Hypothetical

Note: Since this is a hypothetical scenario, there is no pandemic. Imagine this scenario occurring under normal circumstances.

You're an attorney in Gould, California (a fictional city in California near the Oregon border). For years, children in Gould have been suffering from a range of mysterious ailments. Doctors at Gould Children's Hospital have noticed, however, that this range of illnesses appears to be connected to higher than average levels of toxic chemicals in children's lab tests. Doctors began to hypothesize that the children had somehow ingested these toxic chemicals in their foods.

Reporters at the Daily Gould began an investigation into the mysterious illnesses, interviewing families to learn about children's diets and lifestyle habits, measuring the level of chemicals in soil and water around Gould, and sending in random samples of supermarket foods for lab analysis. What reporters uncovered in their investigation is that lunches prepared and served by Gould Elementary School had unusually high levels of dangerous chemicals compared to foods sold in supermarkets.

One reporter interviewed a disgruntled former cafeteria worker at Gould Elementary School who stated that the school bought produce and meat products that farmers and ranchers could not sell to commercial manufacturers who have to comply with California's Proposition 65. Unlike government entities like the school district, commercial manufacturers have to comply with California's Proposition 65, which requires them to place a warning on food products that contain toxic chemicals at levels deemed by the state to be dangerous. Because commercial manufacturers would not buy produce and meat products requiring such a label, Gould Elementary School could buy these products cheaply from farmers and ranchers and not have to disclose chemical levels in school meals.

Parents have approached you to see if they can file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all students who have attended Gould Elementary School in the past four years (approximately 3000 students) and all parents of these students. All parents and students are residents of Gould, California. Parents want to file this lawsuit against Gould Elementary School, the Gould Unified School District, Gould principal E. Coli (who lives across the border in Oregon), and farmers and ranchers who sold to Gould Elementary School (located in California and Oregon).

Parents have brought a range of harms to your attention. All of their children have eaten tainted food from Gould Elementary School (note: Gould Elementary School does not allow children to bring their own lunches; they must eat lunches served by the cafeteria, although these lunches are free). This tainted food will have unknown effects on all of the children's health. 600 children have already developed illnesses related to the food: three-quarters of students have exhibited digestive ailments requiring a doctor's visit or hospitalization, and one-quarter have developed cognitive and motor impairments that could have lifelong ramifications.

All parents have suffered emotional distress, but some parents have expended thousands of dollars in medical expenses, born particularly by parents who don't have insurance.

There is no pandemic, and children are attending school in person; it is the middle of the school year, and children's only option for lunch is cafeteria lunches served at Gould Elementary School. Parents want Gould Elementary School to immediately stop buying produce and meat products that contain dangerous chemicals at levels requiring a warning from the state of California. Parents also want transparency and independent supervision of nutritional decisions made at Gould Elementary School. Parents also want appropriate monetary relief in light of medical expenses, children's lasting health complications, and emotional distress.

You see a number of potential legal claims, but most clearly you see a claim for negligence. There are four elements that the plaintiffs must show to prevail on a negligence claim: 1) That Defendants have a duty of care to (a) students and (b) parents; 2) That Defendants breached their duty of care; 3) This breach was the cause of Plaintiffs' harm; and 4) Plaintiffs suffered harm.

You accept the parents' case and begin planning litigation. There are many considerations to weigh, and you need to develop an overarching plan and strategy. When answering questions, please set out the applicable standard of law and then apply this law to the facts in the hypothetical. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability; if the hypothetical does not provide you with all of the facts that you may need to answer a question, please note what facts you would need to develop a more thorough recommendation. Along those lines, you will need to answer the questions below.

Hypothetical

Note: Since this is a hypothetical scenario, there is no pandemic. Imagine this scenario occurring under normal circumstances.

You're an attorney in Gould, California (a fictional city in California near the Oregon border). For years, children in Gould have been suffering from a range of mysterious ailments. Doctors at Gould Children's Hospital have noticed, however, that this range of illnesses appears to be connected to higher than average levels of toxic chemicals in children's lab tests. Doctors began to hypothesize that the children had somehow ingested these toxic chemicals in their foods.

Reporters at the Daily Gould began an investigation into the mysterious illnesses, interviewing families to learn about children's diets and lifestyle habits, measuring the level of chemicals in soil and water around Gould, and sending in random samples of supermarket foods for lab analysis. What reporters uncovered in their investigation is that lunches prepared and served by Gould Elementary School had unusually high levels of dangerous chemicals compared to foods sold in supermarkets.

One reporter interviewed a disgruntled former cafeteria worker at Gould Elementary School who stated that the school bought produce and meat products that farmers and ranchers could not sell to commercial manufacturers who have to comply with California's Proposition 65. Unlike government entities like the school district, commercial manufacturers have to comply with California's Proposition 65, which requires them to place a warning on food products that contain toxic chemicals at levels deemed by the state to be dangerous. Because commercial manufacturers would not buy produce and meat products requiring such a label, Gould Elementary School could buy these products cheaply from farmers and ranchers and not have to disclose chemical levels in school meals.

Parents have approached you to see if they can file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all students who have attended Gould Elementary School in the past four years (approximately 3000 students) and all parents of these students. All parents and students are residents of Gould, California. Parents want to file this lawsuit against Gould Elementary School, the Gould Unified School District, Gould principal E. Coli (who lives across the border in Oregon), and farmers and ranchers who sold to Gould Elementary School (located in California and Oregon).

Parents have brought a range of harms to your attention. All of their children have eaten tainted food from Gould Elementary School (note: Gould Elementary School does not allow children to bring their own lunches; they must eat lunches served by the cafeteria, although these lunches are free). This tainted food will have unknown effects on all of the children's health. 600 children have already developed illnesses related to the food: three-quarters of students have exhibited digestive ailments requiring a doctor's visit or hospitalization, and one-quarter have developed cognitive and motor impairments that could have lifelong ramifications.

All parents have suffered emotional distress, but some parents have expended thousands of dollars in medical expenses, born particularly by parents who don't have insurance.

There is no pandemic, and children are attending school in person; it is the middle of the school year, and children's only option for lunch is cafeteria lunches served at Gould Elementary School. Parents want Gould Elementary School to immediately stop buying produce and meat products that contain dangerous chemicals at levels requiring a warning from the state of California. Parents also want transparency and independent supervision of nutritional decisions made at Gould Elementary School. Parents also want appropriate monetary relief in light of medical expenses, children's lasting health complications, and emotional distress.

You see a number of potential legal claims, but most clearly you see a claim for negligence. There are four elements that the plaintiffs must show to prevail on a negligence claim: 1) That Defendants have a duty of care to (a) students and (b) parents; 2) That Defendants breached their duty of care; 3) This breach was the cause of Plaintiffs' harm; and 4) Plaintiffs suffered harm.

You accept the parents' case and begin planning litigation. There are many considerations to weigh, and you need to develop an overarching plan and strategy. When answering questions, please set out the applicable standard of law and then apply this law to the facts in the hypothetical. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability; if the hypothetical does not provide you with all of the facts that you may need to answer a question, please note what facts you would need to develop a more thorough recommendation. Along those lines, you will need to answer the questions below.

1. What are your clients' objectives in resolving this issue?

a. How could litigation help resolve this issue? b. What are the risks of litigation? c. Are there alternatives to litigation?

1. What would be the theory of the case if filed?
2. How would you conduct an informal fact investigation to develop a sufficiently pled complaint underTwombly/Iqbal?
3. How would you define the class to meet Rule 23 requirements? Would you define subclasses?
4. What court would you recommend filing the complaint in?
   1. Would a California state court have personal jurisdiction over each of the various Defendants?
   2. Would a federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over this claim or should this claim be filed in state court?
5. What initial response(s) do you expect from the Defendant (answer, motion to dismiss, counterclaim, or cross-claim)?
6. Please formulate a formal discovery plan for this matter. Specifically, how will you use:
   1. Depositions
   2. Interrogatories
   3. Requests for Admissions
   4. Subpoenas/Requests for Documents

8) What remedies are you seeking? Specifically:

1. Do you think injunctive relief is warranted? If so, what injunctive relief will you

ask for? (And can any of this injunctive relief be sought before liability is decided

[aka in a motion for preliminary injunction or TRO])

1. Do you think damages are warranted?
   1. If so, what types of damages will you ask for?
   2. How do you recommend measuring damages here?
2. Do you think restitution is warranted? If so, how would you recommend measuring restitution here?

9) What is your recommended settlement strategy? Specifically:

a. At what stage(s) of litigation would you recommend your client discuss settlement?

b. What remedies would you recommend your client ask for?

c. What compromises would you recommend your client be ready to take?

d. What is your client's leverage in settlement discussions?