Fifteen validated scenario packs
Sample Lesson Plans
Each track has 30, 50, and 75 minute variants. Applying a pack controls case and card subsets, budgets, timers, claim-hand size, planned rounds, and the printable deck.
Timing templates
| Class | Brief | Play | Debrief | Rounds | Recommended use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 minutes | 5 | 18 | 7 | 1 | Focused discussion, office hours, or a single contrast. |
| 50 minutes | 8 | 32 | 10 | 2 | Standard class with role rotation and comparison. |
| 75 minutes | 10 | 50 | 15 | 3 | Lab, review session, or deeper transfer across cases. |
Jurisdiction and Removal
Core question: Which court has power, and what changes the forum without necessarily ending the case?
Cases: Repair Shop Removal Trap, Interstate Tire Failure, Viral Defamation Stream.
Instructor prompts: Require separate personal-jurisdiction and subject-matter-jurisdiction explanations. When removal appears, ask for the original-jurisdiction basis and the forum-defendant analysis.
| Pack | Suggested sequence | Debrief target |
|---|---|---|
| 30 | One round; force either removal/remand or a personal-jurisdiction contrast. | Forum change versus dismissal. |
| 50 | Two rounds with role rotation; compare a forum defendant with an out-of-state defendant. | Complete diversity and removal availability. |
| 75 | Three rounds; require a different forum analysis in each. | Transfer across fact patterns, not memorized labels. |
Rule 12 Motion Practice
Core question: Which threshold defense fits, when must it be raised, and is the right response opposition, cure, transfer, or amendment?
Cases: Broken SaaS Rollout, Screening Report Pleading Fight, Bank Data Breach.
Instructor prompts: Ask whether each defense is waivable before it is played. Require the plaintiff to classify the response as defeating, curing, or redirecting the attack.
| Pack | Suggested sequence | Debrief target |
|---|---|---|
| 30 | One round centered on service or pleading sufficiency. | Curable defects and responsive cards. |
| 50 | Two rounds; make the second defense confront serial-motion waiver. | Rule 12(g)/(h) timing. |
| 75 | Three rounds; compare service, pleading, and jurisdiction attacks. | Why similarly named motions have different consequences. |
Discovery and Rule 56
Core question: Which discovery device produces the needed proof, and what happens when the record remains incomplete?
Cases: Interstate Tire Failure, Viral Defamation Stream, Platform Wage Claim.
Instructor prompts: Make students name the proof item before choosing a tool. Close at least one round early so Rule 56 exposes the missing record.
| Pack | Suggested sequence | Debrief target |
|---|---|---|
| 30 | One round; collect one item, mishandle or skip another, then close discovery. | Tool-to-proof matching. |
| 50 | First round reaches trial; second closes with a missing item. | Complete versus incomplete record. |
| 75 | Three rounds featuring burden, privacy, and privilege responses. | Proportionality and objection-specific moves. |
Joinder and Supplemental Jurisdiction
Core question: Does the party or claim share the required factual relationship, and what happens to jurisdiction after it is added?
Cases: Platform Wage Claim, Whistleblower Plus Rent Dispute, Interstate Tire Failure.
Instructor prompts: Require a same-transaction fact for joinder and a common-nucleus fact for supplemental jurisdiction. Recalculate citizenship and court after every joinder result.
| Pack | Suggested sequence | Debrief target |
|---|---|---|
| 30 | One round contrasting related and unrelated claims. | Common nucleus. |
| 50 | Two rounds; one claim joinder and one party joinder. | Different relationship tests and consequences. |
| 75 | Three rounds with removal consequences after a local party is added. | Post-joinder jurisdiction math. |
Erie and Class Actions Preview
Core question: Is the disputed rule substantive or procedural, and what threshold fit must a proposed class satisfy?
Cases: Bank Data Breach, Auto-Renewal Class Preview, Screening Report Pleading Fight.
Instructor prompts: Label Erie conclusions as provisional and require a Rule 23 reason rather than accepting the class label. Keep subject-matter jurisdiction distinct from both preview issues.
| Pack | Suggested sequence | Debrief target |
|---|---|---|
| 30 | One round focused on either Erie or Rule 23. | Issue separation. |
| 50 | Two rounds, one Erie and one class-certification preview. | Substantive/procedural and Rule 23 fit. |
| 75 | Three rounds adding a pleading or SMJ contrast. | Avoid collapsing distinct threshold doctrines. |
Common final debrief
- Which card choice had the strongest fact-to-rule explanation?
- Which wrong motion or missing proof item appears in the assessment?
- Did the result end the case, change the forum, cure a defect, or only narrow the dispute?
- What would change under fuller doctrine beyond this model?
- What one balance or wording change should be tested with the same pack and seed?
Use your browser's Print command for a paper or PDF lesson-plan packet.