code and Corporations Code, including a provision on voting trusts that is relevant to giving Sara full control of MOSC.

GVP Non-Disclosure Agreement  (July 2002, MPT-3) Applicants are associates in a law firm that represents General Vision Processing, Inc. (GVP), the developer of an electronic device known as the iChip™.  Dr. Nabeel Adsani, the principal shareholder of GVP, has met with the supervising partner at applicants’ law firm for advice on forming a strategic alliance with Micro, a high tech firm that evaluates leading edge technologies.  GVP and Micro are considering whether the iChip™ is a technology on which the two companies should collaborate to create new applications for its use. Dr. Adsani sees many benefits to forming such an alliance with Micro, but is also very concerned about protecting GVP trade secrets and other confidential information that it will have to disclose to Micro in the course of Micro’s evaluation of the iChip™. A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is one way for GVP to protect itself from improper disclosure and use of its trade secrets. Micro has proffered its standard form NDA to GVP, but Dr. Adsani is concerned that it will not adequately protect GVP’s trade secrets. Applicants’ task is to write part of an opinion letter to Dr. Adsani, a non-lawyer, explaining whether the excerpted parts of Micro’s NDA adequately protect GVP’s trade secrets, and if so, why; and, if not, why and what changes they would recommend in the NDA to address GVP’s concerns. The File contains the instructing memo, transcript of the interview between the supervising partner and Dr. Adsani, and excerpts from Micro’s proposed NDA. The library consists of three federal court cases bearing on different aspects of the problem.