While driving in State B, Dani, a driver from State A collided with Mike, a motorcyclist from State B. Dani sued Mike in federal court in State B, seeking damages of $80,000. Although Mike was properly served with process and had notice of the action, he did not answer, and the court entered a default judgment against him for $80,000. Thereafter, Mike sued Dani in a federal court in State A, seeking compensation of $1 million for his injuries.If Dani timely files a motion to dismiss Mike’s claim, how should the court rule?

Othena, the owner of a jewelry store, brought a civil action against Francesca, a former clerk, for the value of various pieces of jewelry missing from the store. Francesca had been fired after another employee had reported that Francesca was stealing jewelry. At the trial, Othena calls her employee as a witness. The witness testifies that he does not remember either having seen Francesca take anything from the store or having told Othena that she had done so. Othena then takes the witness stand and proposes to testify to what the witness had told her about seeing Francesca stealing pieces of jewelry from the store.Assuming appropriate objection by Francesca, would such testimony by Othena be admissible?

Edith sued her employer in federal court for sexual harassment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the employer. Three months after the verdict, Edith’s attorney received an anonymous letter stating that a key document presented at trial by the employer had been altered. Edith moved for relief from judgment, alleging that a document presented by her employer at trial had been altered.Assuming that Edith can show that the alteration was intentional, how should the court rule?

Hannah, a homeowner, is suing Cash, a contractor, in federal court for fraud and misrepresentation. Subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity, and is clearly appropriate. Hannah presented three witnesses, while Cash presented one witness. Cash’s witness is impressive on the stand, and all observers believe that Cash will prevail. The case then goes to the jury without any motions being made by either party, and the jury returns a verdict for Hannah.If Cash moves for a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, will Cash be successful?

An increase in blood CO2 levels is followed by a(n) [q1] in H+ ions and a(n) [q2] in blood pH.

Petra is suing Darla in federal court for personal injuries arising out of an assault and battery. Darla has confided in her therapist certain matters that Petra believes would be relevant to her case and helpful in finding further information.On request by Petra, will the federal court order discovery of what Darla told her therapist over Darla’s objection?

What is the radius of a sphere with a volume of 12 cubic inches?  Round your answer to the nearest hundredth.   The volume of a sphere is given by 

Able shot both Ben and his brother Carl in a gang related drive-by shooting. Both men were severely wounded.  In fact, Carl died. Able was prosecuted for the murder of Carl.  Immediately after the shooting Officer Johnson approached Ben who whispered to the officer that Able shot my brother to death, and then he shot me twice in the stomach. I can’t believe I am going to die this way.” Ben then lapsed into a coma.  In the investigation of the case Officer Johnson then interviewed Doug, about his brother Able.  Doug told the officer that “I, not Able killed Carl.”  However, at the trial, during the cross-examination by the prosecutor Doug made statements implicating Able in the killing of Carl. The trial court convicted Able for the murder of Carl.  But on appeal the appellate court remanded the case to be retried because of a faulty jury instruction. At the time of the retrial, Ben remained in a coma and Doug had since died of a heroin overdose.  In the meantime, Able was released on bail pending his retrial and hired a different attorney to handle his case. Able then consulted with his lawyer about his motive for shooting Ben and Carl.  All three men had been members of the same gang and Able suspected that Ben and Carl were working with the police in an undercover operation.  After meeting with the lawyer, Able reported back to the other gang members exactly what he had revealed to the attorney concerning his motive for the shooting. Ironically, one of the gang members present was in fact a police informant and reported Able’s recounting of his meeting with the lawyer to law enforcement officials. Discuss all legal issues concerning the following: (a) At the second trial the prosecutor asked Officer Johnson what Ben said to him before lapsing into a coma. The defense counsel objects.(b) At the second trial the defense counsel asked Officer Johnson what Doug told him about his own involvement in the killing of Carl.  The prosecutor objects. (c) At the second trial the prosecution seeks to offer into evidence the transcript of his cross-examination of Doug from the first trial The defense objects on the specific grounds that she was not able to cross-examine Doug. (d) The prosecutor calls the police informant to testify about Able’s communication with the lawyer. The defense counsel objects. Assume that the California Evidence Code applies in this jurisdiction.

***BONUS POINTS*** For up to an additional 2 points, name your favorite intervention/favorite thing learned in class this semester and and explain why it was your favorite!

The belief in a single, all-powerful God responsible for the creation of the natural world is