Civ Pro Final Multiple Choice Questions

Question 1

Tutor Corp. is the world’s #1 law school tutor. Due to the tax benefits, Tutor Corp. filed articles of incorporation in Delaware and has a P.O. Box there where all of the corporation’s mail is sent. Online, the headquarters is listed as the Delaware P.O. Box address. The CEO, CFO, and COO make all the decisions for the business in Raleigh, NC. The bulk of the tutoring is handled by an employee, Lauren, in an office Tutor Corp. has in Columbia, SC. When the employees need to have meetings, they convene in NC.
For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, where is Tutor Corp. a citizen?
A: North Carolina
B: Delaware
C: South Carolina
D: A and B
E: A, B, and C

Answer 1

D: A and B
Sch.Ses.2

Question 2

Owen Ells is in his third year of college at the University of Camels. The University is located in the heart of southern North Carolina. Although he went to high school and grew up in South Carolina, Owen qualifies for “in-state tuition” at the University of Camels. Owen likes being a Camel but plans to go back to South Carolina after graduation.
What is Owen’s domicile?
A: North Carolina
B: South Carolina
C: North Carolina and South Carolina
D: None of the Above

Answer 2

B: South Carolina
Sch.Ses.2

Question 3

John Smith hired Dean Lovett to run University X’s Academic Affairs. After a few years, Dean Lovett left University X to start her own education consulting firm. She convinces Professors A and B to come with her. Together, the three form Former University X Ed Consulting, LLC. Professor A recently accepted a job as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He now resides in D.C. to govern the nation’s court system. Professor B, moved Boone, NC, to do remote consulting work in the mountains. Shocked by the former-faculty’s disloyalty, Smith decides to file suit against the Former University X Ed Consulting, LLC for misappropriation of trade secrets under North Carolina law claiming $80,000 in damages. Smith claims that the three cannot give advice about higher education without relying on University X’s proprietary information. Smith decides to sue in federal court.
Can Smith bring his case in federal court?
A: Yes
B: Yes, because one of the parties is a resident of D.C.
C: No, because LLCs are not citizens of any state
D: No, because the parties are not diverse

Answer 3

D: No, because the parties are not diverse
Sch.Ses.2

Question 4

Professor A is tired of working and decides to move to Florida to retire. In preparation, Professor A works with a realtor to buy a nice beachfront condo. Instead of leaving before the semester ends, Professor A promises the Dean that he will stay until December. Eager to enjoy his retirement, Professor A drives to Florida on some weekends to tour condos and relax at the oceanfront Four Seasons. In October, just as he pulled into Florida for the weekend, Professor A causes an accident. The drivers of the other cars, Fiona and Fatima, now want to sue Professor A in federal court for $77,000. Fiona and Fatima live in Florida.
Can Fiona and Fatima bring their case in federal court?
A: Yes, because federal courts have general jurisdiction over tort cases
B: Yes, because there is complete diversity
C: No, because of the forum-defendant rule
D: No, because there is not complete diversity

Answer 4

B: Yes, because there is complete diversity
Sch.Ses.2

Question 5

Fiona and Fatima aren’t sure if they want to pursue litigation. They spend a few months meeting with lawyers to compare pricing. As planned, Professor A moves to Florida in December. Fiona and Fatima bring their claims in January.
Can Fiona and Fatima file in federal court?
A: Yes
B: Yes, because at the time of the accident, Professor A was domiciled in North Carolina
C: No
D: No, because there is only minimal diversity

Answer 5

C: No
Sch.Ses.2

Question 6

Marlowe (CA) sues Gamblers International, Inc., a corporation incorporated in Nevada. Gamblers has two casinos: one very large casino in Reno, Nevada, which grosses $100 million per year, and another casino in California, which does $70 million in business each year. The Corporate offices are in California.
Is there diversity jurisdiction in Marlowe’s suit?
A: Yes, because the Nevada casino is bigger and thus the principal place of business
B: No
C: Yes, as long as the AIC is met
D: No, because there is no Federal Question in this case

Answer 6

B: No
Sch.Ses.2

Question 7

Paul (FL) sues Debbie (FL), a police officer, for beating him up. He files suit for deprivation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits suits against state actors who deprive individuals of their constitutional rights while acting under color of state law. Paul has claimed $93,000 in damages. Does the federal court court have subject matter jurisdiction?
A: Yes
B: Yes, because the AIC is met
C: No, because parties are not diverse
D: No

Answer 7

A: Yes
Sch.Ses.2

Question 8

The Federal TV Chef Protection Act (“TCPA”) gives a defense of immunity from suits in tort to television chefs who provide recipes on television shows such as those on the Food Network. Debbie is a famous chef and the host of her own TV show on the Food Network. Paul decides to prepare a recipe from Debbie’s show for chicken cacciatore. Unfortunately, Paul gets food poisoning because the recipe gave a too-low suggested temperature for the cooking of the chicken. Soon afterwards, Paul sues Debbie in federal court for a tort law claim for $100,000. He alleges that Debbie’s recipe negligently listed a too-low temperature for cooking of chicken. Paul further alleges that the TCPA does not provide Debbie with immunity, and further, that it is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. Does the federal court have subject-matter jurisdiction?
A: Yes, the court has federal question jurisdiction under the TCPA
B: No, Paul should have googled the appropriate chicken temperature
C: Yes, the court has diversity jurisdiction because the AIC is met
D: No, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction

Answer 8

D: No, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction
Sch.Ses.2

Question 9

Bobby-Sue, a Harnett County, NC citizen, slips on a wet floor in a Harris Teeter with no wet floor sign in sight! Unfortunately, Bobby-Sue sustains $90K worth of medical bills as a result of her fall. Harris Teeter is a citizen of Delaware and South Carolina. Bobby-Sue files a complaint in SC state court against Harris Teeter, alleging negligence, on Aug. 1, 2019. Harris Teeter is worried about prejudice in state court. Harris Teeter files a notice of removal on Aug. 29, 2019. Bobby-Sue hates when big corporations try to evade state justice. Bobby-Sue files a motion to remand on Aug. 30, 2019. Should the court grant Bobby-Sue’s motion?
A: No. Harris Teeter’s removal was timely and proper.
B: Yes, because Bobby Sue filed her motion within 30 days after receiving notice of removal
C: No. Bobby-Sue is good at torts but needs a refresher on Civ Pro
D: Yes, because Harris Teeter is a SC citizen

Answer 9

D: Yes, because Harris Teeter is a SC citizen
Sch.Ses.2

Question 10

Plaintiff (citizen of California) plans to sue Defendant Phord Motor Co. (incorporated in Delaware with principal place of business in Michigan) for injuries suffered in an auto accident. Plaintiff believes that problems with the Phord vehicle caused the accident. If Plaintiff sues Phord in California state court seeking $100K damages, can D remove to federal court?
A: No, because the well-pleaded complaint rule indicates that a plaintiff is the master of his complaint
B: Yes, because defendants can always remove from state court to federal court
C: No, because no federal question is involved
D: Yes, because the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim

Answer 10

D: Yes, because the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim
Sch.Ses.2

Question 11

Plaintiff Paul (NC) sues Defendant Dan (SC) and Defendant Danielle (NC) in state court in North Carolina on August 1, 2018 based on state law claims with an AIC in excess of $75,000.
The case moves to the discovery phase and the parties take depositions, send interrogatories, hire experts, etc.
During a deposition, information comes to light that clearly shows Defendant Danielle was not involved in the dispute.
The NC Court grants her motion to be dismissed from the case on July 29, 2019.
On August 3, 2019, Defendant Dan removes the case to federal court.
On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff Paul files a motion to remand.
How should the court rule on Paul’s motion?

Answer 11

The court should grant the motion to remand.
Diversity cases cannot be removed more than one year from the initial filing date, even if grounds for removal arise after that time period.
Sch.Ses.2

Question 12

Rachel filed suit under admiralty laws against Lauren for recovery of a shipment of cargo lost at sea. The suit was filed in a state court of general jurisdiction in Virginia. Lauren was personally served at her home in NC. The judge overrules a 12(b)(6) motion, and the case proceeds to trial where Rachel wins. On appeal Lauren’s lawyers assert (1) lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Lauren should:
A: Win on both (1) and (2).
B: Prevail on (1) only.
C: Prevail on (2) only.
D: Lose on both (1) and (2).

Answer 12

C: Prevail on (2) only.
Sch.Ses.3

Question 13

During a recent visit to Austin, Texas, Dan visited Bucket-Hats-R-Us (BHRU). While browsing the selection, a shelf full of cowboy hats falls off the wall and hits him over the head. Dan is seriously injured. Dan is a citizen of North Carolina. BHRU is incorporated in Delaware, but its principal place of business is the Austin, TX store. Dan wants to sue BHRU for claims that qualify his case for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Which of the following is true? Assume all relevant long arm statutes reach as far as the constitution.
A: North Carolina can exercise personal jurisdiction over BHRU.
B: Texas can exercise personal jurisdiction over Dan’s case against BHRU under the doctrine of general jurisdiction.
C: Texas can exercise personal jurisdiction over Dan’s case against BHRU under the doctrine of specific jurisdiction
D: Both b & c are correct.
E: None of the above are correct.

Answer 13

D: Both b & c are correct.
Sch.Ses.3

Question 14

Attorney General of NC, Josh Stein, is profiled in an article in a newspaper with national circulation. The article states that AG Stein cheated on the bar exam. In fact, AG Stein is an honest person who has never cheated on any test, so he sues the newspaper for libel in NC state court. The newspaper’s entire operation is conducted from its offices in South Carolina, but it sells 5,000 copies in NC on an average day. In its initial pleading, the newspaper argues for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
How will the court likely rule on this issue?
A: Deny the motion because the newspaper’s contacts with NC were sufficient so it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in NC.
B: Deny the motion, unless NC lacks a “doing business” jurisdictional provision.
C: Grant the motion, because selling 5,000 copies of a newspaper per day is not significant business.
D: Grant the motion, for reasons not stated above.

Answer 14

A: Deny the motion because the newspaper’s contacts with NC were sufficient so it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in NC.
Sch.Ses.3

Question 15

Earl (a citizen of Georgia) purchased life insurance by mail from an offer sent by an Alaskan insurance company. The policy was the only one that the company had ever sold in GA. Earl mailed premiums from GA to Alaska for five years, and then died when MaryAnne and Wanda fed him poisonous beans. The insurance company refused to pay the policy benefits. Earl’s administrator sued the company in GA state court. GA has a long arm statute that grants a state court in personam jurisdiction over a defendant who “contract[s] to insure any person, property, or risk located within this State at the time of the contracting.” The insurance company argued that its only contact with GA since it began its business was Earl’s insurance policy, and that this single contact does not meet the minimum required. The insurance company mailed the policy and notices to Earl in GA.
How should the court rule on the minimum contacts issue?
A: For Earl’s administrator, because the GA statute alone authorizes jurisdiction.
B: For Earl’s administrator, because the insurance company has sufficient contacts with the forum.
C: For the insurance company, because the exercise of jurisdiction would not be constitutional.
D: For the insurance company, because suit must be brought in Alaska.

Answer 15

B: For Earl’s administrator, because the insurance company has sufficient contacts with the forum.
Sch.Ses.3

Question 16

A wholesaler sued a retailer in a federal court in NC. The retailer timely filed and served a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied this motion.
Thereafter, the retailer filed and served its answer. Ten days after serving his answer, the retailer filed an amended answer, raising, for the first time, the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, which was available when the motion mentioned above was filed.
Should the court consider the personal jurisdiction objection?
A: No, because that defense has been waived.
B: No, because objections to personal jurisdiction may only be made by making a motion to dismiss before filing an answer.
C: Yes, because the retailer may serve an amended answer as of right within 21 days after serving his original answer.
D: Yes, because the amendment relates back to the original answer, thus preserving his right to raise the objection.

Answer 16

A: No, because that defense has been waived.
Sch.Ses.3

Question 17

A customer, a citizen of State A, filed a state-law product defect claim against a manufacture, a citizen of State B, in a federal court in State B, seeking $2 million in damages. State law in State B provides that service of process against corporations can be affected by publishing a short notification in any of the state’s five local newspapers. The customer filed his complaint and then published the notification in one of State B’s local papers in compliance with state law. Will this procedure satisfy federal law?
A: Yes, Rule 4(e) provides that service of process can be affected according to the state law of the state where the case is filed or where the defendant is served.
B: Yes, publication is a sufficient method of service under the Federal Rules.
C: No, this method is not reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide notice to the defendant.
D: No, service of process in federal court matters must be accomplished according to federal law.

Answer 17

C: No, this method is not reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide notice to the defendant.
Sch.Ses.3

Question 18

Which of the following is true regarding a judicial district?
A. A judicial district is the same thing as a state
B. A judicial district can exceed the boundaries of a state
C. A judicial district might be contained within the boundaries of a state
D. A judicial district is always smaller than a state

Answer 18

C. A judicial district might be contained within the boundaries of a state
Sch.Ses.4

Question 19

Danny resides in Southern FL and Debbie resides in Northern FL. They decide to travel north to Toronto for spring break, driving in separate cars. On the way, they take a drive in Pittsburgh, going down Murray Avenue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Still in separate cars, they are temporarily distracted by the wonderful smells coming from Mineo’s Pizza Parlor on Murray Avenue. They both run into Paul, who was trying to pull out of a parking spot in front of Mineo’s. If Paul sues Danny and Debbie for negligence, what are all the venue or venues that are appropriate under 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2)?
A. Southern District of Florida
B: Northern District of Florida
C: Western District of Pennsylvania
D: All of the above

Answer 19

D: All of the above
Sch.Ses.4

Question 20

Under section 1391, if there is more than one judicial district in a state, a corporation’s residence for purposes of venue exists only in the district with which the corporation has the most significant contacts. True or false?
A: True
B: False

Answer 20

B: False
Sch.Ses.4

Question 21

Fredo (District of Nevada) and Johnny (Southern District of Florida) are sued by Michael (resident of New York) for breach of contract. The contract was negotiated and was to be performed in New Jersey. Fredo and Johnny never showed up to do the work they were hired to do. Venue against Fredo and Johnny could be appropriate in which federal district?
A. The District of New Jersey only
B: The District of New Jersey, The Southern District of Florida, or the District of Nevada
C: The Southern District of Florida or the District of Nevada
D: No venue exists for a suit over both Johnny and Fredo. Michael will have to file two suits

Answer 21

A. The District of New Jersey only
Sch.Ses.4

Question 22

Erin, a resident of NY, is sued by Ben, a resident of GA, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Ben is claiming $200,000 in damages for injuries and a hospital stay sustained in a car accident while Ben was on vacation in NY. Erin is properly served, and her lawyer files a timely 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court denies Erin’s motion after two days. Erin files an answer 16 days later. Which of the following is true?
A: Erin and Ben are now most likely to enter settlement negotiations
B: Erin has improperly filed her answer
C: Ben and Erin will begin discovery since Erin filed her answer within 21 days of receiving the complaint
D: Erin should have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of proper venue

Answer 22

B: Erin has improperly filed her answer
Sch.Ses.5

Question 23

Assume the same facts as before, but Erin files a timely answer. In her answer, she includes the affirmative defenses of insufficient service of process and improper venue. Based on the waiver trap rules, which of the following is true?
A: Erin may no longer raise a defense based on insufficient process SMJ, or venue
B: Erin may not assert any 12(b) defenses in her answer
C: Erin may not file any further motions with the court
D: Erin may no longer assert affirmative defenses for lack of PJ, improper venue, insufficient process or insufficient service of process

Answer 23

D: Erin may no longer assert affirmative defenses for lack of PJ, improper venue, insufficient process or insufficient service of process
Sch.Ses.5

Question 24

Alysia (Texas) sues Bradley (Missouri) for libel and an unrelated breach of contract claim in federal court. She seeks $55,000 in damages on the contract claim and $40,000 in damages on the libel claim. May the court hear this case? Choose the best answer.
A: No. Joinder of claims is proper under rule 18(a) but the court lacks proper subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy for each claim does not exceed $75,000.
B: No.
C: Yes. Joinder of claims is proper under rule 18(a) and the court has proper subject-matter jurisdiction.
D: Yes, because the plaintiff is the master of her complaint and may file her claim anywhere she chooses.

Answer 24

C: Yes. Joinder of claims is proper under rule 18(a) and the court has proper subject-matter jurisdiction.
Sch.Ses.5

Question 25

Stewart, Aaliyah, and Gerard are involved in a three-car collision. Stewart, a New Yorker, sues Aaliyah and Gerard, both from Ohio, for $80,000 for her personal injuries arising from the collision. Aaliyah asserts a negligence cross-claim against Gerard for her own injuries arising from the collision. Does the court have jurisdiction over the crossclaim?
A: Yes, the court has independent subject-matter jurisdiction over the crossclaim.
B: No, this claim is improperly joined as a permissive crossclaim.
C :No, because § 1367 (b) prohibits jurisdiction over claims added in diversity cases.
D: Yes, the court has proper subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim unless there is a discretionary reason for not exercising jurisdiction under § 1367 (c).

Answer 25

D: Yes, the court has proper subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim unless there is a discretionary reason for not exercising jurisdiction under § 1367 (c).
Sch.Ses.5

Question 26

Dennis was arrested at an anti-war rally. While the police officer was arresting Dennis, an altercation between the two broke out. Dennis claims that the police officer used excessive force in making the arrest. As a result of the arrest and altercation, Dennis incurred damages totaling $7,500 for medical expenses. Dennis filed suit against the police officer for violation of his federal constitutional rights in state court. The police officer filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
How should the court rule?
(A) The court should grant the police officer’s motion to dismiss, as federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over federal civil rights violations.
(B) The court should grant the police officer’s motion to dismiss, as federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over questions based on constitutional rights.
(C) The court should deny the police officer’s motion to dismiss, as state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most federal questions, including this one.
(D) The court should deny the police officer’s motion to dismiss, but only if Dennis includes the state law claims for assault and battery.

Answer 26

(C) The court should deny the police officer’s motion to dismiss, as state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most federal questions, including this one. Q1Q1

Question 27

2. Plaintiff, from State A, sued Defendant, also from State A, in federal district court. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant caused damages in excess of $10,000,000 by violating Plaintiff’s patent rights on a new electronic tablet design and software. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.
   How should the court rule?
   (A) The court should grant the motion, because both parties are citizens of State A.
   (B) The court should grant the motion, because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
   (C) The court should deny the motion, because the federal court has jurisdiction over the case.
   (D) The court should deny the motion, because the damages are well over $75,000.

Answer 27

(C) The court should deny the motion, because the federal court has jurisdiction over the case. Q1Q2

Question 28

The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, files a claim in state court, alleging that the defendant, a Delaware corporation, violated her rights under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and seeks damages in the amount of $50,000.
Does the state court have subject-matter jurisdiction?
(A) Yes, because the parties are diverse.
(B) Yes, because the Civil Rights Act does not provide for exclusive federal court jurisdiction.
(C) No, because this claim arises under federal law.
(D) No, because the plaintiff is seeking only $50,000.

Answer 28

(B) Yes, because the Civil Rights Act does not provide for exclusive federal court jurisdiction.
Q1Q3

Question 29

An industrial accident injured Worker while he was using a machine for work. Worker was using the machine as intended while he was working for Shipping Co., incorporated in State A and with a principal place of business in State B. Worker worked in State B but was a citizen of State C. Worker was severely injured, requiring months of hospitalization and rehabilitation. After Worker recovered from his injuries, he filed suit in State C state court against his employer Shipping Co., alleging that the shift supervisor at Shipping Co. had intentionally placed the machine on a decline, causing the machine to tip over and pin Worker to the ground, because the supervisor was angry with Worker. Before filing its answer, Shipping Co. removed the case from state court to federal court in State C. Worker filed a motion to remand.
How should the court rule on the Worker’s motion?
(A) The court should grant the motion because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Worker’s claim.
(B) The court should grant the motion because cases arising under state law cannot be removed.
(C) The court should deny the motion because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over diversity suits under 28 U.S.C. §1332.
(D) The court should deny the motion because the federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under §1332.

Answer 29

(D) The court should deny the motion because the federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under §1332.
Q1Q5

Question 30

Damien was a student attending State A University. While at school, Damien lived in a dormitory on campus. During holidays and breaks, Damien returned to his hometown in State B. During his senior year in college, Damien decided to move to State A permanently so he began looking for an off-campus apartment. After graduating, Damien was recruited by a multi-national advertising firm based in State C. Damien was recruited to head up their State D office. While traveling through State A to State D to begin searching for an apartment, Damien was in a car accident which required a six month stay at a local State A hospital.
Plaintiff wants to file a diversity action against Damien. Where is Damien domiciled?
(A) State A.
(B) State D, where Damien is planning on living and working after his release from the hospital.
(C) State B, where he lived prior to attending college.
(D) State C, where his current employer is incorporated and has its principal place of business.

Answer 30

(A) State A.
Q1Q5

Question 31

Passenger, a citizen of State L, was riding in a car driven by his friend Driver, a citizen of State T. They crashed into a car driven by Plaintiff, a State T citizen. Plaintiff and Passenger filed an action in federal court in State T in which each of the plaintiffs asserted a $100,000 tort action against Driver.
Driver filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which the court granted.
Did the court err in granting the motion?
(A) Yes, because jurisdiction is proper under diversity jurisdiction.
(B) No, because Driver and Plaintiff are both citizens of State T.
(C) Yes, because each claim is for more than $75,000.
(D) No, because the action was filed in State T.

Answer 31

(B) No, because Driver and Plaintiff are both citizens of State T.
Q1Q6

Question 32

Plaintiff and Defendant were married in State A, where both their children were also born. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved to State B, where he was employed. After 15 years of marriage and accumulating significant marital assets totaling $10 million, the couple decided to divorce. Plaintiff filed for divorce in federal district court in State B, seeking joint custody of the children and a court order splitting the marital estate equally to each spouse.
Defendant moved to dismiss the divorce action. How should the court rule on her motion?
(A) The district court should deny the motion, because diversity jurisdiction is satisfied where Plaintiff and Defendant are now citizens of different states and the marital estate is worth $10,000,000.
(B) The district court should remand the divorce action to a State B state court, because the federal court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction.
(C) The district court should transfer the divorce action to a State B probate and family court.
(D) The district court should grant the motion.

Answer 32

(D) The district court should grant the motion.
Q1Q7

Question 33

Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court after the Defendant refused to perform under a signed contract. The contract was for the sale of real estate worth $75,000. In fact, not only did the Defendant refuse but the day after signing the contract with Plaintiff, the Defendant sold the land to a bona fide purchaser.
Plaintiff is a citizen of State M and Defendant is a citizen of State C. After suit was filed, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
How should the court rule?
(A) The district court should grant the motion, because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the controversy.
(B) The district court should grant the motion, because the federal court does not have jurisdiction over state law contract claims.
(C) The district court should deny the motion, because the court has jurisdiction over the claim based on diversity jurisdiction.
(D) The district court should deny the motion, because the parties stipulated in the signed contract that the federal district court will resolve all disputes arising from performance or non-performance of the contract.

Answer 33

(A) The district court should grant the motion, because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the controversy.
Q1Q8

Question 34

Plaintiff from State A and Defendant from State B were involved in a multi-vehicle crash on a busy State B highway. After all necessary medical treatments had been completed, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal district court in State B based on diversity jurisdiction. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, after the accident but prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Defendant moved to State A. After the suit was filed, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Two days after the trial began, the Defendant filed another motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
How should the court rule on the second motion to dismiss?
(A) The court should deny the motion.
(B) The court should deny thet motion as untimely.
(C) The court should grant the motion unless the defendant consents to federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
(D) The court should grant the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Answer 34

(D) The court should grant the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Q1Q9

Question 35

Plaintiff, a citizen of State A, filed suit against Defendant, a State B corporation, in State A state court, alleging breach of contract. Liquidated damages had been stipulated to be in excess of $75,000. The Defendant removed the case to federal district court in State A, based on diversity jurisdiction. Following a lengthy trial, a jury verdict was entered in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff appealed the judgment, arguing various evidentiary errors made by the judge during the trial. However, while the appeal was pending fifteen months after the trial court entered judgment for the Defendant, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant’s principal place of business was in State A at the time the lawsuit was filed. Plaintiff then argued on appeal to vacate the judgment on the basis that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and thus lacked the power to render a valid judgment.
How should the court rule on the jurisdictional issue on appeal?
(A) The appellate court should uphold the judgment because the Plaintiff failed to raise the jurisdictional defense when Defendant removed the case to federal court.
(B) The appellate court should uphold the judgment because more than a year has passed since the court entered judgment in the case.
(C) The appellate court should reverse the judgment because, by failing to raise this at the trial level, the Defendant perpetrated a fraud upon the court.
(D) The appellate court should reverse the judgment because the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and thus could not render a valid judgment in this case.

Answer 35

(D) The appellate court should reverse the judgment because the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and thus could not render a valid judgment in this case.
Q1Q10

Question 36

Plaintiff, a citizen of State A, filed suit in federal district court against Defendant, a citizen of State B, alleging one count of negligence resulting from a car accident, and one count for breach of contract resulting from an agreement the parties entered into a year prior to their accident. Plaintiff alleged damages to his car and person in the amount of $50,000. The contract called for liquidated damages in the amount of $35,000.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the controversy. How
(A) The court should grant Defendant’s motion, because Defendant is not from State A.
(B) The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff cannot aggregate damages from two unrelated claims in order to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
(C) The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff can aggregate damages from two unrelated claims in order to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
(D) The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff and Defendant are from different states, thereby satisfying the complete diversity of citizenship required for subject-matter jurisdiction.

Answer 36

(C) The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff can aggregate damages from two unrelated claims in order to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. Q1Q11

Question 37

Plaintiff, a citizen of State X, filed suit against her neighbor, also a citizen of State X, for damages to her new car resulting from an accident on their shared driveway. The neighbor had also caused significant damage to Plaintiff’s fence, garage, and prized rose bushes. After failed attempts to settle their dispute, Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in State X alleging damages against the neighbor exceeding $75,000. The neighbor filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
How should the court rule?
(A) The court should deny the neighbor’s motion, because the federal district court has exclusive jurisdiction over claims that exceed $75,000.
(B) The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff cannot aggregate the damages to the car, fence, garage, and rose bushes in order to meet the jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
(C) The court should deny the motion, because the plaintiff is the master of her complaint and can choose which court she wishes to hear her case.
(D) The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff has not met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

Answer 37

(D) The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff has not met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.
Q1Q12

Question 38

Plaintiff, a citizen of State X, filed suit in federal district court against Defendant Car Co., incorporated in State Y with its principal place of business in State X. Plaintiff alleges that a defect in the manufacturing of her car by Defendant caused her accident, where she incurred property damage and severe bodily injuries. Due to the severity of her injuries, Plaintiff alleges that her medical expenses alone exceed $1,000,000.
After filing suit in federal district court in State Z, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, so Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint, denying any liability for Plaintiff’s losses. A month thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that Defendant waived its right to object to the court’s power when it failed to assert it with its previous motion.
How should the court rule on Defendant’s second motion to dismiss?
(A) The district court should deny Defendant’s motion, because Defendant waived its right to object to the court’s power when it unreasonably delayed in asserting this defense.
(B) The district court should grant Defendant’s motion.
(C) The district court should deny Defendant’s motion on grounds other than waiver.
(D) The district court should grant Defendant’s motion because this case was improperly removed.

Answer 38

(B) The district court should grant Defendant’s motion.
Q1Q13

Question 39

Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, were traveling in their home state of A when Defendant, from State Z, crashed into Plaintiffs’ pick-up truck, causing the truck to spin out of control and into oncoming traffic. Both plaintiffs suffered significant personal injuries, requiring long-term hospital stays and rehabilitation.
A year after the accident, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant in federal district court in State Z based on diversity jurisdiction, each plaintiff alleging damages exceeding $250,000. A week later, Plaintiffs decided to permanently move to State Z — they sold their home in State A and purchased a new home in State Z. Plaintiffs also both sought employment in State Z.
During discovery, Defendant learned of Plaintiffs’ move and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
How should the court rule?
(A) The court should grant the motion, because by moving to State Z, Plaintiffs destroyed diversity of citizenship.
(B) The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiffs cannot prove with certainty that their damages are $250,000 each.
(C) The court should deny the motion, because the parties have already conducted discovery and dismissing the case at this stage would cause undue hardship to Plaintiffs.
(D) The court should deny the motion, because the court has proper subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim.

Answer 39

(D) The court should deny the motion, because the court has proper subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim.
Q1Q14

Question 40

The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, files a claim in federal district court, alleging that the defendant, a Delaware corporation, violated her rights under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and seeks damages in the amount of $50,000.
Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction?
(A) No, because the plaintiff is seeking only $50,000.
(B) No, because the claim does not arise under federal law.
(C) Yes, because the parties are diverse.
(D) Yes, because the claim arises under federal law.

Answer 40

(D) Yes, because the claim arises under federal law.
Q1Q15

Question 41

Plaintiff believes that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her sex in violation of both federal and state law. However, she wants to avoid being in federal court, so she files a complaint in state court asserting only a claim under the state anti-discrimination statute. Assuming that the parties are not of diverse citizenship, will she be successful in staying out of federal court?
(A) No, because she could state a claim arising under federal law.
(B) No, because of the “artful pleading” doctrine.
(C) Yes, because of the “master of the complaint” doctrine.
(D) Yes, because the parties are not diverse.

Answer 41

(C) Yes, because of the “master of the complaint” doctrine.
Q1Q16

Question 42

The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, brought a state breach of contract action in federal district court, alleging that the defendant, also a citizen of State A, agreed to purchase his home and subsequently refused to go forward with the deal. The defendant’s answer admits that he refused to buy the home, but alleges that because the plaintiff had lied in certain representations about the home contained in a federally required disclosure form, the deal was unenforceable under the governing federal disclosure statute.
Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction?
(A) Yes, because this case arises under federal law.
(B) Yes, because the defendant filed an answer, waiving his jurisdictional objection.
(C) No, because this case does not arise under federal law.
(D) No, because the parties are not citizens of the same state.

Answer 42

(C) No, because this case does not arise under federal law.
Q1Q17

Question 43

An industrial accident injured Worker while he used a machine for work. Worker was using the machine as intended while working for Shipping Co., incorporated in State A and principal place of business in State B. Worker worked in State B but was a citizen of State C. Worker was severely injured, requiring months of hospitalization and rehabilitation. After Worker recovered, he filed suit in State B state court against his employer Shipping Co. under the State B workers’ compensation statute. Before filing its answer, Shipping Co. removed the case from state court to federal court in State B. Worker filed a motion to remand.
How should the court rule on the Worker’s motion?
(A) The court should grant the motion because Shipping Co.’s removal was untimely.
(B) The court should grant the motion because Shipping Co. is a citizen of State B.
(C) The court should deny the motion because the federal district court has jurisdiction over the Worker’s claim.
(D) The court should deny the motion because diversity jurisdiction is satisfied where the Worker and Shipping Co. are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is reasonably likely to exceed $75,000.

Answer 43

(B) The court should grant the motion because Shipping Co. is a citizen of State B.
Q1Q18

Question 44

Following an auto accident, the driver and passenger of a car bring a negligence action against Defendant in state court in State T. Plaintiff-driver is a citizen of State T and plaintiff-passenger is a citizen of State L. Defendant is a citizen of State T. Each of the plaintiffs seeks $100,000 in damages against Defendant. Passenger also files a $100,000 crossclaim against the driver for damages resulting from the injury.
Can the plaintiff-passenger properly remove the case?
(A) No, because plaintiffs cannot remove cases.
(B) Yes, because the crossclaim meets all the requirements of diversity jurisdiction under § 1332.
(C) No, because the driver is a citizen of the forum state.
(D) Yes, because the plaintiff is not a citizen of the forum state.

Answer 44

(A) No, because plaintiffs cannot remove cases.
Q1Q19

Question 45

Plaintiff from State A filed suit against the Defendant, from State B, in state court in State B. In her complaint, the Plaintiff alleged negligence, negligent workmanship, breach of contract, and misrepresentation stemming from a construction contract she entered into in order to remodel her home. The damages to her home, car, and manicured lawn were well in excess of $150,000.
Following the court’s swift denial of Defendant’s motions to dismiss for improper service and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Defendant timely removed the case to federal district court in State B. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant indicated that subject-matter jurisdiction was predicated on diversity jurisdiction. Fifteen days later, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court.
How should the court rule on Plaintiff’s motion?
(A) The court should deny the Plaintiff’s motion to remand because diversity jurisdiction is present under these facts.
(B) The court should deny the Plaintiff’s motion to remand because it was untimely.
(C) The court should grant the Plaintiff’s motion to remand because Defendant waived its right to remove when it failed to raise the lack of subject matter jurisdiction in its first motion to dismiss.
(D) The court should grant the Plaintiff’s motion to remand because the Defendant does not have the right to remove this case to federal court.

Answer 45

(D) The court should grant the Plaintiff’s motion to remand because the Defendant does not have the right to remove this case to federal court.
Q1Q20

Question 46

Plaintiff, a citizen of State O, filed a lawsuit in O State court, asserting a $250,000 negligence claim against a citizen of State I and a $20,000 breach of contract claim against a citizen of State O. Three days after filing the complaint, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim against the State O defendant. The next day, the defendant from State I removed the case.
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court. How should the court rule?
(A) The court should deny the motion, because it now falls within the federal court’s subject-matter original jurisdiction.
(B) The court should grant the motion, because there is not complete diversity of citizenship.
(C) The court should deny the motion, because the plaintiff is a citizen of the forum state.
(D) The court should grant the motion, because the breach of contract claim is for $20,000.

Answer 46

(A) The court should deny the motion, because it now falls within the federal court’s subject-matter original jurisdiction.
Q1Q21

Question 47

Plaintiff, from State M, sued his employer, Del Corp., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in State O, for wrongful termination. Plaintiff’s attorney prepared the complaint on May 1st, but did not email a copy of the draft complaint to Del Corp. until August 2nd. After Del Corp did not respond to the email, Plaintiff had his attorney file the complaint in State M state court, seeking $100,000 in damages, and properly served Del Corp on August 15th. On August 16th, Del Corp. removed the case to federal court.
Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, arguing that the time for removal had lapsed. How should the court rule?
(A) The court should grant the motion, as the defendant had until May 31st to remove the case.
(B) The court should deny the motion, as the defendant has until September 1st to remove the case.
(C) The court should deny the motion, as the defendant has until September 14th to remove the case.
(D) The court should deny the motion, as the defendant can remove a case from state court to federal court at any time prior to trial.

Answer 47

(C) The court should deny the motion, as the defendant has until September 14th to remove the case.
Q1Q22

Question 48

Kane Corp., a U.S. company headquartered in Nebraska and incorporated in Delaware, manufactures and markets a variety of products made from high-tech fibers. Among these products is a surgical gown for doctors that Kane advertises as providing the “highest level of protection from infectious diseases.” For many years, Kane has sold large quantities of these gowns directly to four different states’ bio-containment centers, which treat patients with infectious diseases. Texas is one of those states. Kane sources all of its fabric for these gowns from a supplier in Singapore called Singtel. Singtel supplies many other companies with its fabric in other products and does not keep track of where all of its materials end up. A group of Texas bio-containment center doctors who wear Kane’s gowns as a result of Kane’s direct sales to the state became infected with a dangerous virus. They brought a product liability suit against Kane and Singtel in Texas state court.
Which choice below states most accurately how personal jurisdiction would be analyzed for both defendants?
(A) Kane would be subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because of its direct sales there, and Singtel would be subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because it profits from those sales.
(B) Kane would not be subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because it sells gowns to three other states besides Texas, but Singtel would be subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because it blankets the world with its fabric products.
(C) Neither Kane nor Singtel would be subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas, because their gowns and fabric are not related to the doctors’ injuries in Texas.
(D) Kane would be subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas, because of its direct sales there, but Texas’ personal jurisdiction over Singtel would be uncertain.

Answer 48

(D) Kane would be subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas, because of its direct sales there, but Texas’ personal jurisdiction over Singtel would be uncertain.
Q2Q1

Question 49

Hercules Hardware Company (HHC) is a high-tech home product retailer. HHC’s operations are in Minnesota and it is incorporated there. HHC also maintains a retail sales website with national reach. One of HHC’s best-selling products is a snow-melting stair mat. Through Amazon, HHC has sold 25 of these mats in North Dakota consumers. Minnesota resident Hector Diaz bought an HHC mat at one of HHC’s Minnesota retail outlets. After deciding to move to the Pacific Northwest, Hector resold the mat to a hardware store in Montana on the drive to his new home. The store sold the mat to Montana resident Darnell Reynolds. Darnell was severely burned at his Montana home when the mat’s electrical components malfunctioned. Darnell sued HHC for product liability in a North Dakota state court, hoping to take advantage of favorable product liability laws there.
What is the most likely reason a North Dakota court would refuse specific personal jurisdiction over HHC?
(A) HHC did not target the forum of North Dakota.
(B) There is an insufficient relationship between the forum, the injury, and HHC’s activities.
(C) HHC’s operations are entirely based in Minnesota.
(D) HHC did not sell enough mats in North Dakota.

Answer 49

(B) There is an insufficient relationship between the forum, the injury, and HHC’s activities.
Q2Q2

Question 50

Jake, a lifetime resident of Boston, made his first ever venture out of Massachusetts when he flew to San Francisco, California. He was unable to get a nonstop flight and so had to change planes at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, New York. While sitting in a coffee shop at Kennedy airport, he was served with process in connection with a lawsuit filed against him by his former next-door neighbor. His neighbor, now a citizen of New York, brought suit in New York claiming that Jake had sold him a lemon—Jake’s 2005 automobile. Jake files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal juri
How should the court rule?
(A) The court should grant the motion because the car sale was consummated entirely in Massachusetts.
(B) The court should grant the motion because Jake is a citizen of Massachusetts.
(C) The court should deny the motion because the plaintiff is a citizen of New York.
(D) The court should deny the motion because Jake was served in New York.

Answer 50

(D) The court should deny the motion because Jake was served in New York.
Q2Q3

Question 51

Plaintiff owns and operates a retail store in California. It licenses software from Defendant, a Texas company that specializes in security technology. Despite the software, hackers broke into Plaintiff’s financial system. Plaintiff sued Defendant in a state court in Delaware for breach of contract, choosing the forum because of its unusually long statute of limitations. Defendant did not object to personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff loses on the merits; the state court holds that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent for its injuries because it did not properly install the software. Plaintiff then filed a second lawsuit against Defendant, largely repeating the breach-of-contract claim that was dismissed in the first lawsuit, but this time filing the lawsuit in federal district court in Delaware. Defendant answers the complaint, raising the affirmative defense of claim preclusion, and asserts a counterclaim that the filing of multiple lawsuits has caused Defendant to suffer wrongful injury to reputation, and alleges special damages of lost business in excess of $75,000.
Other than filing the pair of lawsuits, Plaintiff has no contacts with Delaware. Plaintiff moves to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that no summons was served with the counterclaim. How should the court rule on the motion?
(A) The court should deny the motion, because a compulsory counterclaim does not require an independent basis for jurisdiction.
(B) The court should grant the motion, because a permissive counterclaim requires an independent basis of jurisdiction.
(C) The court should grant the motion for lack of service of process.
(D) The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff has effectively consented to suit in the forum state.

Answer 51

(D) The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff has effectively consented to suit in the forum state.
Q2Q4

Question 52

Plaintiff files a claim against the defendant, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in New York, in federal district court in Los Angeles, California, alleging a violation of the federal antitrust statute. The federal statute contains a provision for nationwide service of process and personal jurisdiction over corporations. The defendant is a major retailer with retail shops in all 50 states and a highly interactive web page that generates hundreds of thousands of dollars of business annually from citizens of all 50 states.
Which of the following governs whether or not the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction?
(A) California law, because California is the forum state.
(B) Delaware law, because the defendant is a Delaware citizen.
(C) New York law, because the defendant’s headquarters are there.
(D) The federal antitrust statute.

Answer 52

(D) The federal antitrust statute.
Q2Q5

Question 53

In an action filed in federal district court, the defendant refuses to waive service. The plaintiff serves the defendant by placing a copy of the summons and complaint in the hands of the defendant’s housekeeper while she is working in the defendant’s home. She forgets to turn it over to the defendant.
Is this service proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
(A) Yes, because the housekeeper is in the defendant’s home.
(B) No, because the defendant was not personally served.
(C) Yes, because the housekeeper is a person of suitable age and discretion.
(D) No, because the housekeeper does not reside in the defendant’s home.

Answer 53

(D) No, because the housekeeper does not reside in the defendant’s home.
Q2Q6

Question 54

The defendant/purchaser, a Vermont citizen, bought a television from the plaintiff/retailer, an Illinois corporation. The written sales agreement provides that the purchaser designated the company president’s secretary to receive service of process for the purchaser in any action brought by the retailer under the terms of this agreement. When the purchaser failed to make a payment, the retailer sued him for breach of contract in federal district court and served the company president’s secretary. The secretary, who was unknown to the defendant, mailed a copy of the service to the defendant’s home and the defendant received it.
Is this service proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
(A) Yes, because the defendant agreed to it by signing the contract and received the process.
(B) No, because this is a form contract and the service provision was in small type.
(C) No, because the secretary was unknown to the defendant and was the plaintiff’s employee.
(D) Yes, because the secretary was paid for being a recipient of service.

Answer 54

(A) Yes, because the defendant agreed to it by signing the contract and received the process.
Q2Q7

Question 55

Enterprise Deli, Inc., is a Missouri corporation. Its president and majority shareholder is Jon Hamm. Enterprise has its only place of business in Chesterfield, Missouri. Betty, from East St. Louis, Illinois, visits the deli and soon experiences ptomaine poisoning. She sues Enterprise Deli for negligent food processing in state court in Illinois. The sheriff of the Illinois county serves Hamm personally with the summons and complaint when he is visiting Illinois.
Which of the following is most true?
(A) By virtue of the personal service on Hamm during his trip to Illinois, the Illinois courts have personal jurisdiction over Enterprise Deli.
(B) The Illinois courts lack personal jurisdiction in this case.
(C) If Betty experienced all of her symptoms of ptomaine poisoning in Illinois, and the Illinois long arm statute covered that type of fact pattern, Enterprise Deli would be subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois in this case.
(D) Both B and C.

Answer 55

(B) The Illinois courts lack personal jurisdiction in this case.
Q2Q8

Question 56

Ping, a resident of North Carolina, seeks treatment for a rare medical condition from Doc, a medical specialist in Minnesota. After receiving treatment in Minnesota, Ping returns to North Carolina, where she dies. Ping’s estate sues Doc in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for medical malpractice and timely serves process on Doc in Minnesota. Doc files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
How should the court rule on Doc’s motion to dismiss?
(A) The court should deny the motion because a federal court can exercise long-arm jurisdiction over the entire territory of the United States.
(B) The court should deny the motion because this is a “Foreign Injury, Local Act,” and long-arm jurisdiction is authorized by North Carolina statute.
(C) The court should deny the motion because the defendant was properly served process in Minnesota.
(D) The court should grant the motion unless plaintiff can establish that Doc advertised his medical practice in North Carolina or had sought out referrals for patients from North Carolina.

Answer 56

(D) The court should grant the motion unless plaintiff can establish that Doc advertised his medical practice in North Carolina or had sought out referrals for patients from North Carolina.
Q2Q9

Question 57

Harry Rehnquist, a student at Bates College in Maine, grew up and went to high school in Hawai’i. He decided to attend Bates because of its lacrosse program, but he has always hated the Northeast, and nothing about his experience at Bates has changed his opinion. Two weeks after the beginning of the fall semester, outside his dorm at Bates, Harry is served with process in a lawsuit filed in Hawai’i state court. The cause of action did not arise in Hawai’i, and none of the witnesses or evidence regarding the lawsuit can be found in Hawai’i.
Can Harry successfully contest personal jurisdiction in this lawsuit on the grounds that it would be too unfair and inconvenient to force him to litigate in Hawai’i?
(A) Yes, in view of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(B) No, because the plaintiff has achieved “tag” jurisdiction over Harry.
(C) No.
(D) Yes, because the lawsuit has no contacts with Hawai’i.

Answer 57

(C) No.
Q2Q10

Question 58

To determine personal jurisdiction over defendants, a federal district court often must examine the long-arm statute of the state in which it sits, because:
(A) The U.S. Constitution requires the federal court to protect the due process rights of the defendants.
(B) The long-arm jurisdiction of the federal courts arises solely from state statutes.
(C) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 often requires the court to do so.
(D) The Fifth Amendment requires this analysis.

Answer 58

(C) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 often requires the court to do so.
Q2Q11

Question 59

State X’s long-arm statute allows the state to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who “derive revenue from goods that are used or consumed in this state, if the cause of action arises from the use or consumption of those goods.”
Would every exercise of jurisdiction that falls within the terms of this long-arm statute comport with due process?
(A) Yes, because state courts are courts of general jurisdiction.
(B) No.
(C) No, but due process would be satisfied if the defendant actually manufactured the goods at issue.
(D) No, but due process would be satisfied if the revenue that a given defendant derived from the use or consumption of the goods were very substantial.

Answer 59

(A) Yes, because state courts are courts of general jurisdiction.
Q2Q12

Question 60

In a state court of general jurisdiction, Pete sued the Big Time Corporation for personal injuries he received in an auto collision with a truck driven by a Big Time truck driver. Doris was the president of Big Time when the accident occurred. Pete served Big Time Corporation by handing the summons to Doris on the day before she retired. In the excitement of her retirement, Doris neglected to deliver the papers to anyone else at Big Time. A default was entered against Big Time.
Other than service on Doris, Big Time never received notice of the pending lawsuit before the entry of default. Big Time now moves to quash (that is, nullify) service of process and to set aside the entry of default. Assume that the operative state rules on service of process are identical to the parallel provisions in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Which of the following statements is most correct?
(A) Service should be quashed because Big Time Corporation did not receive actual notice of the pending lawsuit.
(B) Service should be quashed because Doris was not an officer of Big Time at the time an answer was due.
(C) Service should be quashed for reasons not stated above.
(D) Big Time’s motion to quash service should be denied.

Answer 60

(D) Big Time’s motion to quash service should be denied.
Q2Q13

Question 61

Jane sues Hans in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, asserting a state-law claim. Hans answers the complaint in a timely fashion, addressing only the substance of Jane’s allegations. Ten days later, Hans moves for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that Jane did not properly serve him with process and that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Which of the following is most true?
(A) The case must be remanded to state court.
(B) The court must grant the motion on both grounds stated.
(C) The court now has personal jurisdiction over Hans.
(D) The court would lack personal jurisdiction over Hans because, as Mullane shows, proper notice of a lawsuit is an indispensable element of due process.

Answer 61

(C) The court now has personal jurisdiction over Hans.
Q2Q14

Question 62

Golfco, a golf course management company, adopted a hiring plan designed to increase gender diversity in its workforce. Pursuant to this plan, the plaintiff, a male groundskeeper, was rejected for a promotion in favor of a female applicant. During a Golfco tournament two days later, the plaintiff and several co-workers walked the sidelines chanting loudly “Golfco discriminates!” All were fired the next day. The plaintiff sued in federal court for retaliation under the federal anti-discrimination laws, alleging all of the above facts and stating, “I was terminated solely on account of complaining about sex discrimination and not for any legitimate business reason.” Assume that it is common knowledge that golf tournaments require spectators to keep quiet avoid distracting golfers. Golfco files a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). How should the court rule on Golfco’s motion?
(A) The court should grant the motion, because the plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, along with common knowledge, suggest an obvious alternative legal explanation for his termination.
(B) The court should grant the motion, because the complaint’s allegations are entirely conclusory.
(C) The court should deny the motion, because discrimination is the most likely explanation for the plaintiff’s termination.
(D) The court should deny the motion, because every litigant who files a complaint is entitled to get discovery.

Answer 62

(A) The court should grant the motion, because the plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, along with common knowledge, suggest an obvious alternative legal explanation for his termination.
Q4Q1

Question 63

Apex Corp. sued Bemis Corp. for breach of contract under federal diversity jurisdiction in the Southern District of Illinois. In response to the complaint, Bemis filed a timely Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue. The court denied the motion. Bemis then filed its answer, raising two defenses: (1) lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2); and (2) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Apex filed a Rule 12(f) motion to strike both defenses. How should the court rule on Apex’s motion?
(A) The court should deny Apex’s motion to strike both defenses.
(B) The court should deny Apex’s motion to strike the personal jurisdiction defense but grant Apex’s motion to strike the failure to state a claim defense.
(C) The court should grant Apex’s motion to strike both defenses.
(D) The court should grant Apex’s motion to strike the personal jurisdiction defense but deny Apex’s motion to strike the failure to state a claim defense.

Answer 63

(D) The court should grant Apex’s motion to strike the personal jurisdiction defense but deny Apex’s motion to strike the failure to state a claim defense.
Q4Q2

Question 64

Plaintiff is the owner of a company that rents ski equipment. Defendant is a college student who writes a weekend column in the student newspaper about sports events. Defendant wrote an uncomplimentary article about Plaintiff’s company, stating that the rental equipment “was old, shoddy, and dangerous.” In response, Plaintiff filed a diversity action in federal court against Defendant alleging libel and seeking $300,000 in damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. Defendant failed to appear. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit showing Defendant’s failure and the clerk entered a default.
Can the clerk also enter a default judgment?
(A) No, only the judge can enter the judgment and must make an independent determination of damages.
(B) Yes, the clerk can enter the judgment if Plaintiff submits an affidavit stating a sum certain for damages.
(C) The entry of default automatically converts into a judgment of default if Defendant fails to object.
(D) Yes, the clerk can enter the judgment after Defendant has been served with written notice of the application at least seven days before a hearing.

Answer 64

(A) No, only the judge can enter the judgment and must make an independent determination of damages.
Q4Q3

Question 65

BigTech, Inc. sued one of its former software developers in federal district court for copyright infringement and for violating a noncompete agreement. The court took federal question jurisdiction over BigTech’s federal copyright claim and took supplemental jurisdiction over BigTech’s noncompete claim, which is governed by state statutory law. Eight months after the lawsuit was filed, the legislature in the state where the case arose and was filed passed a law making noncompete agreements illegal. The law was retroactive, applying to noncompetes signed even before the law’s passage. After the law was passed, BigTech argued the noncompete claim’s merits in its written response to the former employee’s summary judgment motion. Assume the law’s retroactivity does not pose any constitutional due process problems. Which of the following is true about Rule 11’s application to BigTech’s summary judgment response?
(A) BigTech violated Rule 11(b)(2)’s requirement that legal contentions be warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for changing the law.
(B) BigTech violated Rule 11(b)(3)’s requirement that factual contentions have evidentiary support.
(C) BigTech did not violate Rule 11(b)(2) or 11(b)(3), because its noncompete claim has sufficient factual and legal support.
(D) BigTech did not violate Rule 11(b)(2) or 11(b)(3), because those provisions do not apply to a party’s responses to motions.

Answer 65

(A) BigTech violated Rule 11(b)(2)’s requirement that legal contentions be warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for changing the law.
Q4Q4

Question 66

Defendant, a technology company, hired Plaintiff, a technology specialist, as a part-time employee on an at-will basis. The employment contract provided that Defendant would reimburse Plaintiff for all “reasonable travel expenses in connection with work-related assignments.” After sending Plaintiff on an important assignment to Hong Kong, Defendant refused to reimburse her travel and hotel expenses, and then fired her without explanation. Two years later, Plaintiff filed a diversity action in federal court alleging breach of contract. Eight months after service of the summons and complaint and six months after service of the answer, Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint to add a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations, alleging that Defendant’s actions prevented her from acquiring employment with other companies. Defendant moves to dismiss the amended claim as time-barred under the applicable state statute of limitations.
What is Defendant’s best argument in support of the motion to dismiss?
(A) The state relation-back rule does not permit relation back.
(B) The tort claim rests on a legal theory different from that of the original claim.
(C) The tort claim arises out of a different pattern of conduct than the original claim.
(D) Plaintiff engaged in undue delay in amending the complaint.

Answer 66

(C) The tort claim arises out of a different pattern of conduct than the original claim.
Q4Q5

Question 67

Plaintiff, a citizen of Louisiana, filed an action in federal district court in New Orleans. His complaint contained a federal civil rights claim alleging that he had been the victim of unlawful sexual harassment and a breach of contract claim against his employer, also a citizen of Louisiana. The breach of contract claim alleged that the defendant-employer had failed to pay Plaintiff overtime as required by his employment contract. Plaintiff also asserted a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against his manager, a citizen of Louisiana, alleging that it was her intentional acts of sexual harassment that caused him to suffer severe emotional distress.
May the Plaintiff join the claim against his manager?
(A) Yes, because his right of joinder is unlimited.
(B) No, because manager and Plaintiff are citizens of the same state.
(C) Yes, because his claim against the manager arises out of the same occurrences that gave rise to his claim against his employer and both claims contain a common question of fact.
(D) No, because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this claim.

Answer 67

(C) Yes, because his claim against the manager arises out of the same occurrences that gave rise to his claim against his employer and both claims contain a common question of fact.
Q4Q6

Question 68

Plaintiff, a citizen of Louisiana, filed an action in federal district court in New Orleans. His complaint contained a federal civil rights claim alleging that he had been the victim of unlawful sexual harassment and a breach of contract claim against his employer, also a citizen of Louisiana. The breach of contract claim alleged that defendant-employer had failed to pay Plaintiff overtime as required by his employment contract. Plaintiff also asserted a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against his manager, a citizen of Louisiana, alleging that it was her intentional acts of sexual harassment that caused him to suffer severe emotional distress. In addition to filing an answer, defendant-employer asserted a breach of contract claim against Plaintiff and an indemnity claim against the manager. In its breach of contract claim, Defendant alleged that Plaintiff had not honored his contractual commitment to attend a variety of off-site conferences.
May the defendant-employer join its claim against the manager?
(A) No, because the claim does not arise under federal law.
(B) Yes, because its right of joinder is unlimited.
(C) No, because the parties are citizens of the same state.
(D) Yes, because this claim arises out of the transaction that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant.

Answer 68

(D) Yes, because this claim arises out of the transaction that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant.
Q4Q7

Question 69

Plaintiff, a lifelong resident of Atlanta, Georgia, brought suit in federal district court in Atlanta against a publisher, Books, Inc., alleging copyright infringement under the federal copyright statute, for which she sought $100,000 in damages. Books, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York City. Plaintiff also filed a claim against Books, Inc. alleging that it had breached its agreement with her to publish her book upon receipt of a manuscript. She sought $60,000 in damages in connection with that claim. In that same suit, Plaintiff also filed a $105,000 tort claim against the president of Books, Inc., a citizen of New York, alleging that he had intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her by sending emails to dozens of other publishers denouncing her as a horrible writer and a fraud and explaining that those were the reasons for his company’s refusal to publish her book. In this same action, Books, Inc. filed a claim against President seeking indemnity for any liability it might accrue in connection with Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim against it. In response, President filed a breach of contract claim against Books, Inc. alleging that Books, Inc. had improperly withheld two weeks of salary from him totaling $65,000. Finally, President asserted a tort claim against his neighbor, claiming that her negligent maintenance of her home significantly depreciated the value of his property, for which he sought an injunction and $45,000 in damages.
Is President’s claim against his neighbor joinable?
(A) Yes, because President was a named defendant.
(B) No, because these two parties are citizens of the same state.
(C) Yes, because it is a complaint for indemnity.
(D) No, because it is a tort claim alleging conduct that lowered the value of his property.

Answer 69

(D) No, because it is a tort claim alleging conduct that lowered the value of his property.
Q4Q8

Question 70

Plaintiff, a lifelong resident of Atlanta, Georgia, brought suit in federal district court in Atlanta against a publisher, Books, Inc., alleging copyright infringement under the federal copyright statute, for which she sought $100,000 in damages. Books, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York City. Plaintiff also filed a claim against Books, Inc. alleging that it had breached its agreement with her to publish her book upon receipt of a manuscript. She sought $60,000 in damages in connection with that claim. In that same suit, Plaintiff also filed a $105,000 tort claim against the president of Books, Inc., a citizen of New York, alleging that he had intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her by sending emails to dozens of other publishers denouncing her as a horrible writer and a fraud and explaining that those were the reasons for his company’s refusal to publish her book. In this same action, Books, Inc. filed a claim against President seeking indemnity for any liability it might accrue in connection with Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim against it. In response, President filed a breach of contract claim against Books, Inc. alleging that Books, Inc. had improperly withheld two weeks of salary from him totaling $65,000.
Is President’s breach of contract claim against Books, Inc. joinable?
(A) Yes, because there is no limit to joinability of this type of claim.
(B) No, because it is unrelated to the events that gave rise to Books, Inc.’s claim against Jackson.
(C) Yes, because Books, Inc. was named in the complaint.
(D) No, because the parties are not diverse.

Answer 70

(A) Yes, because there is no limit to joinability of this type of claim.
Q4Q9

Question 71

Plaintiff, a citizen of State P, ate dinner one night at a restaurant operated in State P by Defendant, a citizen of State V. After eating dinner, Plaintiff became ill. It was determined that the produce at the restaurant was contaminated. Defendant had bought produce from a third party, a citizen of State P who is in the business of delivering produce to restaurants. This seller had bought the produce from a farmer who is a citizen of State V.
After months of hospitalization, Plaintiff commenced a $350,000 tort action in State P federal district court against Defendant. Defendant then impleaded the produce seller and the farmer as third-party defendants, under an indemnification theory. Plaintiff then sought to amend the complaint to add similar claims against the seller and farmer.
Seller moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against him for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Farmer moved to dismiss Defendant’s third-party claim against him on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
How should the court rule on each motion?
(A) The court should grant seller’s motion but not grant farmer’s, because Plaintiff’s suit against seller does not fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction but Defendant’s suit against farmer does.
(B) The court should grant farmer’s motion but not grant seller’s, because Defendant’s suit against farmer does not fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction but Plaintiff’s suit against seller does.
(C) The court should not grant either motion, because both Plaintiff’s suit against seller and Defendant’s suit against farmer fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.
(D) The court should grant both motions, because neither Plaintiff’s suit against seller nor Defendant’s suit against farmer falls within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

Answer 71

(A) The court should grant seller’s motion but not grant farmer’s, because Plaintiff’s suit against seller does not fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction but Defendant’s suit against farmer does.
Q4Q10

Question 72

Plaintiff, employed by Defendant’s company, applies for a promotion and is denied; she believes that she was passed over because of her gender. Believing that the problem is widespread throughout the company, she files a class action lawsuit in federal court challenging Defendant’s hiring and promotion policies. The complaint alleges a violation of the federal employment statute, which bars “discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment on the basis of gender, ethnicity, religion, and race,” and defines the class as “persons not hired or not promoted by Defendant because of gender, ethnicity, religion, or race.” The action seeks damages for every member of the class. Defendant opposes the motion for class certification.
What is Defendant’s best argument in opposition to the motion?
(A) The class is alleged to include only 92 clerical and administrative workers and so numerosity is not present.
(B) Plaintiff is not a member of the class she purports to represent.
(C) The amount in controversy is not alleged to exceed $5 million.
(D) The court lacks personal jurisdiction over the absent class members because they live outside the state in which the federal court hearing the dispute is located.

Answer 72

(B) Plaintiff is not a member of the class she purports to represent.
Q4Q11

Question 73

An automotive engineer employed by Ford Motor Company designed the accelerator system for the Ford Focus car. Defects in the Ford Focus accelerator system are now at issue in a federal court class action lawsuit filed by consumers harmed in accidents where the accelerator malfunctioned. May the consumers take the engineer’s deposition?
(A) No, because the engineer’s testimony qualifies as trial preparation material.
(B) No, because the engineer is a consulting expert hired in anticipation of litigation.
(C) Yes, because the engineer is a witness with both expertise and personal knowledge of the facts relevant to the lawsuit.
(D) Yes, because the engineer is a testifying expert who must prepare an expert report and be available to be deposed about the findings in that report.

Answer 73

(C) Yes, because the engineer is a witness with both expertise and personal knowledge of the facts relevant to the lawsuit.
Q4Q12

Question 74

Company is the manufacturer of off-road recreational vehicles. Driver owns a vehicle manufactured by Company. Driver was injured while driving the vehicle on the highway. Driver claims that the vehicle accelerated when it was supposed to brake, and as a result it rolled into a ditch. A State Trooper was called and arrived at the scene of the accident. Plaintiff has informed Company that he intends to file a federal action, based on diversity jurisdiction, for injuries caused by the car’s alleged product-design defects. Company wants to find out what the State Trooper knows about the accident and whether Driver behaved in any erratic or unusual way, and has filed a verified petition with the federal district court in the district in which the accident occurred to depose the State Trooper.
Does the Company have a right to depose the State Trooper?
(A) No, a party may not take discovery from a nonparty before the commencement of a federal lawsuit.
(B) No, a party may take discovery before a suit is commenced but only if the request is accompanied by a draft complaint against the party from whom discovery is sought.
(C) Yes, a party may take discovery of material that is relevant to claims and defenses.
(D) No, a party may not take discovery before the commencement of a federal lawsuit absent a special need to preserve testimony that is not present on these facts.

Answer 74

(D) No, a party may not take discovery before the commencement of a federal lawsuit absent a special need to preserve testimony that is not present on these facts.
Q4Q13

Question 75

Plaintiff, an individual who lives and works in California, was visiting New York. He decided to take a taxi to go across town. While driving on Sixth Avenue, Taxi Driver collided with Defendant’s truck. Defendant is an individual who lives and works in New Jersey and is employed by a trucking company that is incorporated and headquartered in New Jersey. Taxi Driver lives and works in New York. Plaintiff was seriously injured and eventually sued Taxi Driver, Defendant, and Defendant’s employer in federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Will Plaintiff be able to discover the existence of the three defendants’ insurance coverage?
(A) No, because the existence and extent of the defendants’ insurance coverage is not relevant to the trial on the merits.
(B) No, because discovery of the insurance coverage could lead to an inflated verdict and would therefore be unfair to the defendants.
(C) Yes, but only the existence of the insurance coverage and not the monetary limits of the policy.
(D) Yes, because the facts of insurance coverage must be disclosed even without a discovery request.

Answer 75

(D) Yes, because the facts of insurance coverage must be disclosed even without a discovery request.
Q4Q14

Question 76

Toyco, a toy manufacturing company, sued one of its former employees in federal court under federal and state laws for designing and marketing a competing toy while she was still employed at Toyco. In discovery, Toyco asked the former employee to produce hard drives from any personal laptop computer she used for design purposes while working at Toyco. The former employee responded that no such hard drives existed. Later, in her deposition, the former employee testified that she had a personal laptop while she worked at Toyco but used it only for gaming, never for designing. She testified that she had cleaned the hard drive and disposed of the laptop one year after she stopped working for Toyco because she was seeking treatment for a gaming addiction—even though by then Toyco’s lawyer had threatened to sue her. Other discovery evidence corroborated that the former employee’s competing designs were composed on a work-issued computer. What sanctions, if any, should the court impose for the former employee’s failure to preserve her personal laptop’s hard drive?
(A) The court should not impose sanctions, because the loss of the laptop and its hard drive did not prejudice Toyco.
(B) The court should give the jury an adverse inference instruction against the former employee.
(C) The court should enter a default judgment against the former employee.
(D) The court should impose sanctions, because the former employee anticipated litigation at the time she disposed of the laptop.

Answer 76

(A) The court should not impose sanctions, because the loss of the laptop and its hard drive did not prejudice Toyco.
Q4Q15

Question 77

When Boxer received BBD Inc.’s answer, she realized that she forgot to include an additional claim under a recently passed federal statute allowing for product liability claims against pet food companies. Within seven days of being served with BBD’s answer, Boxer filed an amended complaint that included both the breach of warranty and federal claims. Under these circumstances:
(A) The judge should not allow the amendment. Once BBD Inc. filed its answer, Boxer could only amend with the permission of the court or BBD.
(B) The judge should not allow the amendment because Boxer should have included the federal claim in her original complaint.
(C) The judge should allow the amendment because Boxer can freely amend her pleadings until the parties commence discovery.
(D) The judge should allow the amendment because Boxer can amend as a matter of course.

Answer 77

(D) The judge should allow the amendment because Boxer can amend as a matter of course.
SS6

Question 78

Camila sued Ariana for slander, following a nasty dispute about the results of a running contest. Since Ariana also owes Camila money (she breached a contract to buy 1,000 copies of Camila’s book, “It’s Better to Be Smart”), Camila combined both claims in a single federal lawsuit. Are the claims properly joined?
(A) No. These claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
(B) Yes. Since there is only one party on each side, Rule 18 allows free joinder of claims, and Rule 20’s requirements do not apply.
(C) No. The rules do not allow tort and contract claims to be joined in the same lawsuit.
(D) Yes. Since both claims involve disagreements between the same two people, they automatically are considered to share a common question of law or fact.

Answer 78

(B) Yes. Since there is only one party on each side, Rule 18 allows free joinder of claims, and Rule 20’s requirements do not apply.
SS6

Question 79

A plaintiff properly filed an action in federal district court against a defendant for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a car accident. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was liable under a respondeat superior theory for the negligent driving of the defendant’s employee. The defendant properly impleaded the employee, asserting a claim against the employee based on indemnification. At trial, the jury reached a general verdict in favor of the defendant. Subsequently, the employee filed an action in federal district court against the defendant, seeking to recover for injuries suffered as a consequence of the accident. The employee has asserted that the accident was caused by the defendant’s failure to properly maintain the car that the employee was driving.
Is the employee barred from pursuing this action?
A. Yes, because the employee’s claim arises out of the same occurrence that was the subject matter of the defendant’s indemnification.
B. Yes, because the employee failed to assert a cross-claim against the defendant in the prior action.
C. No, because the employee was not the original defendant in the prior action.
D. No, because the prior action was decided by a general jury verdict.

Answer 79

A. Yes, because the employee’s claim arises out of the same occurrence that was the subject matter of the defendant’s indemnification.
SS6

Question 80

The primary difference between a motion for summary judgment and a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence is:
(A) The standard the movant must meet.
(B) The non-movant’s burden to avoid summary judgment.
(C) The record on which the court will base its decision.
(D) The nature of the court’s review of the record.

Answer 80

(C) The record on which the court will base its decision.
ss6

Question 81

Alexis was an art collector who loaned part of her modern art collection to the Washington museum. The museum suffered a flood and many of Alexis’s pieces were destroyed. Alexis filed a state-law claim against the museum in federal court, seeking $2 million in damages. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Alexis and awarded her $4 million in damages. The museum moved for a reduced verdict. The museum argued that the $4 million award violated Washington state’s law requiring property damage jury verdict awards to be reviewed by the judge under a “materially deviates” standard (meaning that the verdict award should be reduced if it materially deviates from a reasonable amount). Alexis argued that under FRCP 59, the verdict can only be set aside for any reason that existed under common law. Courts have since interpreted that standard to mean only when the verdict award “shocks the conscience.” Should the court apply state or federal law when assessing the jury award?
A: Federal law, because the issue is procedural.
B: Federal law, because the case is in federal court.
C: State law, because otherwise, the application of federal law would be outcome determinative.
D: State law, because the case is in federal court on the basis of diversity

Answer 81

C: State law, because otherwise, the application of federal law would be outcome determinative.
SS6

Question 82

Letitia sued Interstate Hospital and Dr. Nailah Owens in federal court in Phoenix, Arizona, for medical malpractice. Letitia’s federal complaint was prepared and filed in accordance with the federal rules. Similarly, Letitia has complied with all federal procedural requirements in prosecuting her claims in federal court. Under Arizona law, in medical malpractice claims, plaintiffs are required to seek certification from an expert medical board before filing a complaint. Because Letitia did not seek this certification, the hospital and Owens have moved to dismiss her complaint with prejudice. Will the district court grant this motion?
A: Yes, if the court determines that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the Arizona certification rule do not conflict and that not applying the Arizona certification rule would be outcome determinative.
B: Yes, if there is no federal countervailing interest in preventing the Arizona certification rule from applying.
C: No, if the court determines that there is a direct collision between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the Arizona certification rule.
D: Answers (A), (B), and (C).

Answer 82

D: Answers (A), (B), and (C).
SS6

Question 83

A former employee brought a defamation suit against a company he had worked for, alleging that the company had given a false negative reference to his prospective employer. The former employee sued in federal district court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. In the state where the federal court sits, the state common law of defamation requires a plaintiff to prove that the defamatory statement was false. Federal district courts within the state have questioned this element in dicta, on the ground that it is better policy for a defendant to have to substantiate the truth of the statement it made. If the federal court hearing the former employee’s case decides to take the next step and requires the employer to prove the statement was true as an affirmative defense, rather than as an element of the former employee’s claim, would it violate the Erie doctrine?
(A) No, because federal courts have the discretion to alter the elements of a cause of action in a diversity suit based on policy grounds.
(B) No, because federal courts are entitled to create a federal common law of defamation.
(C) Yes, because requiring the plaintiff to prove falsity is superior as a policy matter to requiring the defendant to prove truth.
(D) Yes, because the elements of a state common law claim is a state “law” to which a federal court must defer.

Answer 83

(D) Yes, because the elements of a state common law claim is a state “law” to which a federal court must defer.

Question 84

An out-of-state citizen sued a police department in a federal diversity case, alleging negligent retention of an officer who had used excessive force against him. Even though discovery established this claim with undisputed evidence, the department refused to settle. Ultimately, the court granted the citizen summary judgment, reasoning he had established all elements of his claim as a matter of law. The court then awarded the citizen attorneys’ fees on the ground that the department had defended the claim in bad faith. Under a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision, federal courts have inherent equitable power to award attorneys’ fees for “bad faith” litigation conduct even if no fee-shifting statute applies. The rationale is that the policies supporting the American rule, where each party pays its own attorneys’ fees, don’t apply to parties acting in bad faith, who need to be deterred and punished for such conduct. By contrast, courts in the state where the federal court sits never award attorneys’ fees without a fee-shifting statute.
If the attorneys’ fees award is challenged on appeal, how should the appellate court rule?
(A) The appellate court should uphold the award, because the federal rule authorizing attorneys’ fees for bad faith litigation conduct is procedural in nature.
(B) The appellate court should reverse the award and defer to the state practice of requiring a fee-shifting statute to award attorneys’ fees, because this is a matter of substantive law.
(C) The appellate court should uphold the award, because federal power over attorneys’ fees is absolute.
(D) The appellate court should reverse the award, because the federal rule is unfair.

Answer 84

(A) The appellate court should uphold the award, because the federal rule authorizing attorneys’ fees for bad faith litigation conduct is procedural in nature.

Question 85

After months of negotiations, Homeowner and Contractor entered into a remodeling contract whereby Contractor (from State A) agreed to remodel Homeowner’s primary residence (State B) during the summer months while Homeowner stayed in her vacation home in State C. The parties negotiated primarily over emails and phone calls as Contractor was working on a jobsite in State D and Homeowner stayed in her vacation home in State C. According to the contract, the remodeling was to be completed by September 1st, when Homeowner’s children were set to return to school after summer vacation. Due to a delay in the delivery of construction materials, the project was not completed until mid-October. Homeowner filed a breach of contract action in federal district court in State B, alleging in good faith that the delay caused her to incur damages in excess of $75,000. After the suit was filed, Contractor filed a third-party complaint against Lumber Co. (State A), alleging that the breach of contract was caused by Lumber Co.’s delay in delivering the construction materials. The laws regarding breach of contract actions differ in all 4 states involved (States A, B, C, D).
Which state’s choice of law rules will be used to resolve the conflict in this breach of contract action?
(A) State A because it is the state where Contractor and Lumber Co. are domiciled.
(B) State B because the lawsuit was filed in State B and the home is situated in State B.
C) State C because Homeowner negotiated and entered into the contract while in State C.
(D) State D because Contractor negotiated and entered into the contract while in State D.

Answer 85

(B) State B because the lawsuit was filed in State B and the home is situated in State B.

Question 86

An Alabama plaintiff brought a tort action against a Florida defendant in Alabama state court. The Alabama court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Alabama. Plaintiff then brought precisely the same lawsuit against the same defendant in state court in Florida. Defendant moved to dismiss that action under the doctrine of claim preclusion.
How should the court rule on the motion?
(A) The court should grant the motion to dismiss, because both lawsuits consist of the identical cause of action.
(B) The court should grant the motion to dismiss, because the parties are the same in both lawsuits.
(C) The court should deny the motion to dismiss, because defendant is a citizen of Florida.
(D) The court should deny the motion to dismiss, because the first dismissal did not constitute an adjudication on the merits.

Answer 86

(D) The court should deny the motion to dismiss, because the first dismissal did not constitute an adjudication on the merits.

Question 87

Guest filed suit against Homeowner, alleging the Homeowner maintained a dangerous condition in his home causing the Guest to trip and fall during a holiday party. The allegations stemmed from a loose floorboard in the Homeowner’s living room, in which the Guest tripped over while dancing. After a trial on the merits, the jury found for the Guest. Shortly thereafter, the Guest brought another suit against Homeowner, alleging that Homeowner told his neighbors that Guest was a drunk and that is why she fell at the holiday party accident. After filing an Answer with all applicable defenses, the Homeowner filed a motion for summary judgment.
How should the court rule on the motion?
(A) The court should deny the motion because the Guest has a right to have a jury decide the merits of this defamation case.
(B) The court should deny the motion because summary judgment is not appropriate for defamation claims where the plaintiff’s reputation and credibility are at issue.
(C) The court should grant the motion because the Plaintiff cannot prove that the Homeowner defamed her.
(D) The court should grant the motion because this claim is barred by res judicata.

Answer 87

(D) The court should grant the motion because this claim is barred by res judicata.

Question 88

Guest filed suit against Homeowner, alleging the Homeowner maintained a dangerous condition in his home causing the Guest to trip and fall during a holiday party. The allegations stemmed from a loose floorboard in the Homeowner’s living room, in which the Guest tripped over while dancing. After a trial on the merits, the jury found for the Homeowner. Shortly thereafter, the Guest brought another suit against Homeowner, alleging that Homeowner had negligently cause her injuries two years prior when Guest was a passenger in Homeowner’s car. After filing an Answer with all applicable defenses, the Homeowner filed a motion for summary judgment.
How should the court rule on the motion?
(A) The court should deny the motion because Guest’s second negligence claim against Homeowner is not barred by res judicata.
(B) The court should deny the motion because it was untimely.
(C) The court should grant the motion because Guest’s negligence claim is barred by res judicata.
(D) The court should grant the motion because the jury already decided the issue as to Homeowner’s negligence.

Answer 88

(A) The court should deny the motion because Guest’s second negligence claim against Homeowner is not barred by res judicata.

Question 89

Plaintiff purchased a used car from Defendant. At the time of the sale, Plaintiff did not know that the car had defective brakes. While driving the car, Plaintiff crashed into a taxi that was exceeding the speed limit. Plaintiff sues Defendant in federal district court in Pennsylvania for personal injury, damage to property, and misrepresentation, and wins on all counts. Plaintiff then sues Taxi Driver in a separate action in federal district court in New York for personal injury and property damage. Taxi Driver raises the affirmative defense of claim preclusion, citing the judgment of the Pennsylvania federal court, and moves for summary judgment on that basis.
Which statement provides the best explanation of how the New York court should resolve the motion?
(A) The federal court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff was required to sue all parties involved in the accident in the Pennsylvania action.
(B) The federal court should grant the motion, under the transactional test for claim preclusion.
(C) The court should deny the motion, because Taxi Driver was not a party to the Pennsylvania action.
(D) The court should deny the motion, because judgment of the Pennsylvania court is not final until all appeals are concluded.

Answer 89

(C) The court should deny the motion, because Taxi Driver was not a party to the Pennsylvania action.

Question 90

Parents of a child enrolled in a full-time home school program petitioned the School Board in order to receive speech therapy services for their child. After a hearing on the matter, the School Board denied the petition concluding that a child in a full-time homeschool program is not eligible to receive such services from the public school. The Parents appealed and the Appeal Board upheld the School Board’s decision. The following school year, the parents of the child again petitioned the School Board for the same speech therapy services. After a hearing, the School Board determined that the child was not eligible to receive speech therapy services from the public school while being enrolled in a full-time home school program. After the second denial, the Parents filed an appeal, which the Appeal Board dismissed. Parents’ filed suit in federal district court.
Which of the following statements is correct?
(A) The Parents’ suit is barred by collateral estoppel.
(B) The Parents’ suit is barred by res judicata.
(C) The Parents’ suit is not barred by collateral estoppel.
(D) The Parents’ suit is not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel.

Answer 90

(A) The Parents’ suit is barred by collateral estoppel.

Question 91

Defendant was convicted of a charge of bank robbery that had been filed against him in criminal court by the federal government. Shortly after his conviction, Defendant was served with a civil complaint in which the government sought to recover possession of the money it alleged had been stolen by Defendant.
Should the trial court in the civil case grant the government’s motion to preclude re-litigation of the issue of whether or not Defendant stole the money from the bank?
(A) No, because the parties to the two cases are not identical.
(B) Yes, because the standard of proof is higher in criminal than in civil proceedings.
(C) No, because the standard of proof is lower in civil than in criminal proceedings.
(D) Yes, because the issue is the same in both cases.

Answer 91

(B) Yes, because the standard of proof is higher in criminal than in civil proceedings.

Question 92

Defendant was acquitted of a charge of bank robbery that had been filed against him in criminal court by the federal government. Shortly after his acquittal, Defendant was served with a civil complaint in which the government sought to recover possession of the money that allegedly had been stolen by Defendant.
Should the trial court in the civil case grant Defendant’s motion to preclude re-litigation of the issue of whether or not he stole the money from the bank?
(A) No, because the parties to the two cases are not identical.
(B) Yes, because this issue was already litigated in the previously concluded criminal case.
(C) No, because the standard of proof is higher in criminal than in civil proceedings.
(D) Yes, because the standard of proof is lower in civil than in criminal proceedings.

Answer 92

(C) No, because the standard of proof is higher in criminal than in civil proceedings.