Civ Pro: Kayla Powerpoint 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?

North Carolina
Delaware
South Carolina
A and B
A, B, and C

Answer 1

A and B

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?

North Carolina
South Carolina
North Carolina and South Carolina
None of the Above

Answer 2

South Carolina

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?

Yes
Yes, because one of the parties is a resident of D.C.
No, because LLCs are not citizens of any state
No, because the parties are not diverse

Answer 3

No, because the parties are not diverse

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?

Yes, because federal courts have general jurisdiction over tort cases
Yes, because there is complete diversity
No, because of the forum-defendant rule
No, because there is not complete diversity

Answer 4

Yes, because there is complete diversity

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?

Yes
Yes, because at the time of the accident, Professor A was domiciled in North Carolina
No
No, because there is only minimal diversity

Answer 5

No

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?

Yes, because the Nevada casino is bigger and thus the principal place of business
No
Yes, as long as the AIC is met
No, because there is no Federal Question in this case

Answer 6

No

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?

Yes
Yes, because the AIC is met
No, because parties are not diverse
No

Answer 7

Yes

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?

Yes, the court has federal question jurisdiction under the TCPA

No, Paul should have googled the appropriate chicken temperature

Yes, the court has diversity jurisdiction because the AIC is met

No, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction

Answer 8

No, the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction

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?

No. Harris Teeter’s removal was timely and proper.

Yes, because Bobby Sue filed her motion within 30 days after receiving notice of removal

No. Bobby-Sue is good at torts but needs a refresher on Civ Pro

Yes, because Harris Teeter is a SC citizen

Answer 9

Yes, because Harris Teeter is a SC citizen

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?

No, because the well-pleaded complaint rule indicates that a plaintiff is the master of his complaint

Yes, because defendants can always remove from state court to federal court

No, because no federal question is involved

Yes, because the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim

Answer 10

Yes, because the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim

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.

Question 12

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.

North Carolina can exercise personal jurisdiction over BHRU.

Texas can exercise personal jurisdiction over Dan’s case against BHRU under the doctrine of general jurisdiction.

Texas can exercise personal jurisdiction over Dan’s case against BHRU under the doctrine of specific jurisdiction

Both b & c are correct.

None of the above are correct.

Answer 12

Both b & c are correct.

Question 13

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?

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

Deny the motion, unless NC lacks a “doing business” jurisdictional provision.

Grant the motion, because selling 5,000 copies of a newspaper per day is not significant business.

Grant the motion, for reasons not stated above.

Answer 13

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

Question 14

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?

For Earl’s administrator, because the GA statute alone authorizes jurisdiction.

For Earl’s administrator, because the insurance company has sufficient contacts with the forum.

For the insurance company, because the exercise of jurisdiction would not be constitutional.

For the insurance company, because suit must be brought in Alaska.

Answer 14

For Earl’s administrator, because the insurance company has sufficient contacts with the forum.

Question 15

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?

No, because that defense has been waived.

No, because objections to personal jurisdiction may only be made by making a motion to dismiss before filing an answer.

Yes, because the retailer may serve an amended answer as of right within 21 days after serving his original answer.

Yes, because the amendment relates back to the original answer, thus preserving his right to raise the objection.

Answer 15

No, because that defense has been waived.

Question 16

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?

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.

Yes, publication is a sufficient method of service under the Federal Rules.

No, this method is not reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide notice to the defendant.

No, service of process in federal court matters must be accomplished according to federal law.

Answer 16

No, this method is not reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide notice to the defendant.

Question 17

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 17

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

Question 18

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)?

Southern District of Florida

Northern District of Florida

Western District of Pennsylvania

All of the above

Answer 18

All of the above

Question 19

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?

Answer 19

False

Question 20

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 20

The District of New Jersey only

Question 21

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?

Erin and Ben are now most likely to enter settlement negotiations

Erin has improperly filed her answer

Ben and Erin will begin discovery since Erin filed her answer within 21 days of receiving the complaint

Erin should have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of proper venue

Answer 21

Erin has improperly filed her answer

Question 22

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?

Erin may no longer raise a defense based on insufficient process SMJ, or venue

Erin may not assert any 12(b) defenses in her answer

Erin may not file any further motions with the court

Erin may no longer assert affirmative defenses for lack of PJ, improper venue, insufficient process or insufficient service of process

Answer 22

Erin may no longer assert affirmative defenses for lack of PJ, improper venue, insufficient process or insufficient service of process

Question 23

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.

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.

No.

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

Yes, because the plaintiff is the master of her complaint and may file her claim anywhere she chooses

Answer 23

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

Question 24

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?

Yes, the court has independent subject-matter jurisdiction over the crossclaim.

No, this claim is improperly joined as a permissive crossclaim.

No, because § 1367 (b) prohibits jurisdiction over claims added in diversity cases.

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 24

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

Question 25

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 25

Answer (D) is correct. A party can amend her pleadings once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the complaint or within 21 days of being served with a responsive pleading or a motion to dismiss, whichever is earlier. Here, Boxer filed her amended complaint within 21 days of being served with BBD’s responsive pleading, so her amendment is allowed.

Answers (A) and (B) are not correct for the same reason Answer (D) is correct.

Answer (C) is not correct. Although the amendment rules are flexible, there are limitations. Once Boxer properly amends as a matter of course or once that time frame has passed, she can amend again. But she will have to seek permission from the court or from the opposing party.

Question 26

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 26

Answer (B) is correct. With only one plaintiff and one defendant, this lawsuit involves joinder of claims but not joinder of parties. Rule 18 provides that a “party asserting a claim … may join, as independent or alternate claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” Therefore, the claims are properly joined under these circumstances.

Answer (A) is incorrect. Because Rule 20 does not apply, the claims are not required to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.

Answer (C) is incorrect. Unlike some former procedural systems that put strict limits on joining claims, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not impose this type of limitation. Instead, they encourage free joinder to dispose of issues efficiently.

Answer (D) is incorrect. Not only is no “common question” required, if it were the statement in (D) is untrue—the mere

Question 27

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 27

The correct answer is A.

This question tests compulsory counterclaims.

Rule: By impleading the employee, the employer became a third-party plaintiff and the employee a third-party defendant.
Since the employee’s claim against the employer (a negligence claim based on the employer’s failure to properly maintain the brakes on the car involved in the accident) arose out of the same occurrence or transaction as the claim that the employer had brought against the employee’s claim was a compulsory counterclaim.
An initial crossclaim is never mandatory, but once one crossclaim is filed, it functions like a new complaint for counterclaim purposes.

The employee was a third-party defendant in the prior action, the original defendant in that action, the employer, asserted a crossclaim against the employee.

As a consequence, the employee was required to plead any claim that the employee had that arose out of the same occurrence that was the subject matter of the defendant’s indemnification claim.

Question 28

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 28

Answer (C) is correct. A summary judgment ruling is a prediction. The court, by looking at discovery products plus affidavits, declarations, and other materials must predict whether, if the case were allowed to go to trial, there would be a genuine issue of material fact to be tried. At trial, on the other hand, the parties have actually presented live testimony, documents, and other physical evidence, and the judge must decide whether this evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in favor of the party with the burden of production.

Answer (A) is incorrect. The movant in either case must convince the court that there is or will be no legally sufficient evidence in favor of the non-movant.

Answer (B) is incorrect. The question in both cases is whether the party with the burden has produced a record on which a reasonable jury could find in its favor.

Answer (D) is incorrect. In both cases, the court is to view the evidence and make inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. In neither case is the court supposed to make decisions about credibility or to weigh the evidence

Question 29

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?

Federal law, because the issue is procedural.

Federal law, because the case is in federal court.

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

State law, because the case is in federal court on the basis of diversity

Answer 29

Answer (C) is correct. This hypo is based on Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415 (1996). In that case, the Court determined that because FRCP 59 was silent as to the basis for a new trial, it did not conflict with New York law providing for a substantive standard. This case is similar. The Washington law supplies a standard that is more stringent than the federal common law standard. This means that parties are likely to both forum shop and be treated inequitably depending on whether they filed in state or federal court. Thus, in order to avoid that, the court would apply the Washington standard to review the jury trial verdict.

Question 30

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?

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.

Yes, if there is no federal countervailing interest in preventing the Arizona certification rule from applying.

No, if the court determines that there is a direct collision between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the Arizona certification rule.

Answers (A), (B), and (C).

Answer 30

D is the best answer. The answer to this question will depend on whether the court determines that FRCP 8 and the Arizona certification rule are in direct conflict. If they are, then under Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010), the court will likely determine that FRCP 8 should apply. It is a procedural rule that does not violate the Rules Enabling Act. However, if the two rules do not conflict, then the question is whether the application of the Arizona certification rule in state court and Rule 8 in federal court would lead to forum shopping or inequitable administration of the law (be outcome determinative under the Twin Aims test). If it would be, then the state law should apply. Finally, the state law would still apply as long as there is not a federal countervailing interest in Rule 8 applying. Thus, the answer to this question really depends on how the court reads the intersection between these two rules.

Answers (A), (B), and (C) are all correct, making Answer (D) the best answer.