2014 Law Student Trial Competition Questions and Answers October 17, 2014

Transcription

1 2014 Law Student Trial Competition Questions and Answers October 17, 2014 Q. Brandi Boots is said to have graduated high school in 1995, but in 2011 was only 23 years old. Can we get clarification on this? A. Bambi Boots was 23 years old when she started dancing at Bottoms Up. Any discrepancies regarding Bambi Boots' age is accidental. Q. The law provided within the case packet doesn't address whether or not the tips collected by the dancers count towards the minimum wage which would be owed to them if they were employees. Can you clarify? Q. Are we to assume that all the depositions have been signed? They do not have signature lines or signatures on them. A. Yes. All depositions have been signed by the deponents. It is impermissible for an advocate/witness to contest that they did not sign his of her deposition. Q. Are we allowed to publish an exact enlargement of the jury instructions for closing arguments? A. Yes. Q. Are BOTH the license agreement AND the orientation packet given to and signed by Boots and Rodgers (Plaintiffs) during their time of employment? Jesse Stone says that the Entertainment agreement is not distributed until after Rodgers and Boots stop working at Bottoms Up. Do we assume that they received both agreements during their time employed at bottoms up and that their signatures are legitimate?

2 Q. Will we be provided with a case file that has numbered pages? The current case file does not have numbered pages. A. The case file is complete as previously provided. Q. Is the last sentence of exhibits 5 and 6 a mistake? What should that be understood to mean. Q. Bambi Boots says in her deposition that she graduated from high school in 1996 and Randy Rogers states that he graduated in This appears to conflict with their claims about their ages when they worked at Bottoms Up. It is stipulated that they worked at Bottoms Up starting in mid 2011, which would put them roughly at 33 and 34 years old respectively when they began dancing there. A. Bambi Boots graduated from high school in Randy Rodgers graduated in Q. Jessie Stone states that they began using agreements for the first six months or a year after they opened the club. She states that High Class first opened in 1993 (not necessarily Bottoms Up?). She further states that they stopped using the forms and did not use them again until after the lawsuit began. However, both she and Kelly Porter discuss requiring the dancers to sign the forms during the period that Bambi and Randy worked there; indeed, there are two agreements signed by them in 2011 in the packet. Q. Understanding that it is impermissible to argue case law outside of the competition materials, are we permitted to argue the statutory language for the statutes cited in the materials such as the FLSA and "Portal-to-Portal Act, etc.? A. No. Q. Again, understanding that it is impermissible to argue case law outside of the competition materials, are we permitted to argue legal doctrine without citing case law, such as the duty of good faith, duty to mitigate damages, ratification, etc.? A. No. Q. Can we assume that under labor law, that a person receives credit towards the minimum wage for the tips he/she earns?

3 Q. In Jesse Stone s deposition, he states that the license agreements (exhibits 3 and 4) were created in August of However, the exhibits themselves show that they were signed in Is this a typo or can we argue that these are forged? Q. In the Entertainer Agreement and Orientation exhibits (Exhibits 5 and 6), there are multiple references to Executive s policies. For example: Exhibit 5 paragraph 4 states nor shall Executive bear any responsibility to either independent contractor Exhibit 5 paragraph 7 states will be cause for Executive s termination of this agreement. Are the references to Executive supposed to be references to Bottoms Up or High Class and this is just a typo? A. Any and all references to Executive should be read and considered as High Class. It is impermissible for an advocate/witness to feign ignorance to the mistaken inclusion of Executive. Q. In the Witness List, the witness s name is listed as Kelly Worth but the rest of the packet refers to the witness as Kelly Porter. Is this a typo? A. Yes. The reference to Kelly Worth should read Kelly Porter. Q. What, if any, of the monies actually received by the entertainers are we to assume would be credited under the applicable law against the minimum wage? Q. Are we allowed to argue in closing that these monies should be credited toward the minimum wage? A. Advocates are advised to focus closing arguments to the law as it is stated in the jury instructions.

4 Q. The exhibits show that the entertainer license agreements were signed by the plaintiffs in the year But the testimony of Jesse Stone on page 12 lines and page 13 lines 1-6 implies that the club was not having the entertainers sign the license agreement when Bambi and Randy were working there. Is that intentional? If Bottom's Up stopped having the entertainers sign a license agreement 6 months after they first opened (going off of the 1993 date provided on page 1 line 19) and then started after the lawsuit started, then it doesn't make sense that we have signed entertainer agreements. Can you please explain? Q. "Attachment A" is referenced in the License Agreement, but is NOT in the case file? Are we to operate under the assumption that this is not necessary? Q. On exhibits 11 &12 there are multiple receipts. Can we split up the exhibit and blow up the receipts individually instead of using the entire exhibit with all the receipts on there? A. Portions of the exhibits may be enlarged for presentation purposes only. They will not be received into evidence. Q. Do the receipts on exhibits 11 & 12 belong to Randy and Bambi respectively? It is unclear as to who all the receipts belong to because there is only a name on one of the receipts on each page. A. See Attachment D. Q. For exhibit 9, whose calendar is it and do the numbers written represent time or money? A. See Attachment D. Q. Can we break up elements of the claims and blow them up? A. Advocates may enlarge the jury instructions in whole or in part. Q. Is it a reasonable inference that a supermarket job and a fast food restaurant job make minimum wage? A. It is neither a reasonable nor a necessary inference. Q. There are exhibits (receipts for the purchase of outfits) in the fact pattern that are not mentioned in any of the witness packets. We might want to enter them into evidence, but there is a foundation issue as the problem is written now. We wondered if these omissions are intentional or if there is a mistake.

5 Q. In addition to the receipts, there are also contracts supposedly signed by the plaintiffs in the packet. The witnesses say they don't recall signing any contracts, but the rules say that the documents are deemed authenticated. Again, we're not sure if this is intentional or not. A. Any signatures appearing on any exhibit are authentic. All witnesses shall be familiar with their signature if it is presented to them on an exhibit. Q. In regards to Exhibit 9 are the numbers listed times or are money amounts? A. Times. Q. According to the jury instructions, In order to meet their burden plaintiffs have to prove that High Class failed to pay the entertainers the required minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all hours worked in one or more work weeks. However, the fact pattern does not give any information regarding the amount made during a certain week or any weeks, and the case is bifurcated. What facts can the plaintiffs use to meet this burden, without being considering going outside the case packet. A. No additional information is available in response to this inquiry. Q. What is Kelly s last name? The deposition transcript says Porter. However, on Attachment "E" of the Joint and Final Pretrial Order under Defendant's witness list it says "Worth." A. Porter. Q. In the list of factors on the final jury instructions re: employer - employee relationship, factor number two is incomprehensible. What does it mean? Does it mean to refer to the extent of plaintiff s investment in bottoms up? Or, does it mean the extent of High Class investment in the plaintiff? A. The extent of High Class investment in Bottoms Up, and the extent of Plaintiffs and the collective members investment in Bottoms Up. Q. The license agreement uses the term, "licensor." However, the entertainment agreement uses the term executive. Are these inconsistencies intentional? Q. In attempt to prove that there was at least a period of one week where the plaintiffs did not earn a minimum wage, will the witnesses be able to testify beyond that which is in their deposition? A. It is a necessary inference that the Plaintiffs have knowledge that the applicable minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.

6 Q. Are we to assume that the fees the entertainer receives for dances and private rooms are treated by law the same as a tip under the FLSA? Or, are they to be treated as wages? Q. In the final jury instructions, should the second prong of the FLSA minimum wage claim, which says pay be consistent with the second prong of the FLSA uniform expense reimbursement claim which says earned? A. No.