Home
Calendar
Conference on New Ideas for Experienced Teachers
June 9–13, 2001
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Kimberly Kirkland
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Last fall in my Civil Procedure class of 138 students, I devoted two 11/2 hour classes to simulated motion sessions where students were repeatedly forced 1) to identify what they were arguing within the framework of the federal rule at issue and 2) to engage in fact specific legal analysis. I used a new textbook authored by Subrin, Minow, Brodin and Main. The textbook contains “case files” derived from two actual cases, a wrongful death case and an employment discrimination case. The case files are the basis for exercises that require students to practice applying the procedural rules and doctrine covered in the text.
Among the pleadings in the case files is a motion to amend filed in the wrongful death case. In her motion the plaintiff seeks to add a claim against the existing defendant and sought to add a claim against a new party. The statute of limitations has run on both claims. In the syllabus I assigned FRCP Rule 15 (the amendment rule) and cases addressing amendments for Monday’s class and indicated that in Wednesday’s class we would hold a hearing on the Motion to Amend in the case files. The syllabus stated that I would ask for volunteers to argue the Motion to Amend and, if I did not have volunteers that I would select counsel at random.
We discussed motions to amend in class on Monday. My objective for Monday’s class was twofold. First, I wanted to make sure students understood how the rule worked, e.g. That Rule 15 sets forth a test for determining whether a pleading can be amended and another test to determine if the amendment would relate back for statute of limitations purposes. Second, it was my objective to get students thinking about how a court must apply the legal standard to the facts in deciding whether a new claim “ [arises] out of the conduct transaction or occurrence set forth [ ] in the original pleading.” During class I diagramed the rule to make sure students understood the steps in the analysis and we discussed several assigned cases where courts addressed whether proposed new claims rose from the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence” as the original claims.
By the end of the day on Monday twelve students had volunteered to act as counsel. I paired the volunteers and assigned two pairs to represent the plaintiff, the existing defendant, and the proposed new party. On Wednesday I set up a “courtroom” in the front of the classroom. I acted as judge. I gave each pair 10 minutes to make their arguments. Throughout the arguments I asked counsel to identify the language of the rule they were applying (i.e. were they arguing the amendment issue or the relation back issue) and challenged them to get their “hands dirty” in arguing the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence” test. For instance, I repeatedly asked plaintiff ‘s counsel to tell me whether they were arguing this was the same conduct or transaction or occurrence and then, using the facts, to identify specifically the “occurrence” or “conduct”.
The simulation worked extremely well. As students listened or argued, light bulbs went off around the room. It was the single most effective teaching technique I used in the course.