Civil Procedure

For the essay, you must limit your combined answer to both subparts to no more than a total of 30,000
characters (including spaces). The character limit is set high to allow you ample space to submit
complete answers without the need to focus on editing. The essay question can be answered in well
under 30,000 characters.
You represent Twins, Inc. (“Twins”), a company that manufactures and sells sports apparel. The Chief
Executive Officer of Twins, Harmon Carew, calls you on the phone on May 11, 2020 and tells you that on
May 1, 2020, Twins was served with a Complaint, which was filed the same day. Carew emails you the
Complaint, which appears below.
Carew explains that he is really upset about the lawsuit. He states that although Plaintiff alleges in her
Complaint that she was fired due to her sex, the decision to terminate Plaintiff had nothing to do with
the fact that Plaintiff is a woman and was instead the result of company-wide layoffs. Carew states that
he is particularly surprised by the Complaint’s allegations because of the twelve employees Twins
terminated, Plaintiff was actually one of only two women. Carew explains that he is also surprised by
the allegations of sex discrimination because the layoffs were reported in local newspapers, including
the fact that only two women and ten men were terminated.
With respect to the conversion claim, Carew asserts that the car belongs to Twins and not to Plaintiff.
He explains that he does not believe Twins’ sales competition prize offering gives Plaintiff a legal right to
the car because the terms of the offer included a reservation of Twins’ unfettered discretion to retain
ownership of the car if the winning employee is terminated.
1. In response to this information, including the Complaint below, assess what, if any, pre-answer
motions Twins might consider filing, including whether any such motions are likely to be successful and
the relevant deadline(s) for pursuing such motions. Assume for purposes of this analysis that personal
jurisdiction is proper and that the Complaint was properly served. Please also assume that Plaintiff
exhausted all administrative remedies before filing this Complaint. In other words, you do not need to
address personal jurisdiction, service of process (including both insufficient process and insufficient
service of process), or exhaustion of administrative remedies. If there are additional facts you would
need to know, explain what they are and why they would be important.
For purposes of your analysis, assume the elements of a claim for discrimination under Title VII are as
follows: (1) plaintiff is a member of a protected class (here, a woman); (2) defendant terminated
plaintiff; and (3) plaintiff’s protected status was a motivating factor in defendant’s decision to terminate
plaintiff.
For purposes of your analysis, assume the elements of a claim for conversion are as follows: (1) plaintiff
owned an item of property; (2) defendant intentionally and
substantially interfered with plaintiff’s property by taking possession of the property and preventing
plaintiff from having access to it; (3) plaintiff did not consent; (4) plaintiff was harmed; and (5)
defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CATHERINE PUCKETT, Plaintiff
v.
TWINS, INC., a California corporation, Defendant. COMPLAINT
Case No. 1234567 Jury Trial Demand
1. This is a complaint for violation of federal employment law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as well as state law. Defendant is a chauvinistic and unethical employer that oppresses women
and steals from its employees in an effort to maximize corporate profits. 2. This Court has subject
matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Because Defendant resides in the Central District
of California, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).
CLAIM 1 (Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) 3. Plaintiff, a woman, was employed by
Defendant from January 1, 2017 until January 31, 2020. 4. During her employment, Plaintiff always
received positive performance evaluations. 5. On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff was notified that her
employment was terminated. 6. Defendant intentionally and deliberately, as a part of a policy and
practice of discrimination, targeted Plaintiff and terminated her because of her sex. 7. As a result,
Plaintiff suffered damages, including lost wages. 8. Plaintiff timely exhausted her administrative
remedies.
CLAIM 2 (Conversion) 9. Defendant organized competitions among sales representatives to encourage
employees and boost sales. As part of the competition, sale representatives could earn prizes. 10. As a
prize for being the best sales representative in 2018, Plaintiff won the right to keep the “company car”
she had been driving as her own. The car is a 2018 Honda CR-V valued at approximately $25,000. The
car is Plaintiff’s property. 11. Defendant intentionally and substantially interfered with Plaintiff’s
property by taking possession of the car when it terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff did not
consent to the taking of her car and Defendant has refused to return the car despite Plaintiff’s repeated
pleas. 12. As a direct result of Defendant’s tortious conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages, including
spending in excess of $8,000 to secure alternative transportation to her current place of employment.
Dated: May 1, 2020 Leah Loyola Leah Loyola
Olympic Partners, LLP Counsel for Plaintiff
2. Assume for purposes of Part 2 of this question that the Puckett suit is permitted to proceed.
One day, while you are in the midst of responding to interrogatories, Carew calls you. He tells you that
he forgot to mention earlier that Paul Blyleven, another former Twins’ employee, filed a lawsuit in 2019
against Twins in federal court in Minnesota. The Blyleven suit is based on diversity jurisdiction and
raises a host of different claims, including a claim for conversion based on Twins’ allegedly improper
seizure of the “company car” Blyleven had been driving. The car at issue in the Blyleven suit was also a
2018 Honda CR-V valued at $25,000, and Blyleven likewise claimed he won it in a sales competition.
Carew explains that earlier that day, Twins prevailed on a motion for summary judgment disposing of all
claims at issue in the Blyleven suit, including the conversion claim. As to the conversion claim, the
Minnesota federal district court held that Blyleven’s conversion claim failed because the prize offerings
in Twins’ sales competitions include a reservation of Twins’ unfettered discretion to retain ownership of
the prize if the winning employee is terminated for any reason.
Carew asks you excitedly if the summary judgment ruling in the Blyleven suit means that Puckett’s
conversion claim can no longer proceed and is doomed to fail. Advise Carew on whether the Blyleven
ruling is likely to impact the court’s adjudication of the conversion claim in the Puckett litigation.
Assume for purposes of this analysis that both personal and subject matter jurisdiction were proper in
the Blyleven suit. If there are additional facts you would need to know, explain what they are and why
they would be important.