Gladys, a geologist who has lived in Georgia her entire life, moved to California for a two-year teaching fellowship

at the University of California. While on her fellowship, she drove through Arizona on her way to visit her brother in Florida. In Arizona, she suddenly lost control of her vehicle and crashed into the home of Bert, a citizen of Australia who is a legal permanent resident of Arizona. Bert decides to sue Gladys because his $100,000 home is destroyed, and personally flies to Florida to serve her with process while she is visiting her brother. Berts complaint alleges the state tort of negligent driving. To prove negligence per se, Bert alleges that Gladys violated the federal Anti-Home Destruction Act, which prohibits interstate motorists from crashing into homes under any circumstances. (This Act does not contain its own private right of action.) After Gladys is served with the complaint, she subsequently moves to Arizona; she enjoyed the sights there, despite her calamitous crash. Assume that Berts claim proceeds in federal court. After discovery, Gladys moves for summary judgment on the issue of injury/damages, arguing that Bert was not the true owner of the home (Bert was squatting at Ernies place), and on the issue of her negligence. The district court grants Gladyss motion on both counts. Bert then sues Builders, Inc., the Arizona company that constructed his destroyed home in Arizona state court, alleging that the home was negligently constructed. Questions: 1. In which state courts may Bert sue Gladys? 2. Could Bert have brought his original complaint against Gladys in federal court? Which forum states federal courts would have subject matter jurisdiction over Berts claim and under which statute or statutes? 3. What is the first motion that Builders, Inc. should file? Is the court likely to grant this motion? What else do you need to know to determine the likely outcome of this motion? 4. Why would the district court grant Gladyss motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages? Did Bert have a right to have a jury hear that issue instead? As a matter of policy, should Bert have a right to have a jury hear that issue?

*Correct Answer: 1. B can sue G in: a. Arizona (accident happened in Arizona) Specific jx under International Shoe. b. Florida (served G in Florida) Actual presence in state under Burnham. -Personal service under Pennoyer. c. Georgia (G is a domiciliary of Georgia) residence was in Georgia, never had an intention not to return to Georgia. Did not have the intention of permanently staying in California. Didnt move to Arizona until after the time of filing. d. California (G has substantial and continuous contacts) General jx. 2. What are the sources of subject matter jx in this case? a. 1332: have met the amount in controversy and do have complete diversity among the parties b/c G is a citizen of GA (where she is domiciled) and B is a citizen of either AZ or Australia (alienage rules). Both create their own independent form of diversity. b. 1331: federal question jx. Case: Grable & Sons. -State law negligence. -Essential federal element under Grable. -No private right of action is relevant, but not dispositive. *Look at federal interest: 1. Strong? B/c concerns interstate highway traffic. 3. Bert v. Builders. a. First motion should be issue preclusion. -Builders should file their answer with issue preclusion as an affirmative defense. *Non-mutual defensive issue preclusion. B/c claim of whether or not the house is Berts was already decided.\ b. Unlikely to succeed, because it is not necessary to the judgment. c. Need to know what preclusion law to apply (i.e. federal or state prec. law). 4. Why grant summary judgment motion? a. As a matter of law, no reasonable jury could have ruled for Bert. b. No right to jury b/c there is no dispute of fact at issue. c. Policy questions= opinion. Should not have a jury.