Welcome to Hastings Moot Court! Please support our team by signing up to judge a practice argument!
Spring 2018 Competition Teams will start having practices January 2018.
|DATE AND TIME||TEAM||ROOM||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE|
|Fri. March 23|
|5:00PM - 6:00PM||Sessions v. Morales-Gomez||MCR||Karen Martinez||Shannon Davis||Paige Adaskaveg||Tania Bonilla|
|Sat. March 24|
|12:00PM - 1:00PM||Sessions v. Morales-Gomez||MCR||Shannon Davis||Nannan Li||Paige Adaskaveg|
|Sun. March 25|
|9:00AM - 11:00AM||Traynor||MCR|
|12:00PM - 1:00PM||Sessions v. Morales-Gomez||MCR|
|Mon. March 26|
|12:00PM - 1:00PM||Zavala v. Rios||MCR||Emily Uhlig||Maddy LS||Pedram Ghoreishi|
Gabbi Gallego and Francesca Reifer
1. Whether, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (“Abbasi”), there exists a Fifth Amendment damages remedy under Bivens in the context of prison mail.
2. Whether the Government is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Zavala's due process claim.
Last practice April 11.
Ross Vartain, Shannon Davis, Alex Cervantes
Respondent IRF is a non-profit agency that operates a residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation and mental health treatment facility in Hollis, California. Clinical counseling and therapy services are provided by both licensed counselors and counselors working towards obtaining a Marriage and Family Therapist (âMFTâ) license. Petitioner Bellkirk began to pursue a MFT license while working for the County. Bellkirk began to intern for IRF to receive mandatory training to receive her MFT license. A patient at IRF became obsessed with Bellkirk and subsequently stabbed her in the back of the head and temple over twenty times.
IRF maintained a Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policy which covered IRF employees who suffered bodily injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The claim for Bellkirkâs injury was denied and summary judgment was granted for IRF because the insurance provider deemed her to not be an employee of IRF. IRF subsequently submitted a further claim and is awaiting a response.
Issue 1. Was the trial court correct to grant summary judgment for IRF on the ground that there was no triable issue of material fact as to whether Bellkirk was an employee of IRF at the time of the incident?
Issue 2. Was the trial court correct to grant summary judgment for IRF on the ground that there was no triable issue of material fact as to whether Bellkirk's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment with IRF?
Last practice April 11.
Daniel Galindo, Andrew Johnson
For the first thirteen years of his life, Petitioner Ever Morales-Gomez lived and went to school in a small town in El Salvador that was (and still is) controlled by the country’s two deadliest criminal street gangs: Mara Salvatrucha (“MS-13”) and Barrio 18 (“the 18th Street gang”). Morales-Gomez lived with his family in MS-13 territory, and attended school in 18th Street gang territory. Every day, Morales-Gomez was forced to cross an invisible border between the two gangs’ territories in pursuit of education. Eventually, both gangs took notice. Despite the fact that Morales-Gomez has no ties whatsoever to any gangs in El Salvador, both MS-13 and the 18th Street gang came to believe that he was a rival gang member based solely on where he lived and where he went to school. Without hesitation or repercussions, members of both gangs repeatedly confronted thirteen-year-old Morales-Gomez and threatened to kill him. In the last of these confrontations, a member of MS-13 pointed a gun at Morales-Gomez’s head and told him that MS-13 wanted him dead. Morales-Gomez’s family made arrangements for him to leave El Salvador and come to the United States that same day. Morales-Gomez sought asylum and withholding of removal to avoid the certain death that awaits him in El Salvador. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) concluded that he was not eligible for either form of relief because his proposed social group, “young Salvadoran males who are perceived to be a member of a particular gang because of where they live and/or go to school,” does not qualify as a “particular social group” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). This was error. The proposed group is composed of members who share common immutable characteristics, is defined with particularity, and is socially distinct within El Salvador.
Last practice March 29.