2005 Student Negotiations Competition
April 1, 2005
Golden Gate University, San Francisco
Fact Pattern - 2005 Student Negotiation Competition
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for Gregory /Mujera Blanca
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for San Tope County DA
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for Gregory /Mujera Blanca
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for STOP
Photo - 2005 Student Negotiation Competition
Permit - 2005 Student Negotiation Competition
Map - 2005 Student Negotiation Competition
Rules - 2005 Student Negotiation Competition
Grading Profile - 2005 Student Negotiation Competition
Program Brochure 2005 - Student Negotiation Competition
The competition offered a first prize of $1000 and a second prize of $500. The final four teams in the 2005 Competition were:
|
2005 Winning Team: Robert Fletcher & Phillip Krayna from Golden Gate University
|
2005 2nd Place Team (tie): Tiffany Noelle & Kevin Muldoon from Chapman University School of Law
|
2005 2nd Place Team (tie): Ron Bertolina & James Heffner from University of San Francisco
|
2005 Runner-Up Team: Todd Ausherman & Jeff Lang from the University of San Diego
|
2004 Student Environmental Negotiations Competition
March 26, 2004
Golden Gate University, San Francisco
This fact pattern concerned a conflict between community residents and a long-standing quarry operation. The residents believed that the quarry had increased operations, created a public nuisance, and was in violation of the zoning laws and a reclamation plan that was in place. The quarry owner contended that the quarry benefitted the community through tax revenues, providing building materials, and maintaining the roads in the area.
Fact Pattern - 2004 Student Negotiations Competition
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for Natalie Harrison and M3
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for Pollak/Mad Max
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for Stuart County
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for Pollak/Mad Max
Photos - 2004 Student Negotiations Competition
Rules - 2004 Student Negotiations Competition
Program Brochure - 2004 Student Negotiation Competition
2004 Competition Winners |
2004 Competition Winning Teams |
2003 Student Environmental Negotiations Competition
April 11, 2003
Golden Gate University, San Francisco
The fact pattern concerned solid waste landfill. Below are the 2003 Competition Rules, Statement of Fact and Accompanying Maps. In addition, confidential negotiating instructions were mailed to individual teams.
Fact Pattern - 2003 Student Negotiations Competition
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for Gritter
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for State
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for Gritter
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for State
Maps - 2003 Student Negotiations Competition
Rules - 2003 Student Negotiations Competition
Program Brochure - 2003 Student Negotiations Competition
2002 Environmental Negotiations Competition
The fact pattern concerns a family-run dairy in a county that is being slowly transformed from a primarily agricultural region to an urban area. Issues include waste water, runoff, wastewater treatment lagoons, water supply, biological resources, solid wastes, air impacts, worker health and safety and cumulative impacts.
There are two rounds of negotiations - one between a country organization of Residents for Clean Air and with the owner of the dairy, and the second between the Residents for Clean Air and the county.
Fact Pattern - 2002 Student Negotiation Competition
Background of Key Legal Issues - 2002 Student Negotiation Competition
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for Mendoza Dairy Attorneys
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for Orca Attorneys
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for County Attorneys
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for Orca Attorneys
Negative Declaration - 2002 Student Negotiation Competition
2001 Environmental Negotiations Competition
The fact pattern concerns a manufacturer of particle board. The manufacturing plant uses hundreds of thousands of tons of the saw mill byproducts annually, is an aging operation and only marginally profitable. The plant is located near a creek, and includes the “new shavings” building where sawdust and shavings are stored, and the manufacturing building to which the sawdust and shavings are transported using both trucks and a pneumatic piping system.
The D.A. has filed a massive 120 count criminal complaint against the company that owns the plant, alleging multiple days of violations of the Fish and Game Code and the Water Code.
The two preliminarly rounds are separate settlement discussions between the District Attorney and the Manufacturer, attempting to resolve issues concerning releases of sawdust from the site along with future enforcement criteria. For the final round, the same parties negotiate about a new set of issues, based on the same factual situation underlying the morning negotiations.
Fact Pattern - 2001 Student Negotiation Competition
Background of Key Legal Issues - 2001 Student Negotiation Competition
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for Deputy District Attorneys
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for LLI Attorneys
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for Deputy Attorneys
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for LLI Attorneys
Maps - 2001 Student Negotiation Competition
2000 Environmental Negotiations Competition
The fact pattern concerns a 100-year-old marin loading facility and tank farm run by an oil company in a small coastal town. The Environmental Department has discovered oil contamination under the beach area and a portion of the town. It also found petroleum hydrocarbons in the groundwater. Though the oil company (under a series of administrative orders issued by the Environment Department) has been addressing these issues for a decade, the town residents have ground increasingly impatient, vocal, and angry about the contamination, the speed of the cleanup, the disruption of the town's life, the loss of tourism, and the fear that wholesale excavation of the town could destroy it's eclectic, sleepy qualities.
Both the state environmental agency and environmental groups have filed suit against the oil company, demanding cleanup, damages, penalties, costs, and attorney fees under state and federal law. There are two rounds of negotiations, the first between the state environmental agency and the oil company, and the second between environmental groups and the oil company.
Fact Pattern - 2000 Student Negotiation Competition
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for Global Reach
Round 1: Confidential Instructions for Environment Department
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for Global Reach
Round 2: Confidential Instructions for SPU/GNOW
Maps - 2000 Student Negotiation Competition