1 Proper Court Flashcards
15 10522 MBE CIVIL PROCEDURE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A plaintiff brought a products liability action against an out-of-state manufacturer seeking $125,000 in damages due to personal injuries received while using a tool made by the manufacturer. Pursuant to the permissive joinder rule, the plaintiff’s spouse joined in the action, which was filed in federal court, seeking damages of $5,000 for loss of consortium.
Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over the spouse’s claim?
A. No, because the spouse’s claim does not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.
B. No, because the court’s jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim is not based on federal question jurisdiction.
C. Yes, because the spouse’s claim forms part of the same case or controversy as the plaintiff’s claim.
D. Yes, because the plaintiffs are related.
Subject Outline: Mbe Civil Procedure
Chapter: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Section: Supplemental Jurisdiction
Correct Answer:
C. Yes, because the spouse’s claim forms part of the same case or controversy as the plaintiff’s claim.
Learner Selected Answer:
Yes, because the plaintiffs are related.
Original subject-matter jurisdiction exists when a dispute satisfies either:
- federal-question jurisdiction – the dispute arises under the U.S. Constitution, a treaty, or a federal law (not seen here) (Choice B) or
- diversity jurisdiction – the opposing parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Here, the plaintiff and the spouse are citizens of a different state than the out-of-state manufacturer, but only the plaintiff’s $125,000 claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirement (Choice A). Therefore, the federal court has diversity jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim—but not the spouse’s claim.
However, when only some claims fall within the court’s original subject-matter jurisdiction, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. This is generally permitted when a supplemental claim and an original claim are so related that they form part of the same CASE OR CONTROVERSY. But when the original claim is based solely on diversity jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction is not permitted if a supplemental claim:
- would destroy diversity of citizenship or
- seeks $75,000 or less and is made by a plaintiff (1) against parties added through joinder, intervention, or impleader or (2) seeking to join through compulsory joinder or intervention.
Here, the spouse’s claim forms part of the same case or controversy as the plaintiff’s claim because they arise from the injuries the plaintiff received while using the manufacturer’s tool. The plaintiff’s claim is based on diversity jurisdiction, but the spouse’s claim would not destroy diversity since the spouse and manufacturer are from different states. And though the spouse’s claim seeks only $5,000, it is asserted against the original defendant and the spouse permissibly joined the suit. Therefore, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the spouse’s claim.
(Choice D) The fact that the plaintiffs are related is irrelevant in determining if original or supplemental subject-matter jurisdiction exists.
Educational objective:
A federal court may generally exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that fall outside of its original subject-matter jurisdiction when the supplemental claim and an original claim are so related that they form part of the same case or controversy.
34 10524 MBE CIVIL PROCEDURE PERSONAL JURISDICTION
A plaintiff secured a default judgment for breach of contract against a defendant in a diversity action brought in federal district court in State X. The defendant, a natural person, was not domiciled in State X, but had sufficient contacts with the state to satisfy the minimum contacts test. The defendant was properly served with process but elected not to contest the action. The plaintiff has, pursuant to statute, registered the judgment with a federal district court located in State Y. The defendant has a bank account in State Y, but otherwise has no property or contacts with the state. The plaintiff has sought a court order permitting a levy against the defendant’s bank account to satisfy the judgment. The defendant has challenged this order on grounds that the federal district court in State Y lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
How should the court rule on the defendant’s challenge?
Answer Choices:
A. Uphold the challenge, because the defendant did not litigate the matter in the federal district court in State X.
B. Uphold the challenge, because the defendant lacks minimum contacts with State Y.
C. Deny the challenge, because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.
D. Deny the challenge, because the minimum contacts test does not apply.
Subject Outline: Mbe Civil Procedure
Chapter: Personal Jurisdiction
Section: In Personam Jurisdiction
Correct Answer:
D. Deny the challenge, because the minimum contacts test does not apply.
Learner Selected Answer:
C. Deny the challenge, because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.
Personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority over the parties or property in the action before it. A federal court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport with due process. This constitutional requirement is generally satisfied through the minimum-contacts test, which requires that:
- the plaintiff’s claim arise from or be closely related to the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum state and
- the exercise of jurisdiction comply with notions of fair play and substantial justice.
And when a federal court with personal jurisdiction over the defendant enters a judgment, that judgment is enforceable by a federal court in another state by seizure of the defendant’s property located in that state. This is true even if the defendant lacks minimum contacts with the state enforcing the judgment.*
Here, the State X federal court entered a default judgment against the defendant. The plaintiff sought to enforce that judgment through a State Y federal court order levying the defendant’s State Y bank account. Although the defendant lacks minimum contacts with State Y, the judgment can be enforced there (Choice B). That is because the State X federal court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Therefore, the State Y federal court should deny the defendant’s challenge because the minimum-contacts test does not apply.
*The minimum-contacts test does not apply to these actions because the defendant should not be able to avoid payment by removing his/her assets to another jurisdiction.
(Choice C) The Article IV full faith and credit clause requires state courts to recognize and enforce the valid judgments of other state courts. But this clause does not apply here because the State X federal court’s judgment is being enforced by the State Y federal court.
Educational objective:
A judgment entered by a federal court with personal jurisdiction over the defendant can be enforced by a federal court in another state—even if the defendant does not have minimum contacts with that state.
40 10532 MBE CIVIL PROCEDURE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A plaintiff brought an injunctive action in federal court under the federal Clean Water Act, based on alleged pollution of a stream. The stream is located in a state in which both parties are citizens. The complaint also contained a nuisance claim based on state law arising from the same set of circumstances as the federal claim. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief only with respect to the nuisance claim. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the nuisance claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Must the court grant this motion?
A. Yes, because the defendant did not seek monetary damages.
B. Yes, because there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties.
C. No, because the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.
D. No, because the court has general equity jurisdiction to issue an injunction.
Subject Outline: Mbe Civil Procedure
Chapter: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Section: Supplemental Jurisdiction
Correct Answer:
C. No, because the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.
Learner Selected Answer:
B. Yes, because there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties.
Original subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a federal court’s authority to hear a type of dispute. This requirement is met independently when a dispute falls within either:
federal-question jurisdiction – the dispute arises under the U.S. Constitution, a treaty, or a federal law or
diversity jurisdiction – the opposing parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (not seen here).
Here, federal-question jurisdiction exists over the plaintiff’s Clean Water Act claim against the defendant because it arises under a federal statute. But such jurisdiction does not exist over the plaintiff’s nuisance claim because that claim arises under state law. And since the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same state, there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties (Choice B). As a result, the federal court also lacks diversity jurisdiction over the state-law claim.
However, when the court does not independently have subject-matter jurisdiction over one of the claims, the court may exercise SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION over that claim if it shares a common nucleus of operative facts with a claim within the court’s original subject-matter jurisdiction. Here, the plaintiff’s claims share a common nucleus of operative facts because they arise from the same set of circumstances. Therefore, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim and is not required to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
46 10530 MBE CIVIL PROCEDURE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Two siblings own real property located in State A as tenants in common. The brother was a citizen of State B; his sister, a citizen of Canada, was a permanent U.S. resident domiciled in State C. The oil and mineral rights to the property had been leased to a citizen of State C. The siblings initiated a breach-of-lease action against the lessee in a State A federal district court. In the complaint, each sibling asserted in good faith that damages suffered individually as a lessor of a half-interest in the mineral rights equaled $40,000. Shortly after the case was filed, the brother died. His property interests passed by will to his son who was a citizen of State C. Upon receiving title to the property and prior to trial, the son’s motion to substitute himself as a party was granted. At trial, the defendant-lessee moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
For which of the following reasons should the court grant the defendant’s motion?
A. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist because the amount-in-controversy requirement has not been met.
B. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist because an alien cannot bring a federal action against an American citizen.
C. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist because the sister and the lessee are both domiciled in State C.
D. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist because the son and the lessee are both citizens of State C.
Subject Outline: Mbe Civil Procedure
Chapter: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Section: Diversity Jurisdiction
Correct Answer:
C. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist because the sister and the lessee are both domiciled in State C.
Learner Selected Answer:
A. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist because the amount-in-controversy requirement has not been met.
Subject-matter jurisdiction can be based on federal-question jurisdiction (not seen here) or diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction is established when (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and (2) there is diverse citizenship between the opposing parties. Diverse citizenship exists in a suit between U.S. citizens domiciled in different states. It also exists when the suit is between:
- U.S. citizens domiciled in the U.S. and foreign citizens
- U.S. citizens domiciled in different states, in which foreign citizens are additional parties or
- U.S. citizens and permanent residents domiciled in different states.
Here, the brother (U.S. citizen domiciled in State B) and the sister (permanent resident domiciled in State C) sued the lessee (U.S. citizen domiciled in State C) in federal court. Since the sister and the lessee are domiciled in the same state, there is no diversity of citizenship. Therefore, diversity jurisdiction does not exist. For this reason, the court should grant the lessee’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
(Choice A) Multiple plaintiffs may aggregate (i.e., combine) their claims to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement when they seek to enforce a single title or right to a common or undivided interest. Here, the siblings share a common and undivided interest in the property since they own it as tenants in common. Therefore, they can aggregate their claims to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement ($40,000 + $40,000 = $80,000).
Question 5120 (Mixed MBE PQ S1)
A plaintiff filed a claim against a defendant, a corporation incorporated in State A in a federal district court located in State C. The complaint alleged a violation of the federal antitrust statute, which contains a provision for nationwide service of process, but did not specify any amount in controversy. The complaint asserted that the antitrust violation primarily occurred at the corporation’s principal place of business, which is located in State B.
Can the federal district court in State C exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant?
A. No, because the plaintiff failed to allege any amount in controversy.
B. No, because the defendant does not have minimum contacts with State C.
C. Yes, because the defendant is a corporation with multiple states of citizenship, not an individual.
D. Yes, because the federal antitrust statute provides for nationwide service of process.
Correct Answer: D. Yes, because the federal antitrust statute provides for nationwide service of process.
Learner Selected Answer:
B. No, because the defendant does not have minimum contacts with State C.
Answer choice D is correct. A statute can contain a provision for nationwide service of process to attain personal jurisdiction. While a federal court generally is not vested with nationwide personal jurisdiction, a federal court does have national personal jurisdiction when authorized by federal statute. Here, the federal antitrust statute contains a provision for nationwide service of process. Accordingly, the federal district court in State C can properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant based on service of process pursuant to the provision in the federal antitrust statute. Answer choice A is incorrect because federal question cases, such as cases brought under a federal statute such as this federal antitrust statute, have no amount-in-controversy requirement. Answer choice B is incorrect. Although the defendant does not have sufficient contacts with State C, the provision in the federal antitrust statute authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant by the federal district court in State C.
Question 4908 (MBE Exam #3 PM)
The driver of a truck was involved in an accident with a car driven by a citizen of a foreign country. The truck driver filed suit in a federal district court in the state in which the accident occurred, where the truck driver was domiciled. The driver of the car was a permanent legal resident of the United States and was domiciled in this state as well. The truck driver alleged damages of $35,000 in good faith due to personal injuries and damages of an additional $50,000 due to property losses. As permitted by state law under a direct action statute, the suit named only the insurer of the car as a defendant. The insurer was incorporated in a neighboring state and had its headquarters in a distant state. The insurer timely moved to dismiss the action due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule on this motion?
A. Grant the motion, because alienage jurisdiction does not exist.
B. Grant the motion, because diversity of citizenship does not exist.
C. Deny the motion, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
D. Deny the motion, because the insurer is not a citizen of the forum state.
B. Grant the motion, because diversity of citizenship does not exist.
Answer choice B is correct. In order for subject-matter jurisdiction to exist in an action based on state law, the action must satisfy both the amount-in-controversy requirement and the diversity requirement. Here, the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, since the plaintiff is permitted to aggregate personal injury and property loss that arises from the incident in question. The aggregated amount, of $85,000 ($35,000 + $50,000), exceeds $75,000. But, the action does not meet the diversity requirement. As a corporation, the insurer is a citizen of the state of its incorporation and also a citizen of the state of its principal place of business. However, an insurer is also deemed to be a citizen of the insured’s state when the insurer is sued in a direct action. Here, the insured’s state is the forum state for purposes of diversity jurisdiction because the insured is a lawful permanent resident of the United States domiciled in the forum state. Consequently, diversity jurisdiction does not exist between the plaintiff-truck driver and the defendant-insurer.
Answer choice A is incorrect because this is not an action between the truck driver and the driver of the car, but a direct action against the insurer, a United States corporation.
Answer choice C is incorrect because, even though the amount-in-controversy requirement is met, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the action because the diversity requirement is not.
Answer choice D is incorrect because an insurer is treated as a citizen of the state in which its insured is a citizen. Here, the insured is treated as a citizen of the forum state because the insured is a lawful permanent resident of the United States who is domiciled in the forum state. Consequently, diversity jurisdiction does not exist between the plaintiff-truck driver and the defendant-insurer.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION - Diversity Jurisdiction
Question 4900 MIX MBE PQ S4
An employee filed an action in federal district court in her home state against her employer for injuries she sustained when she was attacked by a coworker, and sought good-faith damages in excess of $75,000. The employer is incorporated in the state where the employee is domiciled, though its headquarters are in another state. The basis for the employee’s claim is a law recently passed by the forum state that is intended to minimize instances of workplace violence, and requires that employers “conduct background checks on all employees in a manner compliant with the federal Violence in the Workplace Act.” In her complaint, the employee, while acknowledging that the federal Violence in the Workplace Act does not explicitly recognize a right of private action, contends that her state-law claim turns on the resolution of a federal statutory issue, namely, the type of background check that suffices for purposes of the federal act.
If the court determines that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, which of the following justifies this determination?
A The court has diversity jurisdiction due to application of the nerve-center test.
B The court has jurisdiction because a federal law standard is incorporated into a state law.
C The court has jurisdiction due to the construction that if Congress did not specifically exclude private causes of action, one is implied to exist.
D The court has jurisdiction due to the substantial importance of the federal issue to the resolution of the state-law claim.
Answer choice D is correct. A federal district court does not have federal question jurisdiction over a cause of action arising under state law unless the court determines that the interpretation or application of state law may affect the outcome and the federal issue or interest is important enough to justify the exercise of jurisdiction. In order for federal question jurisdiction to exist when the cause of action is based in state law, the court must determine whether the state-law claim necessarily stated a substantial and disputed federal issue that a federal court could adjudicate without disturbing the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. In this case, whether the employer performed a sufficient background check is an essential element of the employee’s claim, and the federal statute’s requirements are actually disputed. The determination of the federal statute’s requirements are properly made in federal court. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the nerve center test has been adopted as the test for determining the location of a corporation’s principal place of business and hence a state in which the corporation is a citizen, a corporation is considered a citizen of every state by which it has been incorporated as well as the state where its nerve center is located. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist in this action because the employer has been incorporated in the same state as the employee is domiciled. Answer choice B is incorrect because the mere fact that a state law incorporates a federal standard is insufficient to warrant review by the federal court. Answer choice C is incorrect because the opposite is true: there is no assumption that Congress implicitly allowed for a private cause of action, and the lack of a provision allowing a private cause of action actually weighs heavily against exercising federal-question jurisdiction.
SMJ - FQ
