STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION ASSIGNMENT
U.S. Legal Research, Analysis & Writing
NAME: ________________________________________________________
DUE DATE: You must turn in the assignment on Canvas by 5pm on Friday, November 18, 2022.
Part One: Editing a Statement of Facts (6 pts.)
Instructions: Read the following client information and legal rule, then review and rewrite the current statement of facts. Remember to remove any unnecessary phrases and revise the statement of facts to ensure it has an objective tone. For any phrases you think are unnecessary, list the phrase you removed in the chart below and explain why it was removed.
Client Information and Legal Rule:
Jan Carey has hired us to represent her in a wrongful termination claim against her former employer, Global. Jan believes she was fired because she reported two Global vice presidents had made plans to steal from Global.
Under state law, an employer is prohibited from firing an employee because the employee has reported the employer for engaging in an illegal activity. Firing the employee on this basis is prohibited even if the employer has not actually engaged in the reported activity, so long as the employee holds a good faith belief that illegal activity has taken place.
Current Statement of Facts
Our client, Jan Carey, was fired by her former employer, Global. Carey believes that Global fired her in retaliation for reporting suspected illegal activity. Carey worked in Global’s accounting department, and part of her job duties included ensuring compliance with state and federal ethics law. She had been performing this job for three years. She had a beautiful corner office with a large window overlooking the parking lot. After missing five days of work because she was deathly ill, Jan returned to work. As she was cleaning out a filing cabinet, she found corporate tax returns from the last five years. She also found notes of discussions between two Global vice presidents of an intricate and devious scheme to steal $1 million from Global. Carey went to Human Resourcesand complained that she was overworked and asked for a new employee to be hired. She also reported the vice presidents’ plansand turned over the documents she found. She was fired the next day, ostensibly for the ridiculous reason of violating Global’s absence control policy for taking too many sick days. It turns out the notes were not, in fact plans to steal, but instead were ideas for a top-notch fiction thriller. Carey now wants us to advise her on whether she can file a wrongful termination claim against Global.
Rewrite
Jan Carey, the claimant, is pursuing a wrongful termination suit against her former employer, Global. Carey believes she was fired for whistleblowing. She worked in accounting, and one of her duties was to ensure compliance with state and federal financial regulations. Returning to work after five days of illness, Carey decided to review tax returns from the last five years. The documents contained notes on a discussion between two Global vice presidents on a plan to steal $1million from Global. Carey reported to Human Resources that she was overworked and requested another employee be hired. She also reported the fraud. The next day, she was fired for violating Global’s absence control policy for taking too many sick days. It turns out the notes were not a plan to steal but ideas for a fiction thriller. Carey wishes to know if she can file a wrongful termination claim against Global.
- Please list three phrases you removed from the statement of facts and explain why you chose to remove each phrase.
| Phrase Removed | Why Phrase Was Removed |
| “in retaliation for reporting suspected illegal activity” | The phrase can be reduced to the word ‘whistleblowing’ to increase textual clarity. |
| She had a beautiful corner office with a large window overlooking the parking lot. | Unnecessary phrases with no use in the legal case. |
| As she was cleaning out a filing cabinet | Unnecessary phrases with no use in the legal case. |
Part Two: Drafting a Statement of Facts (10 pts.)
Instructions: You are drafting a Statement of Facts in a gross negligence case. For the ten questions below, you must choose the best bracketed word option out of the two or three options to complete the Statement of Facts. Remember to choose the most objective, easiest-to-read option for your audience.
Legal Rule: A person who in good faith administers aid at the scene of an emergency or in a hospital is not liable in civil damages for those acts, unless in the case of gross negligence.
[Plaintiff] or [Our client, Andres Ruiz][1] is suing [Defendant] or [Maxwell Ford][2] for negligence based on Ford’s [grossly negligent acts] or [actions] or [careless acts][3] after Ruiz suffered a snake bite during a camping trip.
Ruiz, a twenty-year old college student, was camping with his familyin Grand Canyon National Park when a [five-foot] or [large and extremely intimidating][4] snake bit him. At the same time, Ford, a forty-year-old engineer, was hiking on a dusty trail when he heard screams coming from the nearby bushes. The screams were from Ruiz, [who had stepped on the snake] or [who wasn’t paying attention as usual and foolishly stepped on the snake][5]. The snake bit Ruiz. Ford ran over to Ruiz and tried to help. Ford had taken a first-aid class about thirty years earlier and thought her remembered how a snake bite should be treated. [Defendant] or [Ford][6] told Ruiz not to move a muscle, and Ford placed a tight tourniquet on Ruiz’s leg. Ruiz immediately questioned whether a tourniquet was the right approach.
Ruiz said, “I am an Eagle Scout*, and I know from my training that you should not place a tourniquet on a snake-bitten limb. Tourniquets can be very dangerous.” Ford persisted, [recklessly tightening] or [tightening] or [stubbornly tightening][7] the tourniquet even further. After ten minutes, [Plaintiff] or [plaintiff] or [Ruiz][8] could not feel any sensation in his foot. Ruiz asked Ford again to remove the tourniquet; Ford [seemed very confident] or [said he was “confident about the tourniquet”] or [acted in good faith][9] and refused to remove it. The tourniquet was so tight that it caused permanent injury. The snake bite itself caused no harm because the snake was nonvenomous and its teeth barely grazed Ruiz’s skin. [Ruiz is certain Ford’s actions were grossly negligent] or [Ford’s actions were probably grossly negligent] or [Ruiz seeks our advice on whether Ford’s actions were gross negligence][10].
*An Eagle Scout is a member of a social organization known as the Boy Scouts that trains young girls and boys in life and survival skills through nature experiences. An Eagle Scout is the highest rank in the Boy Scouts.
Part Three: Conclusions (4 pts.)
Instructions: Read the following brief answer from your office memo on an adverse possession lawsuit, then review the possible conclusions. Select the most effective conclusion and provide three reasons why this choice is the most effective or what errors the other choices contained.
Your law firm is representing GasNow on a legal claim over whether a particular land use satisfies the open and notorious conduct element required for adverse possession. Your brief answer section of your legal office memo is as follows:
Probably not. To establish the open and notorious element of adverse possession, a claimant’s use must be plainly visible, creating a presumption of notice to the title owner. GasNow’s gas pipes on the Herrera’s property were not visible to the naked eye because they were underground. Although GasNow also installed metal plates at thirty-foot intervals along the pipe’s route, those too were not easily visible unless the owner stood close to or above them. Thus, GasNow’s use of the Herrera’s property probably does not satisfy the open and notorious element of adverse possesion because an ordinary owner would not easily see GasNow’s use.
Based on this brief answer, which conclusion is most effective? Please list at least three reasons why your choice is the most effective.
- GasNow’s use of the property almost certainly will not constitute the requisite open and notorious conduct for an adverse possession claim.
- GasNow’s use of the property probably will not satisfy the open and notorious element of adverse possession because GasNow’s pipes were hidden underground and its metal plates were only visible from very close up. We should recommend GasNow pursue an out-of-court settlement with the Herreras to minimize legal costs.
- GasNow’s use of the property probably will satisfy the open and notorius element of adverse possession because the metal plates were both numerous and shiny.
- The most effective conclusion is #_______2__ (list 1, 2 or 3) because (provide three reasons)
- _The conclusion provides the objective reasons why GasNow use of the property cannot satisfy the open and notorious element of adverse possession. ________________________________________________
- __The conclusion provides the client a potential legal solution to their problem____________________________________________________
- __The third option is incorrect as per the legal rule while the first option does not provide reasons why the claimant will not succeed in pursuing adverse possession. ____________________________________________________
[1] Our client, Andres Ruiz
[2] Maxwell Ford
[3] actions
[4] five-foot
[5] who had stepped on the snake
[6] Defendant
[7] tightening
[8] Plaintiff
[9] acted in good faith
[10] Ruiz seeks our advice on whether Ford’s actions were gross negligence