Teams

Elisa Santos & Brian Weikel

I. Did the District Court err in finding no likelihood of confusion between Rex Records, Inc.’s OFF THE CHARTS! mark and BTX, Inc.’s WE’RE OFF THE CHARTS? YOU BTXHA! marks?

II.   Did the District Court err in finding that OFF THE CHARTS! functions as a trademark?

III. Did the District Court err in finding that Rex’s Records, Inc.’s use of the BTX action figures constituted false endorsement?

Last practice January 31st.

Nicholas Medellin, Leilani Lu, Kira Petersen

Petitioner owns a music store and claims trademark infringement of its mark "OFF THE CHARTS!" due to Respondent's--the popular band BTX--use of the trademark "WE'RE OFF THE CHARTS? YOU BTXHA!" As a promotional tool Petitioner used BTX themed action figures in the store. BTX claims that unauthorized uses constitutes false endorsement.

The questions presented are:

1. Did the District Court err in finding no likelihood of confusion?

2. Did the District Court correctly find that "OFF THE CHARTS!" functions as a trademark?

3. Did the District Court err in finding that Rex's use of the BTX action figures was false endorsement?

Last practice February 2nd.

Nick Matoian & Anushka Silva

Questions Presented

I.         Whether a foreign-born minor league baseball player should be granted an “extraordinary ability” employment-based visa?

II.         Whether said player should be granted asylum in the United States based on fear of political persecution in his home country?

Last practice February 11th.

Christopher Blackburn, Narisa Abhasakun, and Cole Limbach (BE)

Last practice February 13th.

Alexis Cherry (Issue I), Zackary Soled (Issue II)

(1) Does a public university’s affirmative action plan that uses race as a “plus” factor in admissions violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

(2) Does a public university’s vaccine requirement violate an applicant’s First Amendment rights when the applicant is denied a religious exemption?

Last practice February 14th.

Arianna Metheny, Caitlyn Barresi, Devin Goodman

I.               Whether the automobile exception justifies a warrantless search of electronic data from devices installed in an automobile given the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and this Court’s decision in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).

II.             Whether a magistrate judge’s acceptance of a Rule 11 felony guilty plea is valid and binding under the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 without the acceptance of the plea by an Article III judge.

Last practice February 14th.

Ananya Sreekanth, Donato Catrina, & Jovanni Villa

1) Did the District Court err when it determined that costs incurred by FAWS in sampling, testing and analyzing well water samples of its members' private drinking water wells are not reimbursable as response costs under CERCLA? 

2) Did the District Court err when it upheld EPA's determination that the ERA constitutes an ARAR, and, accordingly finding that EPA's reopening the Consent Decree based on that ARAR and ordering further remedial action in the UAO was proper? 

3) Did the District Court err when it vacated as arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law EPA's determination that BELCO is not required to install filtration systems in Fartown despite the existence of the ERA? 

4) Did the District Court err in retaining jurisdiction over FAWS' remaining state law tort claims after resolving the federal claims? 

Last practice February 20th.

Raye Leatherwood, Joseph Lin, and Kelly Perreault

1. Whether the State of New Scotland, Third Appellate Division, correctly determined that the father failed to show that the relocation was in Antonia's best interest and properly found that it was in Antonia's best interests to return to the mother's custody. 

2. Whether the State of New Scotland, Third Appellate Division, correctly determined that the mother was the best fit to address the issue of obtaining birth control pills for Antonia, that it was in Antonia's best interest to be able to take birth control pills, and that the statutes violate the Antonia's liberty interests. 

Last practice February 26th.

Rana Salem, Zoe Bays, Mackenzie Cowles

Whether the First Amendment protects an instructor’s in-class speech on a matter of public

concern by limiting a public college’s disciplinary power or whether academic speech is

categorically unprotected by the First Amendment as official duty speech under Garcetti?

Whether the government speech doctrine allows a public college to compel a professor to

communicate certain information endorsing a viewpoint in conflict with the professor’s

deeply held academic views or whether the well-established Pickering-Connick balancing

test should continue to apply in the academic setting?

Last practice February 27th.

Will Martel, Kayla Sparks, Megan McNamara (BE)

Last practice February 28th.

Anna Donald, Kylie Green, Isabella Granucci (BE)

I. What standard of proof is required at the motion to dismiss stage for a duty of fair

representation claim based on discriminatory conduct under the National Labor

Relations Act?

II. Are political subdivisions of states permitted to enact “right-to-work” statutes under

§14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act?

III. Does the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and the

League/Jammers include a clear and unmistakable waiver of a player’s right to pursue

an employment discrimination claim under Title VII?

IV. Must a plaintiff alleging a gender-based disparate treatment employment

discrimination claim under Title VII satisfy the “but for” or “because of” causation

standard of proof?

Last practice February 28th.

Tatum Novitsky, Hailey Zanutto

I. Whether probable cause was established to enter and search H.G's home? II. Whether prohibiting H.G's ability to live stream within her house at a specific time violates the first amendment?

Last practice February 28th.

Zahra Parekh, Jessica Harris, Rahmat Omari

1) Does the First Amendment limit a public community college’s power to regulate an instructor’s in-class speech during an academic discussion or is the speech excluded under Garcetti

2) Does the First Amendment’s prohibition against compelled speech limit a public community college’s power to require an instructor to communicate information–in a syllabus and through in-class instruction–endorsing a viewpoint that conflicts with the instructor’s academic views?

Last practice March 1st.

Carolina Ferrera Alves, Jonathan Escobar, Zury Molina

Last practice March 5th.