Faculty Coaches Lead Honors Moot Court Teams to Successful Year

Faculty coaches led students to success in five separate moot court competitions this year:

1. Appellate Lawyers Association Moot Court Competition, Chicago, IL (Fall 2016)

· Jesse Prieto, Brittany Rodriguez & Keith Gallarzo – Coach Robert Molko

2. National Juvenile Law Moot Court Competition, Costa Mesa, CA (2 teams) (Spring 2017)

· Andre Clarke & Melissa Padilla – Coach Monica Todd

· Laura Mergenthaler and Anahi Millot – Coach Elizabeth Jones

o 2nd Place Best Brief Award

3. Rendigs National Products Liability Moot Court Competition, Cincinnati, OH (Spring 2017)

· Kyle Case & Steve Kim – Coach Paula Manning

o Finalist – Runner Up (2nd place overall)

4. Asylum & Refugee Law Moot Court Competition, Davis, CA (Spring 2017)

· Jennifer Pyka & Luz Ayala – Coach Cheyanna Jaffke

o Best Brief Award

o Quarter Finalist

5. The Jerome Prince Evidence Moot Competition, Brooklyn, NY (Spring 2017)

· Keith Gallarzo & Ruby Becker – Coach Robert Molko

o Quarter Finalist

Jennifer Koh Participates in Panel on Gender-Based Violence at UC Irvine School of Law

On April 7, Professor Jennifer Koh participated in a panel entitled “Responses to Gender-Based Violence in the Trump Era,” which took place in connection with a conference on the Politicization of Safety sponsored by the UCI Initiative to End Family Violence. Her comments focused on the impact of current immigration enforcement policies on domestic violence in immigrant communities.

Jennifer Koh Speaks at Pepperdine Law Conference on Christianity and Crimmigration

On March 10, 2017, Professor Jennifer Koh presented at the annual Nootbaar Institute Conference at Pepperdine Law School. The theme of this year’s conference was “Religious Critiques of the Law.” Professor Koh spoke on a panel entitled, “Religious Critiques of Civil Rights,” and her presentation focused on the connections between the faith commitments of Christianity and the literature on the intersection of criminal and immigration law, also known as “crimmigration.”

Monica Todd and Eunice Park Present at Arizona State University

Professors Monica Todd and Eunice Park presented at the 17th Annual Rocky Mountain Regional Legal Writing Conference on “Settlement: A 1L Exercise to Prepare for Appellate Advocacy.” At the conference, held from March 10-11 at Arizona State University, Professors Todd and Park discussed how a settlement negotiation exercise can allow students to experience a practical introduction to persuasion before launching into the appellate brief assignment for the semester.




Susan Keller Presents at Harvard College

Associate Dean Susan Keller returned last week to Harvard College to participate in a symposium celebrating her undergraduate major, Folklore and Mythology.  She talked about how the techniques she learned for studying oral and traditional narratives can inform the analysis of appellate legal opinions. 

Glenn Koppel Publishes in Campbell Law Review

Professor Glenn Koppel recently published The Case for Nonmutual Privity in Vicarious Liability Relationships: Pushing the Frontiers of the Law of Claim Preclusion in the Winter 2017 issue of the Campbell Law Review. The article addresses an evolving area of preclusion law: nonmutual claim preclusion and the related issue of privity between parties to a vicarious liability relationship. This corner of preclusion law became the subject of a controversial sample multiple choice question published in 2014 by the National Committee of Bar Examiners. Scholarly commentary on the Civil Procedure listserve agreed that two out of the four choices were arguably correct, but presented an array of differing views as to the correct answer. The article presents a national survey of state and federal case law of claim and issue preclusion, and proposes that derivative liability relationships should be added to the recognized categories of substantive legal relationships commonly referred to as “privity “ to support the application of nonmutual claim preclusion, rather than the narrower concept of nonmutual issue preclusion.