2023年法律英语BriefSample.docx

法律英语：Brief Sample A Brief to Trial Court SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TIMOTHY TYLER, CASE NO. 1122-a Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND vs. AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EASTERN PACIFIC UNIVERSITY EASTERN PACIFIC UNIVERSITYS Defendant. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Timothy Tyler, submits this memorandum in opposition to Defendant Eastern Pacific Universitys motion for summary judgment. The statue of limitations was tolled in this action because Tyler had no reason to suspect fraud or to inquire further until he discovered the fraud in March 1993. This action therefore has been timely filed and is not barred. Ⅱ. STATEMENT OF FACTS Timothy Tyler was a member of his high schools varsity soccer team and was named to the states All Star team. (Joint Stipulation of Facts 2) In 1988, during the fall of his senior year, Tyler was recruited to play soccer for Eastern Pacific University (Eastern) by Richard Cramer, a recruiter for Eastern Pacific University. Tyler had already accepted a full athletic scholarship to attend Yosemite College after graduation. (Joint Stip. 3, 5) In the course of their discussion, Cramer learned of Tylers desire to obtain a graduate degree from the Global Policy Studies (GPS) program at Eastern. Cramer told Tyler that Eastern had a policy of giving priority to its own graduates in admission to the GPS program. Cramer admits that he had no idea whether the GPS program had such a policy and made this statement only to induce Tyler to play soccer for Eastern. (Joint Stip. 9) Tyler had previously spoken with the staff of the GPS program and on such policy had been mentioned. That discussion with GPS program and on such policy had been mentioned. That discussion with GPS program and on such policy had been mentioned. That discussion with GPS staff had concerned the excellence of the program and the high caliber of student the program was able to attract. (Joint Stip. 10) Tyler subsequently declined the scholarship to Yosemite College and enrolled at Eastern. Since no scholarships were available, he financed his education by working part-time and taking out substantial loans. Tyler was able to obtain a position as a student assistant in the GPS program. (Joint Stip.5) Although he assisted the admissions secretary during his freshman year, his responsibilities for applications and mailing letters as he was instructed by the secretary. Tyler was not involved in admissions decisions or aware of how they were made. The priority admissions policy was never mentioned during the course of his employment. (Joint Stip. 6) In October 1992, Tyler applied for admission to the GPS program. When his application was denied in March 1993, Tyler discovered for the first time that Cramer had deceived his regarding the admissions policy. (Joint Stip. 11) Tyler promptly filed this action in October of 1993 to recover the damages incurred as a result of Cramers deception. Ⅲ. ARGUMENT TYLERS ACTION FOR FRAUD WAS FILED WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE HE DID NOT DISCOVER UNTIL MARCH 1993 THAT HE HAD BEEN MISLED AND COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE DISCOVERED THE FRAUD EARLIER. The statute of limitations for fraud does not begin to run until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting fraud.“ Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 338. (d) (West 1985 Supp. 1994). Discovery occurs when the plaintiff obtains information sufficient to make a reasonably prudent person suspicious of fraud, thus putting him on inquiry.“ National Auto. Casualty Ins. Co. v. Payne, 261 Cal. App. 2d 403. 409, 67 Cal. Rptr. 784, 788 (1968). When a plaintiff has no reason to suspect fraud, however, the statute of limitations does not begin to run. Seeger v. Odell, 18 Cal. 2d 409, 115 P. 2d 977 (1941); Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co., 26 Cal. 2d 412, 159 P. 2d 958 (1945). Seeger and Hobart are controlling here. In Seeger, an elderly couple was misled about an execution sale of their real estate by the defendants attorney, who as an attorney, he knew all the pertinent facts about the sale. 18 Cal. 2d at 412,115 p. 2d at 979. Similarly, in Hobart, the plaintiff was misled about the market value of his stock by the attorney who had represented his familys business for a long time. In both cases, the plaintiffs had no reason to suspect that they had been misled. And in both cases. The court held that the statute was tolled until the plaintiffs obtained information indicating that the attorneys had lied. Hobart, 26 Cal. 2d at 441, 159 p. 2d at 974; Seeger, 18 Cal, 2d at 418, 115 p. 2d at 982. Tyler was similarly misled by someone who held himself out to be an expert. Tyler, a high school senior, had no reason to suspect that a recruiter employed by Eastern would lie to him about its admissions policy, just as the plaintiffs in Seeger