Civil Procedure Flashcards
ALA Quizzes, Kaplan Quizzes, Kaplan Qbank, CLS Quizzes
A woman sued a man in federal court for intentional infliction of emotional distress after he pulled an inappropriate prank on her at his workplace. The man told his attorney that he bought the snake that he placed on her chair that day at a pet store. He quit his job shortly after the incident. The woman sent interrogatories to the man’s attorney asking whether he had bought a snake on the day of the incident.
Does the attorney have to answer the interrogatories?
(A) Yes, because they involve questions of fact.
(B) Yes, because the man quit his job shortly after the incident.
(C) No, because the statements are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
(D) No, because the statements are protected by the work product doctrine.
(A) Yes, because they involve questions of fact.
One day, a traffic light in a busy intersection malfunctioned because of an electrical problem which could have been prevented if the state had performed reasonable maintenance. A driver was hit by another car because of the confusion created by the malfunctioning traffic light. While the driver’s car was stalled in the middle of the road as a result of the accident, a trucker who had fallen asleep at the wheel crashed into the driver’s car. The driver now seeks to bring suit in federal court against the various parties that caused him injury to his person and damages to his car. Assume that all parties are residents of the state except the driver, who lives in a neighboring state.
Under which of the following circumstances would the federal court have jurisdiction over the case?
A The lawsuit involves diverse litigants in which the amount in controversy is $55,000.
B The lawsuit involves diverse litigants where the amount in controversy is $80,000, which includes property damage and medical expenses against the trucker as well as attorneys’ fees and litigation costs in the amount of $10,000.
C The lawsuit is a negligence action involving diverse litigants, and the driver has incurred property damages of $30,000 and medical expenses of $50,000.
D The lawsuit involves diverse litigants, including the state, the trucker, and the other driver, and the claim against each defendant is $30,000.
The correct answer is: The lawsuit is a negligence action involving diverse litigants, and the driver has incurred property damages of $30,000 and medical expenses of $50,000.
Discussion of correct answer: Federal district courts have original subject-matter jurisdiction over matters involving diverse litigants in which the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, exclusive of the costs and expenses associated with trial. A claimant may add together each amount in controversy against a particular defendant to meet the threshold. Thus, a federal district court would have jurisdiction over this action, in which property damages are $30,000 and medical expenses are $50,000, because the aggregate is over $75,000 and the litigants are diverse.
A man files a defamation claim for $80,000 against a former employee. The man is a citizen of State A and the former employee is a citizen of State A. The action was filed in State A state court. The employee filed a counterclaim for age discrimination based upon federal law.
Can the man have the cased removed to federal court?
A Yes, because the counterclaim is a federal question.
B Yes, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
C No, because there is not diversity of citizenship between the parties.
D No, because only defendants can remove to federal court.
The correct answer is: No, because only defendants can remove to federal court.
Discussion of correct answer: An action brought in state court may be removed by the defendant to federal court if the case originally could have been brought by the plaintiff in federal court [28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441]. Here, the issue is that the plaintiff is trying to remove the case to federal court, and plaintiffs cannot do so.
A woman, a famous actress, and a man, a noted paparazzo, were in a car accident after the man chased the woman while trying to get a picture with her and a new celebrity boy band. Two weeks later, the man snuck onto the woman’s property to take pictures of a secret wedding between the woman and another famous actor. Finally, two weeks after that, the woman was walking down the street when she saw that the man had sold pictures of her wedding to several companies, who were now using them for their
advertising campaigns in local bus stations. The woman wants to sue the man in federal court for damages caused by the accident, the trespass, and the misuse of her image.
Assuming federal jurisdiction is not an issue, may she do so?
(A) Yes, so long as all of the incidents are part of the same claim or occurrence.
(B) Yes, because a party may join as many claims in a single action as the party has against an opposing party.
(C) No, because the two-week breaks make the actions too attenuated.
(D) No, because the joinder of claims like this would lead to jury confusion, and they should be severed.
(B) Yes, because a party may join as many claims in a single action as the party has against an opposing party.
A woman sued a man in federal court for defamation regarding comments that he made about her when she was running for mayor. The man’s attorney believed there were several problems with the complaint. However, he was unsure about what defenses would be lost if not raised in the initial response. Which potential defense does not have to be raised in the initial response?
(A) Failure to state a claim.
(B) Lack of personal jurisdiction.
(C) Improper venue.
(D) Improper service of process.
(A) Failure to state a claim.
The plaintiff, a man from State A, was injured when the defendant, a citizen of State B, ran a red light in State A, causing $60,000 in damages. After meeting to try and settle the issue without a trial, the plaintiff and defendant began arguing in the parking lot over the cause of the accident. The defendant pushed the plaintiff to the ground and stormed off. The plaintiff sought medical attention after the incident, and believed that he suffered $20,000 in damages from the incident in the parking lot. The plaintiff ultimately filed suit against the defendant for negligence and battery in a State A federal court. The defendant objected, claiming that the federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear the cases.
May the federal court hear the case?
A No, because even though the plaintiff’s damages arose out of the same case or controversy, both claims arose from violations of state law.
B No, because the plaintiff cannot aggregate unrelated claims.
C Yes, because the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the battery action.
D Yes, because the elements for diversity jurisdiction are met.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the elements for diversity jurisdiction are met.
Discussion of correct answer: The plaintiff can bring his case in federal court if there is a federal question or diversity of citizenship. Here, there is no federal question involved. However, the plaintiff and the defendant are from different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The amount in controversy can be aggregated even if the claims are unrelated, so long as they are asserted by the same plaintiff against the same defendant. Here, both claims are brought by the same plaintiff against the same defendant. Therefore, aggregation is proper.
A real estate holding company had several subsidiaries that owned different types of real estate, including one that owned commercial properties in a particular city. The holding company sued several city commercial tenants in federal court over their failure to pay yearly fees under a federal regulatory scheme. The commercial tenants alleged that the fees were included in their previously negotiated commercial rents, but the court found for the holding company. Three months later, the defendants filed a motion under Federal Rule 60(b)(4) for relief from a judgment on the basis that the subsidiary was the proper plaintiff.
Should the court grant the motion?
(A) No, because the defendant did not raise the issue during the suit.
(B) No, because the holding company consented to jurisdiction when it filed the suit.
(C) Yes, because the holding company lacked standing.
(D) Yes, because the motion is timely.
(C) Yes, because the holding company lacked standing.
A visitor from Georgia was drunk after attending a college football game in Florida. As he was driving through Florida on his way home, he ran a red light and hit a pedestrian that was walking across the street. The pedestrian was seriously injured. After spending the night in jail for reckless driving, the distraught visitor returned to Georgia. Several weeks later, after receiving medical bills totaling over $80,000 for extensive physical therapy and medical treatments, the pedestrian filed an action against the visitor in Florida for her injuries.
Will the federal court in Florida have personal jurisdiction over the visitor?
(A) No, because the visitor is not domiciled in Florida.
(B) No, because the visitor was not personally served in Florida.
(C) Yes, because the visitor was present in Florida when the conduct that gave rise to the suit took place.
(D) Yes, because the pedestrian resides in Florida.
(C) Yes, because the visitor was present in Florida when the conduct that gave rise to the suit took place.
While on vacation in Vermont, an Ohio citizen visited an antiques store and saw what was labeled as a packet of Civil War coins. Desperate for a sale, the owner of the store told the Ohio citizen that the coins were rare and worth much more than the $100,000 he was asking for them. However, the woman thought the price was too high.
When the woman returned home to Ohio, she received a call from the store owner reducing the price by 20%, prompting the woman to buy the coins. Once she sent the money to the owner, and after receiving the coins, she discovered that the coins were actually worth only a few hundred dollars. The Ohio woman wished to sue the owner for fraud in Ohio. The store owner argued that the court in Ohio lacked jurisdiction.
Which of the following is true?
A The woman can sue in Ohio, because the owner’s call provided sufficient minimum contacts to support Ohio’s exercise of jurisdiction over him.
B The woman can sue in Ohio, because the amount in controversy is more than $75,000.
C The woman cannot sue in Ohio, because the man is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Ohio based on a single phone call.
D The woman cannot sue in Ohio, because the initial conversation took place in Vermont.
The correct answer is: The woman can sue in Ohio, because the owner’s call provided sufficient minimum contacts to support Ohio’s exercise of jurisdiction over him.
Discussion of correct answer: Although the owner did not physically enter the state, he would have sufficient minimum contacts via his directly reaching into the state to make contact with the woman in order to conduct business. Had the sale occurred entirely at the shop, and the owner merely followed up with a call, or the woman had a change of mind and called the owner, those situations would not have provided sufficient minimum contacts. However, the call here was made directly to the woman for the purpose of getting her to make a purchase. That is purposeful availment sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
A man was the victim of an attack at a truck stop in State B by the defendant who was motivated by his hatred of the man’s race. The man, a citizen of State A, filed suit in the U.S. District Court in State A alleging a federal claim against the defendant who was a citizen of State C. The defendant moved to change the venue to State B or, alternatively, to State C.
What outcome is likely?
(A) The action may be transferred to State B only.
(B) The action may be transferred to State B or State C.
(C) The action must be dismissed, because it was commenced in an improper forum.
(D) It is discretionary with the court whether to retain the action or transfer it to State B or State C.
(B) The action may be transferred to State B or State C.
Acme became involved in a labor dispute with the Steamrollers’ Union (the entity that ordinarily supplied workers for Acme’s plant). Acme commenced an action against the Steamrollers’ Union in the appropriate U.S. District Court, claiming $75,000 in damages as a consequence of the union’s conduct in harassing and intimidating non-union workers in violation of the National Labor Relations Act and applicable state law. Acme is an Indiana corporation, and the union (an unincorporated association) has members who are domiciled in every state except New York and New Jersey. The Steamrollers’ Union answered by denying Acme’s allegations and filing a $15,000 counterclaim, which asserted that Acme had deliberately made false accusations about the union to the local papers for the purpose of obtaining favorable press coverage. If the Steamrollers’ Union moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, should the court grant the motion?
(A) Yes, because Acme has not claimed monetary damages in excess of $75,000.
(B) Yes, because there is no diversity.
(C) No, because subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied.
(D) No, because a state claim has been asserted in a federal court.
(C) No, because subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied.
Discussion of correct answer: Because Acme is asserting a federal claim against the Steamrollers’ Union, subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even though the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and without regard to diversity.
A State A man purchased a gift basket for himself from a State B corporation that shipped gift baskets and other foods through the mail. The man did not like the vanilla coffee that was included in the gift basket and claims that it was a defective product that gave him a stomachache. While he did not go to a hospital for the stomachache, he alleged that he had $300,000 in pain and suffering damages. He filed a product liability claim based in state law against the corporation in State A federal district court and sent a request for waiver of service of process by mail to the corporation. The general counsel of the corporation reviewed the man’s complaint and concluded that there was no court in the country that would award the man damages, much less enough damages to meet the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, and, based on this, determined that the corporation did not need to reply to the man’s request. 75 days after sending the original request and not having received a reply, the man returned to court requesting that the corporation be sanctioned for failing to reply.
Will the court impose sanctions on the corporation?
A No, because the corporation had good cause for failure to waive.
B No, because the corporation’s time to respond was not expired.
C Yes, because the corporation did not have good cause for failure to waive.
D Yes, because a corporation has a duty to waive service.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the corporation did not have good cause for failure to waive.
Discussion of correct answer: A court may impose sanctions on a party that fails to respond to a request for waiver, but will not do so when there was “good cause” for failing to respond, i.e., where the party did not receive the waiver. Belief that the court did not have jurisdiction, however, does not qualify as good cause, and therefore the general counsel’s reason for not responding will not prevent the court from imposing sanctions.
A woman who lived in State A sued a man for battery when she got hurt in a bar fight that he started. She is suing for $40,000 for her injuries. In the same suit, she also claimed $50,000 in punitive damages. She sued in federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction. The relevant state law barred punitive damages in actions of this type.
Can the woman’s action be heard in federal court?
A No, because the amount of punitive damages that could be awarded is uncertain.
B No, because the claim is legally certain to be less than $75,000.
C Yes, because a federal court might award her over $35,000 in punitive damages, despite the state law.
D Yes, because the combined amount of damages she is claiming in good faith is $90,000.
The correct answer is: No, because the claim is legally certain to be less than $75,000.
Discussion of correct answer: The amount in controversy between the litigants must exceed $75,000, exclusive of the costs and expenses associated with trial. A court will dismiss an action based on diversity if it appears “to a legal certainty” that the claim is for less than $75,000. Here, because the relevant state law does not allow punitive damages, it is legally certain that the claim cannot be worth more than $40,000.
A man sued a corporation after he dined in one of their restaurants and suffered serious food poisoning which required that he be hospitalized for a month. The man, a State A citizen, filed suit in state court in State A seeking $100,000 in damages. The corporation sought removal of the case to federal court, claiming that it was a citizen of State B. The corporation has restaurants in 48 states, including State A. In addition, the corporation maintains its chief training center and the majority of its restaurants in State A. The corporation’s board of directors and all of its top management were based in State B, and the corporation was directed and controlled from there. The corporation will be considered a citizen of what state?
(A) State B, because the corporation is controlled from there.
(B) State B, because the board of directors and all of the top management are there.
(C) Any of the states in which it operates, because it likely has sufficient minimum contacts to face suit in any of them.
(D) State A, because the majority of its business is located in State A.
(A) State B, because the corporation is controlled from there.
Peter lives in Camden, New Jersey and recently went to dinner at Eatery Co., a restaurant in nearby Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Eatery is incorporated in Pennsylvania and maintains its only place of business in Philadelphia. Eatery has been eager to attract customers from nearby Camden, and has thus placed advertisements on many billboards in the town. Seeing one of these advertisements, Peter decided to give the restaurant a try. Unfortunately, Peter became very sick after the meal, and subsequently brought a federal action in the district of New Jersey seeking damages.
Is the district of New Jersey a permissible venue?
(A) Yes, because Peter resides in the district.
(B) Yes, because Eatery is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
(C) No, because Eatery only resides in Pennsylvania.
(D) No, because advertising in a particular venue does not constitute a substantial occurrence.
(B) Yes, because Eatery is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
Citizens of State A were plaintiffs in an action brought in the United States District Court in State B against Firstcorp, a State C corporation, and Secondcorp, a State B corporation. Firstcorp’s office and plant were located in State C. At no time had Firstcorp had an office or salesmen in State B. Secondcorp’s sole place of business was in State B. The complaint alleged that each of the plaintiffs sustained serious personal injuries when a toaster oven exploded while a clerk was showing it to the plaintiffs in Secondcorp’s store in State B. Each plaintiff requested damages in the sum of $80,000.
The toaster oven had been manufactured by Firstcorp and shipped to Distributor in State A. Distributor had a contract with Firstcorp to act as the exclusive distributor of Firstcorp products in seven states, including State A and State B. Process was served personally on the president of Firstcorp at Firstcorp’s office in State C and on the president of Secondcorp at its office in State B. Thereafter, Firstcorp moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over it.
Under what circumstances can the U.S. District Court assert personal jurisdiction over Firstcorp?
(A) If State B has an appropriate long-arm statute and the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with due process.
(B) If the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with due process (there being nationwide service of process in actions commenced in federal court).
(C) If the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
(D) If process was served upon Firstcorp in accordance with both federal and State B law.
(A) If State B has an appropriate long-arm statute and the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with due process.
A woman was hit by a car while walking her dog. The woman was a citizen of State A. The driver was a citizen of State B. The woman sued the driver in a State A state court, claiming $40,000 in damages based on her personal injuries. After a visit to a doctor revealed the need for more surgeries, the woman amended her complaint to add another $50,000 in damages. The driver filed a motion to remove the case to federal court.
Can the case be removed to federal court?
A Yes, after the woman amended her complaint to add $50,000 in damages.
B Yes, because the defendant made the request for removal.
C No, because the original claim was for $40,000 in damages.
D No, because the woman’s claim is for personal injuries.
The correct answer is: Yes, after the woman amended her complaint to add $50,000 in damages.
Discussion of correct answer: Removal to federal court is permissible only where at least one of the claims filed by the plaintiff would fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. Removal is only available for actions filed in state court. Here, the action was filed in state court. The woman and the driver have complete diversity of citizenship, and once the woman added $50,000, the amount in controversy requirement was met.
A driver rented a car from a company in State B. The driver was a citizen of State A. The company was incorporated in State C, and had its principal place of business in State B. The victim was a citizen of State B. The driver was driving on a highway in State B when the accelerator pedal got stuck, and he hit the victim, who was also driving on the highway, causing severe injuries to the victim. The victim filed a lawsuit in federal district court in State B against the driver for $80,000 in damages. She served the summons and complaint on the driver three weeks later. In his answer, filed two days after receiving the summons and complaint, the driver cited the stuck accelerator pedal as the proximate cause of the accident. A week after receiving the driver’s answer, the victim amended her complaint to add the company as an additional defendant, seeking to hold the company liable for $80,000 in medical damages, plus $30,000 in damage to her car. Five days later, the victim served the amended complaint on the company and the driver. The company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Will the federal district court grant the company’s motion to dismiss?
A Yes, because the minimum amount in controversy required for federal court jurisdiction has not been met.
B Yes, because there is no longer diversity of citizenship among the parties.
C No, because diversity of citizenship was only required at the time that the lawsuit was initiated.
D No, because the victim’s amendment to her complaint was not timely.
The correct answer is: Yes, because there is no longer diversity of citizenship among the parties.
Discussion of correct answer: 28 U.S.C. Section 1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising from the same case or controversy, but such jurisdiction is not available to a plaintiff in a diversity action who adds a party whose joinder destroys that diversity. Here, both the plaintiff and the newly added defendant are both citizens of State B. Because it is the plaintiff who has a claim against the defendant from her own state, the court must dismiss for lack of diversity.
A woman filed suit against a logger in a State A court claiming that he trespassed on her land and removed many of the trees without her permission. Both the woman and the logger were State A residents. Although it was unclear how many trees had been taken, the woman claimed $1 million in damages. A week later, the logger took a job in State B and moved there, establishing residency with an intent to permanently remain there. The logger then filed a motion to have the suit removed to federal court.
How should the court rule?
(A) Grant the motion, because the man is a citizen of State B.
(B) Grant the motion, because the suit involves natural resources.
(C) Deny the motion, because the amount in controversy requirement may not be met.
(D) Deny the motion, because the woman is a citizen of State A.
(D) Deny the motion, because the woman is a citizen of State A.
A visitor from Georgia was drunk after attending a college football game in Florida. As he was driving through Florida on his way home, he ran a red light and hit a pedestrian that was walking across the street. The pedestrian was seriously injured. After spending the night in jail for reckless driving, the distraught visitor returned to Georgia. Several weeks later, after receiving medical bills totaling over $80,000 for extensive physical therapy and medical treatments, the pedestrian filed an action against the visitor in Florida for her injuries.
Will the federal court in Florida have personal jurisdiction over the visitor?
(A) No, because the visitor is not domiciled in Florida.
(B) No, because the visitor was not personally served in Florida.
(C) Yes, because the visitor was present in Florida when the conduct that gave rise to the suit took place.
(D) Yes, because the pedestrian resides in Florida.
(C) Yes, because the visitor was present in Florida when the conduct that gave rise to the suit took place.
After losing a significant amount of money in the stock market, an investor sued her investment advisor in federal court for not investing her money properly and stated that the failure to invest in companies that earned at least 10% per year interest was fraudulent.
After discovery had concluded, the advisor and the investor each moved for summary judgment. In his motion, the advisor submitted the deposition testimony of an employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission who cited recent government data that suggests most investments earned less than 10% return on investment over the last three years.
How should the court rule?
(A) Deny both motions, because motions for summary judgment are not appropriate in fraud actions.
(B) Deny both motions, because there are genuine issues of material fact present.
(C) Grant the advisor’s motion, because there are no genuine issues of material fact present.
(D) Grant the investor’s motion, because the advisor’s claim for relief was based on hearsay that would otherwise be inadmissible at trial.
(B) Deny both motions, because there are genuine issues of material fact present.
A man bought a cold medicine from a store and had an allergic reaction to it which required him to be hospitalized for ten days. The man, a citizen of State X, brought an action in the United States District Court in State X against the store and the corporation that manufactured the cold medicine. The store was located in State Y and the corporation was a State Z corporation. The plaintiff requested damages in the sum of $80,000. Process was served personally on the owner of the store in State Y and on the president of the corporation at her office in State Z. Thereafter, the corporation filed a cross-claim against the store for $90,000 alleged to be due for merchandise previously sold by the corporation to the store.
How should the court rule on a motion to strike the corporation’s cross-claim against the store?
(A) The court should grant the motion, because the cross-claim is unrelated to the plaintiff’s action.
(B) The court should grant the motion, because there is no supplemental jurisdiction with respect to this action.
(C) The court should deny the motion, because the corporation’s action might confuse or divert the jury with respect to the original claim.
(D) The court should deny the motion, because there is diversity subject-matter jurisdiction with respect to the corporation’s cross-claim against the store.
(A) The court should grant the motion, because the cross-claim is unrelated to the plaintiff’s action.
Acme is a Georgia corporation that has its principal place of business in Alabama. Polly used to live in Alabama and work at Acme’s Alabama plant. However, she was recently terminated from her employment with Acme. She consulted an attorney, who advised her that her termination was wrongful under a law recently enacted by Congress. The lawyer also informed Polly that Georgia had the most liberal procedures for prosecuting this type of action. Polly moved to Georgia, where she is now working as a waitress, and commenced an action in the appropriate state court against Acme for wrongful termination under the applicable U.S. law and a similar Georgia statute. Polly seeks $80,000 in damages. Acme filed a notice of removal in the U.S. District Court in Georgia. Polly then filed a motion for remand back to state court. How should the court rule on Polly’s motion?
(A) The motion should be granted, because there is a lack of diversity.
(B) The motion should be granted, because Polly moved to Georgia only for the purpose of acquiring a more advantageous forum.
(C) The motion should be denied, because one of Polly’s actions is a federal claim.
(D) The motion should be denied, because there is no diversity of citizenship.
(C) The motion should be denied, because one of Polly’s actions is a federal claim.
Discussion of correct answer: Because Polly’s claim is based upon a federal claim, Acme may remove the case to the appropriate U.S. District Court. It is irrelevant that Acme is a citizen of Georgia because defendants who are citizens of the forum state are only prohibited from removing the suit if federal jurisdiction would be based on diversity. Here, federal jurisdiction would be based on federal question, not diversity.
A State A plaintiff sued a State C defendant in federal court in State A for personal injuries that occurred in State B which caused an alleged $100,000 in damages. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction in State A because the defendant took the bar exam in State A several years earlier, and took several vacations to State A in the last 10 years. Additionally, on the latest vacation, the defendant rented a car. The defendant argued that the sum total of his time in State A was to take the bar (which he failed and never took again) and to vacation on two occasions.
Is the man subject to personal jurisdiction in State A?
A No, because although the man had several contacts, even in the aggregate, they are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over him.
B No, because the man has shown his intent not to remain in State A and has only entered at limited times and with a limited purpose each time.
C Yes, because renting a car is implied consent which subjects him to personal jurisdiction.
D Yes, because the man, by way of his taking the bar exam, has purposely availed himself of the jurisdiction.
The correct answer is: No, because although the man had several contacts, even in the aggregate, they are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over him.
Discussion of correct answer: While the number of times entered and purpose of each trip are useful in balancing the sufficient nature of contacts, it is much easier to look at the intentionality surrounding taking the bar exam. It is also important to note that the contacts are unrelated to the lawsuit. The defendant could actually have many, many more contacts with the state, but if they are unrelated to the lawsuit, they would still not be enough, because general jurisdiction is only available for natural persons who are residents of the state, or non-natural persons who are “essentially at home” in the state. While the man did take the bar exam in the state, he did not pass and never retook the exam. As such, this contact, even with the later vacations added to it, would not be sufficient for general personal jurisdiction.
A graduate student was injured when the escalator he was riding on malfunctioned and suddenly stopped. He sued an escalator manufacturing company for his injuries, alleging that the escalator manufacturing company had manufactured the escalator that had malfunctioned. The escalator manufacturing company denied that it had manufactured the faulty escalator and moved for summary judgment. The defendant’s motion was accompanied by an affidavit from a person with knowledge of the facts. In its brief opposing the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff stated that he planned to offer, as his proof that the defendant had manufactured the faulty escalator, the expert testimony of a psychic who had had a vision showing her that the defendant had indeed manufactured the escalator. The plaintiff did not offer any affidavits sworn to by the psychic. Should the court grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment?
(A) Yes, because the plaintiff’s evidence is implausible.
(B) Yes, because the plaintiff has not presented any affidavits from the psychic.
(C) No, because the psychic’s testimony, while inadmissible at trial, can be used to defeat a motion for summary judgment.
(D) No, because there is an issue of material fact in dispute.
(A) Yes, because the plaintiff’s evidence is implausible.
A corporation specializing in the production of a synthetic, recreational drug hired a law firm, organized as a partnership, to lobby the federal government to continue to keep the drug legal. The law firm failed in its efforts and the federal government passed laws outlawing the sale and production of the drug. The corporation sued the law firm in California state court for malpractice in a complaint based entirely on state law claims, and sought $3 million in damages. The corporation is incorporated in Canada and its principal place of business is in California. The law firm is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and its partners all lived in Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Maryland, except for one partner who lived in California and worked there in a one-man office. Shortly after the corporation’s complaint was filed, but before any response to the complaint was filed, that partner closed down the California office and relocated to Washington, D.C. Soon after, the law firm removed the case to federal court.
If the corporation seeks to remand the case to state court, will it prevail?
A Yes, because the law firm is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
B Yes, because there was no diversity of citizenship at the time the complaint was filed.
C No, because the citizenship of the partnership includes the citizenship of all of its partners.
D No, because the case involves a federal question.
The correct answer is: Yes, because there was no diversity of citizenship at the time the complaint was filed.
Discussion of correct answer: For purposes of determining whether there is diversity jurisdiction, a corporation will be considered to be a citizen of the state or foreign country of its incorporation as well as of its principal place of business. A partnership will be considered to be a citizen of all the states in which its partners are citizens. This is determined at the time of the complaint. Thus, because the one partner was domiciled in California at the time of the complaint, there will be no diversity jurisdiction.
An attorney was hired to defend an energy company accused by a resident of a town serviced by the energy company of violating several federal environmental laws. The town resident brought an action in the appropriate federal court. After the attorney sought discovery of a large volume of documents from the town resident, the town resident’s lawyer advised the attorney that she objected to the discovery requests on the following grounds:
1. The documents sought were privileged.
2. The information was factual in nature and related to the town resident’s claims.
3. The documents sought were not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4. The evidence sought was obtainable from a less expensive source.
Which, if any, of the foregoing objections might be valid?
(A) 1, 3, and 4.
(B) 1 and 2.
(C) 1 and 3.
(D) 2 and 4.
(C) 1 and 3.
A lawyer has a well-deserved reputation for being willing to win cases by any means necessary. He was involved in a high dollar personal injury case that was brought in the U.S. District Court through diversity jurisdiction. The other side’s attorney was angry at the manner that the lawyer was handling this case and the lawyer was confronted with the following allegations:
1. The lawyer’s examination of a witness was conducted in a manner designed to embarrass the deponent.
2. The lawyer failed to attend a deposition that he had scheduled for another party.
3. Although a party who was deposed by the lawyer was not represented by counsel, the lawyer nevertheless insisted upon carrying out the deposition.
4. The lawyer objected to almost every question asked of his client at a deposition, and all answers were made subject to the lawyer’s objections.
Which of the foregoing assertions could result in sanctions against the lawyer and his client?
(A) Allegations 1 and 2.
(B) Allegations 2, 3, and 4.
(C) Allegations 2 and 4.
(D) Allegation 2 only.
(A) Allegations 1 and 2.
Plaintiff, a citizen of Utah, was involved in an auto accident with Defendant, a citizen of Minnesota. The accident occurred in Utah. Pursuant to the applicable Utah long-arm statute, Plaintiff sued Defendant and Insureco, Defendant’s auto insurance company, in a Utah state court of general jurisdiction for $80,000. Insureco, which was joined with Defendant under an applicable state law, is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Utah. Both defendants were served with process on the same day. Twenty-nine days after being served, Insureco and Defendant filed a joint notice of removal to the applicable U.S. District Court. Plaintiff then filed a motion for remand. Should the court grant or deny Plaintiff’s motion?
(A) The court should deny Plaintiff’s motion, because the amount-in- controversy requirement is satisfied.
(B) The court should deny Plaintiff’s motion, because Defendant is not a citizen of Utah.
(C) The court should grant Plaintiff’s motion, because the notice of removal was not filed in a timely fashion.
(D) The court should grant Plaintiff’s motion, because Insureco’s principal place of business is in Utah.
(D) The court should grant Plaintiff’s motion, because Insureco’s principal place of business is in Utah.
Discussion of correct answer: A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the jurisdiction in which it has its principal place of business. As a result of this rule, removal would not be possible for two reasons. The first reason is because Insureco’s presence in the dispute destroys complete diversity. The second reason is because defendants sued in their home states cannot remove if the basis for removal would be diversity of citizenship.
A teenager was out riding his motorcycle. He was wearing dark clothes and visibility was poor that night. A man was driving his car and crashed into the motorcycle causing an accident. Soon after another car driven by a woman hit the first car from behind and caused the first car to further damage the motorcycle. The teenager brought an action against the man in the U.S. District Court in the state in which the teenager was domiciled. The teenager sought to recover $76,000 for damages to his motorcycle. The man filed a counterclaim against the teenager, seeking $1,213 for damages to his car. The man also filed two claims against the woman, one seeking $76,000 in the event that the man was liable to the teenager, and the other seeking $1,213 for the damages caused to his car. The teenager and the man were both citizens of State X; the woman was a citizen of State Y. Judgment was entered for the teenager against the man, but all of the other claims were found to be without merit. The woman filed a lawsuit against the teenager and the man in the U.S. District Court in State X seeking $100,000 for personal injuries suffered in the earlier auto accident. The teenager and the man have each counterclaimed seeking $100,000 for their own personal injuries and have filed similar cross-claims against each other.
Which of the following statements is correct?
(A) The court in the initial action lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
(B) Apart from any possible subject-matter jurisdiction problems in the prior suit, the woman could have filed any claim arising out of the accident that she had against the teenager in that initial lawsuit.
(C) Apart from any possible subject-matter jurisdiction problems in the prior suit, the teenager and the man may not assert their claims against each other in the present action.
(D) All of the above.
(D) All of the above.
The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, went on a business trip to State B and stayed in a hotel. While there, he received a chemical burn while using the hot tub. He filed a tort suit in State A state court against the hotel and the technician (an independent contractor) who serviced the hot tub and pool. The man alleged a violation of State B law and sought $100,000 in damages. The hotel and the technician are citizens of State B for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
Two weeks after the hotel and technician were served with process, the hotel’s lawyer sought to remove the case to federal court, but the technician did not wish to remove the action. Two months later, the plaintiff learned that the technician followed the maintenance instructions as provided by the manufacturer of the hot tub. The plaintiff then joined the manufacturer of the hot tub as a defendant. Several weeks after being served, the manufacturer, a resident of State A, wished to remove the case to federal court and persuaded the technician and hotel to join in a notice of removal. The manufacturer filed a notice of removal exactly four weeks after being served, and the hotel and technician filed a notice that same day joining in the removal.
May the suit be removed under these circumstances?
A No, because a case can only be removed that could have originally been filed in federal court.
B No, because the defendants waited too long to initiate their removal.
C Yes, because the defendants have the right to remove the action within 30 days after a reason for removal become apparent.
D Yes, because the plaintiff added the manufacturer to prevent the case from being removed.
The correct answer is: No, because a case can only be removed that could have originally been filed in federal court.
Discussion of correct answer: Removal is proper only when the plaintiff could have originally brought the case in federal court. Here, this case involves a sufficient amount in controversy, but because the plaintiff and the manufacturer are from the same state, there is not complete diversity.
A man from State B brought suit against his former employer in an appropriate U.S. District Court, claiming $100,000 in damages as a consequence of the employee’s termination in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The man, who is African American, claimed that he was terminated after he brought several safety violations to the attention of state inspectors when the employer’s facilities were being investigated for state health-code violations. The employer operates in States A, C, and D and is incorporated in State B. The man’s salary was $37,000 annually, and he had two years remaining on his employment contract.
If the employer moves to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, should the court grant the motion?
A No, because a federal court can hear violations of state employment contract disputes.
B No, because subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied.
C Yes, because the federal court lacks diversity jurisdiction.
D Yes, because the man’s claim amounts to a breach of contract for termination stemming from whistleblowing to state inspectors.
The correct answer is: No, because subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied.
Discussion of correct answer: Because the man is asserting a federal claim against the employer, subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even though the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and without regard to diversity.
A prisoner in a large state prison received a credible threat that a group of inmates were going to do him harm. He repeatedly asked the guards for help, but they ignored him. A week later, the prisoner was attacked and savagely beaten by the group of inmates that he had warned the guards about. If the guards had taken action prior to the attack, then the prisoner would not have suffered his injuries. After being released from the prison hospital, the prisoner sued the prison in federal court, claiming a violation of his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.”
Can the prisoner’s claim be heard in federal court?
A No, because the prisoner is being held in a state prison, and is consequently a ward of the state.
B No, because the prisoner is claiming damages based upon the inactions of state employees.
C Yes, because the prisoner is claiming relief for a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
D Yes, because the prisoner’s claim and the state prison’s likely defenses arise under federal laws prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the prisoner is claiming relief for a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Discussion of correct answer: Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States” [28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331]. Importantly, for a case to arise under federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must appear on a fair reading of a well-pleaded complaint. Here, the prisoner’s complaint states that he is suing for damages related to the prison’s violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, so the federal court has original jurisdiction.
A man from State B was injured while operating a machine that was manufactured by a State B corporation whose principal place of business was in State A. The man found his home state to be more favorable to his case, and so brought a state-law products liability action against the corporation in State B, claiming damages of $95,000. One week after being served, the corporation removed the case to federal court. The man now seeks to have the case remanded back to state court. How should the court rule?
(A) The case should be remanded, because the amount in controversy in a strict liability case in federal court must exceed $100,000.
(B) The case should be remanded, because a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the matter.
(C) The case should remain in federal court, because the corporation removed within 30 days of being served.
(D) The case should remain in federal court, because the defendant is permitted to remove a case that could have originally been brought in federal court.
The case should be remanded, because a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Discussion of correct answer: The defendant cannot remove the action for two reasons. First, the suit could not have been filed in federal court originally, because there is no federal question and the parties are not completely diverse. Second, even if the parties were diverse, the defendant cannot remove a diversity action to federal court if it is a citizen of the state where the suit was filed. That is the case here, because the corporation is a citizen of both State A and State B. Choice (A) is incorrect, as there is no such rule. Choices (C) and (D) are incorrect because the court would not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.
A man, a citizen of State A, sued a movie company, incorporated in State B and with its primary place of business in State A, in a State A court alleging violations of both the U.S. Copyright Act and the State A Copyright Act. Both claims arose out of the alleged use of a book the man wrote as the basis of a movie without the man’s permission. The man claimed $100,000 in damages. The company filed notice to remove the action to federal court 10 days after the initial pleading.
Can the action be removed to federal court?
A No, because the company is a citizen of State A.
B No, because the man is making a State A law claim in a State A court.
C Yes, because removal is based on federal question jurisdiction.
D Yes, because the company filed notice of removal within 30 days of the initial pleading.
The correct answer is: Yes, because removal is based on federal question jurisdiction.
Discussion of correct answer: In an action based on federal-question jurisdiction, the action is removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Here, one of the man’s claims is based on federal copyright law, over which the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction. While the company is also a citizen of State A, the fact that the removal is based on federal question jurisdiction makes citizenship irrelevant.
Liz, a citizen of California, filed an action in the U.S District Court in Los Angeles against Watchco, a Texas corporation, and Monitinc, a New York corporation, alleging that they were engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices in violation of the Sherman Act, and that her actual damages from the conduct of the defendants was $73,000. Liz further alleged in a second cause of action that Watchco was wrongfully withholding $1,000 that Liz paid to them as a deposit for a computer that was not delivered.
Which of the following statements is true?
A The action should be dismissed by the district court, because the value of the aggregated claims does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.
B The district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the second cause of action, but only if it arises from a common nucleus of operative facts with the first cause of action.
C The federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction, because there is complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and defendants.
D The federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, because Sherman Act violations must be tried in the state court where such violations allegedly occurred.
The correct answer is: The district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the second cause of action, but only if it arises from a common nucleus of operative facts with the first cause of action.
Discussion of correct answer: Under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, a U.S. District Court may, if a federal claim exists, permit the plaintiff to append any state claims arising from a “common nucleus of operative facts” with the federal claim [United Mineworkers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)].
A man moved to State B to open up a restaurant. During the first six months the restaurant struggled to attract customers. The man wasn’t sure how long he would stay, but he was willing to close the restaurant and return to State A if business did not improve. The next day he was hit by a driver from State B while walking his dog. He suffered over $100,000 in damages. He sued in federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction based on the fact the amount in controversy was over $75,000, the man was a citizen of State B, and the car owner that hit him was a citizen of State B.
Can the man sue in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction?
A Yes, because the man is domiciled in State A.
B Yes, because the man intends to return to State A if his restaurant in State B does not succeed.
C No, because the man is domiciled in State B.
D No, because this is a state law claim involving state roads.
The correct answer is: No, because the man is domiciled in State B.
Discussion of correct answer: In order for diversity to exist, the dispute must involve citizens of different states. A shared citizenship between any plaintiff and any defendant will destroy diversity jurisdiction. A person will be considered a citizen of his or her state of domicile. Domicile requires the person to have both physical presence in the state and the intent to remain in the state indefinitely. Here, since the man has the intent to remain in the state indefinitely (there is no definite time he will be leaving the state, and in fact he may never leave the state), he is considered domiciled in State B and thus, a citizen of State B.
A woman sued a man who was a notorious recluse and whose sole passion was writing nonfiction books about recent historical events. The woman sent the man a letter stating that the man had won the World Writing Award, which would be given to him at a banquet in his honor in her state. The man accepted the invitation to attend. When the man arrived in the state, the woman told him that there was no such thing as the World Writing Award and served the man with process.
Does the court in the woman’s state have personal jurisdiction over the man in this case?
A No, because the man was not impossible to reach under normal circumstances.
B No, because there was no World Writing Award.
C Yes, because of the doctrine of quasi in personam jurisdiction.
D Yes, because the man was personally served with process in that state.
The correct answer is: No, because there was no World Writing Award.
Discussion of correct answer: A defendant who is served with process while in the forum state is likely to be subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction even if his or her presence in the state is temporary and even if his or her presence is entirely unrelated to the lawsuit. However, if the defendant’s presence in the forum state is solely due to force, fraud, or participation in another judicial proceeding, service may not establish personal jurisdiction. Here, the man’s presence in the state is due to fraud, in that he was lured there with promises of receiving the World Writing Award, which does not exist.
A State A man was injured while vacationing at a resort located in State B. He was injured while taking surfing lessons with one of the resort’s instructors. The resort advertised in several states on the East Coast, including States A and C. As part of his claim, the man also sued the manufacturer of the surf board he was riding on, who was a citizen of State A. All of the witnesses to the accident were in State B. Because he felt the relevant law was more in his favor in State C, the man filed suit against the resort in a federal court there.
From the options below, what would be the most appropriate action for the State C federal court to take?
A Dismiss the action.
B Defer to the plaintiff’s choice of forum and hear the action in State C.
C Transfer the action to a federal court in State B.
D Hear the action in State C, but follow State B law.
The correct answer is: Dismiss the action.
Discussion of correct answer: A court must have both subject-matter jurisdiction over an action and personal jurisdiction over the parties to it. Here, the State C federal district court has no personal jurisdiction over the defendants because none have any minimum contacts with State C sufficient to support the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction. In addition, the State C federal district court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction because there is neither a federal question nor complete diversity of parties. Consequently, the federal court must dismiss the action.
Paul, a citizen of Idaho, and Greg, a citizen of Oregon, sued Darryl, a citizen of Montana, for breach of contract occurring in Montana. The action was filed in the U.S. District Court in Oregon, and Darryl was improperly served. Upon learning of the suit, Darryl made a successful motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court in Montana.
Which of the following is true?
A The federal court had the authority to transfer the action to Montana.
B The federal court in Oregon should have dismissed the action, because venue in the U.S. District Court in Oregon was improper.
C The federal court in Oregon should have denied Darryl’s motion to transfer the case, because he was improperly served.
D The federal court improperly transferred the action to Montana.
The correct answer is: The federal court had the authority to transfer the action to Montana.
Discussion of correct answer: The action was not properly commenced in the U.S. District Court in Oregon, because the defendant does not reside in Oregon, and the cause of action did not arise there. However, under the applicable law, the action may be transferred to the U.S. District Court in Montana (where the sole defendant was domiciled).
A plaintiff and a defendant entered into a contract. The contract stated that any litigation concerning the contract could only be brought in the courts of State A. A dispute about the contract arose. The plaintiff used diversity jurisdiction to bring suit in federal court in its home state, State B, where the state courts refused to enforce forum selection clauses. The defendant filed a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of State A because of the forum selection clause. The court denied the motion because it felt obliged in a diversity case to apply the state law in State B that refused to enforce forum selection clauses. Did the court err in denying the motion to transfer on this basis?
(A) Yes, because venue is a procedural issue rather than a substantive issue.
(B) Yes, because a federal procedural statute governs the circumstances under which a federal trial court may transfer venue.
(C) No, because a federal court sitting in diversity must apply state law.
(D) No, because the federal transfer of venue statute does not mention forum selection clauses.
(B) Yes, because a federal procedural statute governs the circumstances under which a federal trial court may transfer venue.
A doctor, who was a citizen of State A, was injured when a student negligently hit him while skiing. The student was a citizen of State B. The accident occurred in State A. Pursuant to the applicable State A long-arm statute, the doctor sued the student in a State A state court of general jurisdiction for $80,000. The doctor also named the student’s insurance company as a defendant. Pursuant to State A law, this type of action was permissible. The insurance company was incorporated in State D and had its principal place of business in State A. The student filed a notice to remove the case to the applicable U.S. District Court.
Is removal proper?
(A) Yes, because the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied.
(B) Yes, because the student is not a citizen of State A.
(C) No, because the insurance company did not join in the notice.
(D) No, because the insurance company’s principal place of business is in State A.
(D) No, because the insurance company’s principal place of business is in State A.
A woman who was a State A citizen was injured when her van was hit by an underage bartender from State A. He was illegally working at a bar in State B that was owned by a State B citizen. The woman brought an action in the only U.S. District Court in State A against the owner, alleging negligence and breach of a statutory duty. The owner answered and, 30 days later, he moved for leave to file a third-party claim (i.e., an impleader action) against the bartender based on the bartender’s: (1) unpaid bar bill; and (2) failure to pay for a used car that the owner had sold to him.
Which of the following is true?
(A) The motion will be denied, because the owner’s claim does not assert that the bartender may be liable to the owner on all or part of the woman’s claim.
(B) If the court finds that the owner may properly implead the bartender, the owner will probably be allowed to assert any claim he has against the bartender.
(C) The bartender cannot be made a party, because that would destroy diversity jurisdiction.
(D) The motion will be granted, because it was properly filed.
(A) The motion will be denied, because the owner’s claim does not assert that the bartender may be liable to the owner on all or part of the woman’s claim.
A plaintiff car driver from State A sued a defendant truck driver from State B for $150,000 in damages following a collision. The suit was filed in the United States District Court in State B. The defendant sought to remove to state court in State B, where the judges were well known to him.
Can the defendant remove to state court?
(A) No, because there is no federal statute that allows removal from federal court to state court.
(B) No, because the defendant is in the “home state” of the state that he wishes to remove to.
(C) Yes, because removal must be unanimous, and there is only one defendant.
(D) Yes, because the suit is based in diversity.
(A) No, because there is no federal statute that allows removal from federal court to state court.
An elderly couple, through a Washington State travel agent, purchased passage for a seven-day cruise. The couple paid the fare to the agent, who forwarded the payment to cruise line’s headquarters in Miami, Florida, where the cruise line was incorporated and conducted all of its business operations. The cruise line then prepared and sent the tickets to the couple. The back of the tickets stated, “It is agreed by the passenger and carrier that all disputes in connection with this contract shall be litigated before a court in the State of Florida.” The couple boarded the ship in Los Angeles, California. While the ship was in international waters off the Mexican coast, the couple was injured when a faulty light fixture fell on their bed. The couple sued the cruise line in Washington, claiming that their injuries were caused by negligence. The cruise line moved to dismiss, arguing it was not subject to the Washington court’s jurisdiction.
How should the court rule?
A Grant the motion, based on the forum selection clause.
B Grant the motion, because the suit was based on a contract formed in Florida.
C Grant the motion, because the cruise line lacked sufficient contacts with Washington.
D Deny the motion.
The correct answer is: Grant the motion, based on the forum selection clause.
Discussion of correct answer: If a contract is otherwise valid and enforceable, a person may consent to personal jurisdiction within a state. Here, the contract made between the couple and the cruise line stated, “All disputes in connection with this contract shall be litigated before a court in the State of Florida.” Consequently, Florida, not Washington, had jurisdiction over this claim [Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991)].
An architect who is a citizen of State B has a dispute on a $2,000,000 contract with a client who is a citizen of State A. The client wants to file in federal district court in State A. When he finds out from the architect’s assistant that the architect is about to take a vacation to State A to attend a family reunion, the client arranges for a professional process server to serve the architect while she is at her family reunion.
Assuming that the contract does not specify where a contract claim is to be heard, will a federal district court in State A have jurisdiction over the architect?
(A) Yes, because the architect’s trip to State A means that she has substantial contacts with the state.
(B) Yes, because the architect was served with process while in the forum state.
(C) No, because the architect does not intend to remain in State A indefinitely.
(D) No, because the architect was not a State A resident at the time of service.
(B) Yes, because the architect was served with process while in the forum state.
A tourist, who was a citizen of State A, brought a products liability action in federal court against a supermarket that sold him a contaminated box of cereal. The tourist became ill and had to spend 10 days in the hospital. The supermarket was a State B corporation. The supermarket impleaded the manufacturer of the cereal, alleging that it would have a right to indemnity from the manufacturer as a consequence of the latter’s improper manufacture of the cereal in question. The manufacturer was a State A corporation. The tourist was granted leave to file an amended complaint alleging negligent manufacture against the manufacturer. Thereafter, the manufacturer moved to dismiss the tourist’s action against it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Which of the following is true?
A The motion should be denied, under the supplemental jurisdiction doctrine.
B The motion should be denied, under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine.
C The motion should be granted, because diversity is lacking.
D The motion should be denied, because there is diversity between the tourist and the supermarket.
The correct answer is: The motion should be granted, because diversity is lacking.
Discussion of correct answer: Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity as between all plaintiffs and all defendants. Since the tourist and the manufacturer are both citizens of State A, with the addition of the manufacturer as a defendant and the amendment of the complaint to allow plaintiff to bring a claim directly against this same-state defendant, complete diversity was destroyed. 28 U.S.C Section 1367 does not allow supplemental jurisdiction over claims by the plaintiff in a diversity action where allowing those claims would destroy diversity.
A witness was on vacation visiting her family in Alabama. While there, she saw a crane collapse and injure several people. Months later, when she was back at her home in Florida, she received a summons to testify about the accident in court in Alabama. Although she hadn’t planned to see her family again so soon, she decided to turn the court appearance into another trip to see her family. Consequently, she testified in Alabama court on a Friday, then spent the rest of the weekend to visit and attend a family reunion. At the family reunion on Sunday, the witness got into a fight with her mother and vowed never to set foot in the state again. On Monday, as the witness was returning to the airport, a man approached her and served her with a summons and complaint from her estranged cousin. The witness read over the complaint and realized that it claimed Alabama had jurisdiction over the matter. The witness told the man, “I vowed never to come back to Alabama!” The man told her, “That’s too bad. Since I served you here, the court has jurisdiction over you. You should have gotten on the plane quicker.” Is the witness required to appear in Alabama court because she was served with process while in the state?
(A) Yes, because she was physically served in Alabama.
(B) Yes, because she was in Alabama on Monday on personal business.
(C) No, because she was in Alabama as the result of her participation in another judicial proceeding.
(D) No, because she did not have the necessary minimum contacts with Alabama.
(C) No, because she was in Alabama as the result of her participation in another judicial proceeding.
Several young journalists worked together to investigate rumors of illegal activities at a large corporation’s operating facilities in State X. The journalists, who all resided thousands of miles away in State A, conducted most of their reporting from State A as they had limited funds to travel to and spend time in State X. They conducted interviews by phone and researched over the Internet. Once the journalists had enough evidence to continue their investigations, they traveled by car to State X and entered the corporation’s facilities. They were arrested for trespassing but the local prosecutor dropped the charges. On their way back to State A, they traveled through State Y and were served with process by the corporation, which had filed a tort case based on the trespassing incident against the journalists in a federal district court in State Y. The court determined that it had personal jurisdiction over the journalists as well as subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The journalists argued that the case should be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens, and have established that a suitable alternative forum exists in State A where they live.
Which of the following factors is the court least likely to consider in determining whether the case should be dismissed on these grounds?
A The corporation’s activities and the journalists’ efforts to report on them have little to no impact on the community representing the jury pool in State Y.
B It would be extremely burdensome on the journalists to be away from their work and have to pay for lodging during a trial in State Y.
C The jury pool for the State Y federal court is far more biased in favor of corporations than a jury pool would be in State A.
D The journalists would not be able to afford counsel in State Y and would be relying on the court to appoint them counsel.
The correct answer is: The jury pool for the State Y federal court is far more biased in favor of corporations than a jury pool would be in State A.
Discussion of correct answer: When analyzing whether a case should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court will balance a number of private and public interests, which generally go to the inconvenience and expense that would be incurred by the parties, the court, and the community in conducting a trial in the forum. Whether a jury might be biased is not one of the factors generally considered in a forum non conveniens analysis.
A teacher, who was a citizen of State A, filed an action in the U.S District Court in State A against a stockbroker, a State B citizen, and his firm, a State C corporation, alleging that they violated SEC federal regulations and perpetrated a fraud during the sale of securities to the teacher. The teacher claimed that his total damages from the fraud were $66,000. The teacher further alleged in a second cause of action that the stockbroker did not repay an $8,000 loan that the teacher made to him.
Which of the following is true?
(A) The action should be dismissed by the District Court, because the value of the aggregated claims does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.
(B) The District Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the second cause of action, but only if it arises from a common nucleus of operative facts with the first cause of action.
(C) The federal court has subject matter jurisdiction, because there is complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and defendants.
(D) The federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, because the violation of SEC federal regulations must be tried in the state court where such violations allegedly occurred.
(B) The District Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the second cause of action, but only if it arises from a common nucleus of operative facts with the first cause of action.
An athlete from State A was drafted out of high school to play for a professional sports team in his hometown and signed to a five-year contract. During that time he became both a local hero and a national celebrity. At the end of his contract, the athlete negotiated with another team in State B to play for them at triple the salary he was earning in State A. In a press conference, the athlete announced he was going to go play in State B and that he was very happy to be leaving State A. The citizens of State B were overjoyed, while the citizens of State A were heartbroken and angry. Soon, however, the owner of the State B team realized he did not have enough money to pay the athlete the agreed upon salary and sought to have the contract rescinded by filing suit in federal court against the athlete on the grounds that the athlete had violated the terms of the contract. The owner filed the action in State A federal district court, believing the court and jury would be more receptive to his arguments. Soon after the complaint was filed, the athlete moved to State B, partially on account of the fact that the vast majority of people in State A had come to despise him, and sought to transfer the case to federal district court in State B.
Can the athlete successfully transfer the case to State B federal district court?
A Yes, if he can show that the State B court is an adequate forum, and that the State A court was significantly inappropriate.
B Yes, because he is now a resident of State B.
C No, because he was a resident of State A at the time the action was filed.
D No, because the case was brought in a proper venue.
The correct answer is: Yes, if he can show that the State B court is an adequate forum, and that the State A court was significantly inappropriate.
Discussion of correct answer: A federal court may transfer an action even where it was brought in an appropriate forum, but the burden is on the defendant to show that an adequate alternative forum exists and that the original forum was significantly inappropriate. If the athlete can show that here, then the action can be transferred to State B.
A man is a citizen of State A and was hospitalized when a car that was manufactured by a company crashed after its steering wheel did not work while the man was driving the car on an interstate highway. The company was incorporated in State B, and had its principal place of business in State C. The man filed suit against the company in federal court on June 15, claiming $100,000 in damages. On July 1, the man moved to State C, intending to stay there permanently.
Does the federal court have jurisdiction over the suit?
A Yes, because the man was a State A citizen when he filed the lawsuit.
B Yes, because the accident occurred on an interstate highway.
C No, because the man moved to State C before his claim was heard by the federal court.
D No, because the man moved to State C within 30 days of filing his lawsuit in federal court.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the man was a State A citizen when he filed the lawsuit.
Discussion of correct answer: In order for a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a claim, the dispute must involve citizens of different states. A shared citizenship between any plaintiff and any defendant will destroy diversity jurisdiction. However, diversity must be met only at the time the suit is filed. Consequently, even though the man moved to State C and became a citizen of State C, the federal court will retain jurisdiction.
A man sued a company that owned a national television talk show in State A federal court claiming the company violated his federal copyright rights by using one of his songs as the theme song for the show. The man was a citizen of State B, while the company was incorporated in State C and had its main office in State A. However, the company did have an office in State A where many decisions involving the show were made. The man claimed $60,000 in actual damages, and $100,000 in “reputational harm.” A recent State A Supreme Court decision found that the maximum amount of damages that could be claimed for “reputational harm” were $5,000, although the federal courts had established no such limitation.
Can the action be heard in federal court?
(A) Yes, because the amount in controversy is over $75,000.
(B) Yes, because the man’s claim is based on federal copyright.
(C) No, because the Erie doctrine would limit possible damages to $65,000.
(D) No, because there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties.
(B) Yes, because the man’s claim is based on federal copyright.
A brother and sister lived in separate parts of the same large house that they had inherited from their parents. The brother and sister were both published poets. The brother found out one day that the sister had been traveling the country, speaking at universities and literary societies where she had been reading from and selling copies of the brother’s poems, but indicating they were hers. The brother filed suit against the sister in federal district court, alleging federal copyright violations. The brother was very angry with the sister, but he did meet with her at a local coffee shop and handed her a summons and copy of the complaint. This was the first the sister had heard of the suit, and she apologized profusely to the brother and asked him to drop the case, but he refused. She filed a motion to dismiss with the single argument that the brother had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
If the sister later files an answer containing the objection that there was insufficient service of process, will she prevail?
(A) Yes, because she was not served with process while at her residence.
(B) Yes, because service of process may not be effected by a person who is a party to the suit.
(C) No, because she clearly indicated that she was aware of the suit.
(D) No, because she failed to include the objection in the motion to dismiss.
(D) No, because she failed to include the objection in the motion to dismiss.
A man, a citizen of State A, bought a life insurance policy from an insurance company located in State C. The company only sold policies to customers in State A, State C, State D, and State E and had no customers or business interests in any other states.
Several years later, the man moved to State B. The man retained the policy, and the insurance company continued to accept premiums and keep the policy in effect although it had no other customers in State B. The man then sued the company in State B court for fraud and other violations regarding his policy.
Does the State B court have personal jurisdiction over the company?
(A) Yes, because the policy remained in effect, and so sufficient minimum contacts exist.
(B) Yes, because the company consented to jurisdiction in State B by accepting premium payments.
(C) No, because the company did not have sufficient minimum contacts with State B.
(D) No, because it was not reasonably foreseeable that the company would be sued in State B.
(A) Yes, because the policy remained in effect, and so sufficient minimum contacts exist.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), a federal agency, seized a warehouse that a criminal used to store illegal drugs. The DEA gave notice to the criminal by certified mail and sold the warehouse to a developer who was going to use the warehouse to open up the biggest dance club in the city. The criminal filed a state law claim in state court to quiet title against the developer, claiming that the developer’s title was invalid because federal law required the DEA to give the criminal notice by personal service. The relevant statute expressly gave plaintiffs a right to sue for damages.
Can the developer remove the action to federal court?
A Yes, because the DEA is a federal agency and closely regulated by the federal government and its courts.
B Yes, because the criminal could only reclaim the property by proving the notice was insufficient under federal law.
C No, because issues of property are matters reserved to the states.
D No, because the criminal’s claim is a state law claim to quiet title.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the criminal could only reclaim the property by proving the notice was insufficient under federal law.
Discussion of correct answer: A state question that involves a question of federal law may be sufficient to establish jurisdiction in a federal court, provided that the federal law’s impact on the state question is substantial. Here, since it is necessary for the criminal’s case to prove the embedded federal question of whether the DEA followed federal law in giving notice to the criminal, the federal question is substantial and the developer can remove the action to federal court.
The plaintiff is an Alabama corporation that markets computer products of the defendant, a nationwide computer manufacturer with its headquarters in New York. The marketing agreement contained a forum-selection clause providing that any disputes arising out of the contract could only be brought in a court located in the Southern District of New York. After business relations took a turn for the worse, the plaintiff sued the defendant in the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint alleged that the defendant had breached the dealership agreement, causing more than $1 million in damages. The defendant moved the district court to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York. The Alabama court refused to do so, finding that transfer was controlled by Alabama law and that Alabama did not view contractual forum-selection clauses as enforceable. Specifically, the court found that Alabama disfavored such clauses in order to protect state court jurisdiction.
Was the Alabama court’s ruling correct?
A Yes, because the Alabama court based its ruling on Alabama law.
B Yes, because such forum-selection clauses are invalid.
C No, because the clause was evidence of what the parties believed was convenient.
D No, because the defendant was a resident of New York.
The correct answer is: No, because the clause was evidence of what the parties believed was convenient.
Discussion of correct answer: Venue is considered appropriate where either party consents to the venue. Importantly, contractual forum-selection clauses are evidence of what the parties believed would be a convenient forum. Here, the contract that served as the basis of the suit had a forum-selection clause stating that all claims had to be brought in the Southern District of New York. While the clause was not dispositive, the court would take it into account with other factors regarding appropriate transfer, such as the convenience of witnesses, ease of access to evidence, the location of the claim, and local interest of the community.
An accountant sued a flight attendant and an airline company in federal court, alleging damages in the amount of $100,000 arising out of the negligence of both defendants. At the time the accountant filed the lawsuit, she was a citizen of State A, while both the airline company and the flight attendant were citizens of State B. Sometime after the suit was filed, the flight attendant became a citizen of State A. The airline company moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction.
Will the airline company’s motion be successful?
(A) Yes, because at the time the lawsuit was filed, it involved neither diversity of citizenship nor a federal question.
(B) Yes, because the flight attendant’s new citizenship destroyed the court’s diversity jurisdiction.
(C) No, because at the time the lawsuit was filed, there was diversity of citizenship among the parties.
(D) No, because the accountant has alleged a tort.
(C) No, because at the time the lawsuit was filed, there was diversity of citizenship among the parties.
A cellist accidentally stepped on a violinist’s valuable violin, damaging the violin beyond repair. The violinist sued the cellist in federal court for negligence, alleging damages worth $120,000. The cellist filed a counterclaim against the violinist for federal trademark infringement, alleging that the violinist had infringed a trademark the cellist owned for a line of music-themed tote bags, causing damages in the amount of $50,000. The violinist is a resident of State A, while the cellist is a resident of State B. The violinist moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear it.
Should the court allow the counterclaim?
(A) No, because the counterclaim does not arise out of the same facts and circumstances as the original claim.
(B) No, because the initial claim qualifies for jurisdiction on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, whereas the counterclaim would not qualify for jurisdiction on this basis.
(C) Yes, because the plaintiff and defendant are from different states.
(D) Yes, because the counterclaim involves a question of federal law.
(D) Yes, because the counterclaim involves a question of federal law.
A driver, a citizen of State A, traveled to State B. While in State B, the driver rented an RV from a rental company incorporated and doing business in State B. The driver drove the RV in State B and State C. While in State C, the accelerator on the RV stuck, and the driver got into a single vehicle accident, sustaining major injuries and totaling the RV. The driver was taken to a hospital in State C. When the driver got out of the hospital, he sued the company in federal district court in State B for renting a faulty RV to him, and asked for $300,000 in medical expenses and pain and suffering. The company counterclaimed for $70,000, the cost of the RV that was totaled in the accident. The driver filed a motion to dismiss the company’s counterclaim.
Will the federal district court grant the driver’s motion to dismiss?
(A) Yes, because the counterclaim is permissive, and therefore the court does not have jurisdiction over the company’s claim against the driver.
(B) Yes, because the claim arises out of an occurrence that happened in State C, so the case was filed in the incorrect venue.
(C) No, because the counterclaim is compulsory, and therefore the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the company’s claim against the driver.
(D) No, because the driver is a citizen of State A who chose to bring the lawsuit in federal district court located in State B, and therefore the company, a citizen of State B, may bring its claim for the cost of the RV.
(C) No, because the counterclaim is compulsory, and therefore the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the company’s claim against the driver.
A lawyer in Nevada contracted with a surgeon to perform over $80,000 worth of plastic surgery. When the lawyer failed to pay, the surgeon sued. However, because the surgeon moved to California after the service was completed, he filed the action in California. The lawyer’s contacts with California are minimal, and the surgeon is unsure whether they will suffice for personal jurisdiction. On a previous occasion, the lawyer drove through California to attend a conference in the state capitol, and he paid for a hotel room and other expenses there. The lawyer had also considered moving there at one time, and he had submitted his resume online to some employers in California.
Did the lawyer implicitly consent to personal jurisdiction in California?
(A) Yes, because he operated a motor vehicle in California.
(B) Yes, because applying for employment within California showed his intent to be domiciled there.
(C) No, because his contacts with California were minimal.
(D) No, because this suit does not arise out of his contacts with California.
(D) No, because this suit does not arise out of his contacts with California.
The plaintiff sued the defendant in federal court and requested waiver of service of process. The defendant waived service of process and filed an answer 40 days after the plaintiff sent the request for waiver of service of process. In the answer, the defendant asserted a defense of lack of venue.
Has the defendant waived the defense of lack of venue?
(A) Yes, because the defendant did not file an answer within twenty-one days of receipt of the request for waiver of service.
(B) Yes, because the defendant did not raise the defense of lack of venue in a motion to dismiss.
(C) No, because the lack of venue defense was raised in a proper and timely manner.
(D) No, because the lack of venue defense can never be waived.
(B) Yes, because the defendant did not raise the defense of lack of venue in a motion to dismiss.
A Hawaiian plaintiff sued a California defendant for personal injuries which resulted in $100,000 in damages after the defendant negligently pushed her down some stairs while in Hawaii.
The defendant argued that he was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Hawaii, because the sum total of his time in Hawaii was to take the bar (in which he immediately went inactive and only paid yearly dues), to vacation there on two occasions (which were paid for by his company, as he was awarded attorney of the year both of those years), and to rent a car while he was on vacation.
Is the defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in Hawaii?
A No, because although the defendant had several contacts, even in the aggregate, they are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over him.
B No, because the defendant has shown his intent not to remain in Hawaii and has only entered at limited times and with a limited purpose each time.
C Yes, because the cause of action arose out of the defendant’s contacts with the jurisdiction.
D Yes, because entering a contract with a hotel for lodging and with a rental car company is implied consent which subjects him to personal jurisdiction.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the cause of action arose out of the defendant’s contacts with the jurisdiction.
Discussion of correct answer: If a defendant harms a plaintiff in the forum state, and the lawsuit is about that harm, that satisfies the constitutional standard of minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction, without any other contacts needed. Because the defendant injured the plaintiff while in Hawaii, Hawaii will have personal jurisdiction over the defendant for this specific cause of action.
A State X athlete traveled to State Y to play with his soccer team and was injured when the elevator in the hotel he was staying at closed on his foot as he tried to hold the door open for a pregnant woman who was exiting the elevator. The athlete sued both the hotel and his soccer team in the state court of State X, asserting state law tort claims against both and seeking $100,000 in damages to compensate him for his injuries from the incident. The soccer team is a resident of State X and the hotel is a resident of State Y. The athlete served the summons and complaint on both defendants on May 1. After being heavily criticized by his teammates and fans of the team for suing his own team, the athlete amended the complaint so that the only defendant was the hotel (although the alleged damages remained the same) and served the amended complaint on the hotel on May 13. On June 9, the hotel filed a notice to remove the case to federal court in the State X district in which the athlete’s complaint was filed.
Can the hotel successfully remove the case to federal court?
A Yes, because there is complete diversity of parties and the amount in controversy is met.
B Yes, because the soccer team was fraudulently joined as a party.
C No, because the hotel failed to file the notice of removal in a timely manner.
D No, because diversity of parties is determined at the time the original complaint is filed.
The correct answer is: Yes, because there is complete diversity of parties and the amount in controversy is met.
Discussion of correct answer: Typically, a defendant has 30 days from the initial pleading to file a notice of removal to federal court. But where a case is not removable when the initial pleading is filed, and the complaint is amended in a way that now makes the case removable, a notice of removal must be made within 30 days of service of the amended pleading. This case was not originally removable because there was not complete diversity of parties. When the amended complaint made the hotel the only defendant, however, there did exist complete diversity, as well as a sufficient amount in controversy, which then made the case removable within 30 days of May 13.
Tax Inc. franchised thousands of tax preparation offices nationwide. Ten years ago, a franchisee signed a franchise agreement with Tax Inc. granting him the right to operate Tax Inc. franchises in Charleston, West Virginia. Believing that the franchisee breached his original agreement and was using his franchise to further a rival tax preparation business, Tax Inc. filed a request for a permanent injunction in federal court. In its complaint, Tax Inc. correctly identified the franchisee as a citizen of West Virginia and itself as a citizen of Delaware, where it was incorporated, and New York, where it had its primary place of business. In determining the cost of the injunction, Tax Inc. focused on the alleged improper use of the franchise, and valued the stopping of that improper use at $80,000. The franchisee calculated the injunction’s cost to be $25,000. He derived this figure from the remaining five years on his franchise agreement, arguing that he had made $5,000 per year in profit for the previous 10 years of the agreement and was likely to continue to do so for the remaining five years. The federal district court then dismissed Tax Inc.’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that it failed to meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. Tax Inc. appealed.
Did Tax Inc.’s complaint meet the necessary amount in controversy to be heard in federal court?
A Yes, because the value of an injunction is determined by the plaintiff.
B Yes, because the value of an injunction is determined by the larger of the injunction’s worth to the plaintiff or its cost to the defendant.
C No, because lost profits is the correct way to determine the value of an injunction.
D No, because Tax Inc.’s $80,000 figure was too speculative.
The correct answer is: Yes, because the value of an injunction is determined by the larger of the injunction’s worth to the plaintiff or its cost to the defendant.
Discussion of correct answer: For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must be more than $75,000 [28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332]. To determine the value of an injunction for amount in controversy purposes, courts look at the larger of two figures: (1) the injunction’s worth to the plaintiff; or (2) its cost to the defendant [JTH Tax, Inc. v. Frashier, 624 F.3d 635 (4th Cir. 2010)]. Here, Tax Inc. determined that the value of shutting down the franchisee’s office was $80,000, which meets the $75,000 requirement.
Arnold and Bates, citizens of Florida, are plaintiffs in an action brought in the United States District Court in Georgia against Manco, a Mississippi corporation, and Storeco, a Georgia corporation. Manco’s office and plant are located in Mississippi. At no time has Manco had an office or salesperson in Georgia. Storeco’s sole place of business is in Georgia. The complaint alleges that each of the plaintiffs sustained serious personal injuries when a blade broke on an electric lawnmower while the equipment was being demonstrated by a clerk in Storeco’s store in Georgia. Each plaintiff has requested damages in the sum of $80,000. The mower had been manufactured by Manco and shipped to Roe in Florida. Roe had a contract with Manco to act as exclusive distributor of Manco products in 11 states, including Georgia and Florida. Process was served personally on the president of Manco at Manco’s office in Mississippi and on the president of Storeco at its office in Georgia. Thereafter, Manco moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction over it.
Storeco also filed a counterclaim against Arnold for $74,000 which Storeco alleges to be due for merchandise previously sold to Arnold. Manco then filed a cross-claim against Storeco for $12,000, which it alleges is due for merchandise previously sold by Manco to Storeco. Under what circumstances can the U.S. District Court assert personal jurisdiction over Manco?
(A) Georgia has an appropriate long-arm statute and the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with due process.
(B) The assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with due process (there being nationwide service of process in actions commenced in federal court).
(C) The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
(D) Process was served upon Manco in accordance with both federal and Georgia law
(A) Georgia has an appropriate long-arm statute and the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with due process.
A company made screws in State A. The company sold the screws to the corporation, incorporated in State B. The corporation found that the screws were defective. The defective screws have caused $65,000 in damages. The corporation also discovered that the company did not send the proper number of screws, in violation of the contract between the companies. The corporation paid $100,000 for 1,000 screws, but only received 800 screws, causing $20,000 in damages. The corporation sued the company in federal district court for damages. The company filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Will the federal district court grant the company’s motion to dismiss?
A Yes, because the amount in controversy is insufficient to maintain an action in federal court.
B Yes, because the company conveying the remaining 200 screws to the corporation can resolve a portion of the amount in controversy.
C Yes, because federal courts do not hear breach of contract claims.
D No, because the amount in controversy meets the requirement for federal court jurisdiction.
The correct answer is: No, because the amount in controversy meets the requirement for federal court jurisdiction.
Discussion of correct answer: Where a plaintiff sues a defendant for multiple claims based on the same case or controversy, the separate damages of each claim can be aggregated together. Here, there are two claims regarding the screws. The first is that the screws were defective and caused damage. The second is that the plaintiff did not receive the proper amount of screws in the first place. If the plaintiff only sued on one claim or the other, the amount in controversy–$75,000–would not be met. However, because there are two claims against the defendant, the amount of each claim can be added together. Once the two claims are aggregated, the total amount claimed–$85,000–would meet the amount-in-controversy threshold of $75,000.
HoagieWorld franchised thousands of sandwich shops nationwide. Ten years ago, a franchisee signed a franchise agreement with HoagieWorld granting him the right to operate five franchises in State A. Believing that the franchisee breached his original agreement requiring him to purchase all of his meat, condiments, and bread from approved vendors, HoagieWorld filed a request for a permanent injunction in federal court. In its complaint, HoagieWorld correctly identified the franchisee as a citizen of State A and itself as a citizen of State B, where it was incorporated, and State C, where it had its primary place of business.
In determining the cost of the injunction, HoagieWorld focused on the alleged improper use of the franchise and reputational damage suffered by the brand, and valued the stopping of that improper use at $90,000. The franchisee calculated the injunction’s cost to be $5,000. He derived this figure from the increased yearly costs of using approved vendors, rather than local, less expensive vendors. The franchisee filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.
How should the court rule on the motion?
A Deny the motion, because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving copyright violations.
B Deny the motion, because there is a sufficient amount in controversy.
C Grant the motion, because the case deals with breach of contract, not a federal question.
D Grant the motion, because HoagieWorld’s $90,000 figure associated with reputational damage was too speculative.
The correct answer is: Deny the motion, because there is a sufficient amount in controversy.
Discussion of correct answer: For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must be more than $75,000 [28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332]. To determine the value of an injunction for amount-in-controversy purposes, courts look at the larger of two figures: (1) the injunction’s worth to the plaintiff; or (2) its cost to the defendant [JTH Tax, Inc. v. Frashier, 624 F.3d 635 (4th Cir. 2010)]. Here, HoagieWorld determined that the value of the injunction was $90,000, which meets the $75,000 requirement.
A man is a citizen of State A and filed a defamation action in federal court against a reporter and an editor, both of whom were citizens of State B. The claims against the two defendants, the reporter and the editor, arose from the same events. Plaintiff alleged that the amount in controversy with respect to each defendant was $100,000. State law caps damages in this type of case against defendants like the editor at $25,000. The editor filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Should the court grant the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?
(A) Yes, because there is an insufficient amount in controversy between the man and the editor.
(B) Yes, because the reporter and the editor are from the same state.
(C) No, because there is supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against the editor.
(D) No, because the Court looks to the man’s allegations to determine the amount in controversy.
(A) Yes, because there is an insufficient amount in controversy between the man and the editor.
A CEO brought a federal court action in diversity for fraudulent misrepresentation of the qualities of a yacht that he bought from a dealer. The court found for the CEO and awarded him $600,000 in compensatory damages. However, when the CEO’s lawyer received the judgment, she saw that it stated that the award was $670,000.
Which of the following would be the best way for the CEO’s lawyer to correct the problem under the Federal Rules?
(A) She could contact the boat dealer’s lawyer to let the boat dealer’s lawyer know that she was aware of the mistake and would accept $600,000 in full payment.
(B) She could contact the court to ask the court to reissue the judgment.
(C) She could file a motion for relief from a judgment or order.
(D) She could wait for the boat dealer’s lawyer to discover the mistake.
(C) She could file a motion for relief from a judgment or order.
Z filed an action against B, C, and D asserting: (1) infringement of copyright; and (2) breach of contract. Copyright actions are exclusively within the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts. All of the claims arose from B, C and D having produced a movie about three bank-robbing lawyers that Z had written for them. Z sought to recover $75,000 apiece from each defendant. All of the parties are citizens of State V.
Which of the following is true?
(A) If this action was filed in a State V state court, the defendants could not have it removed to federal court.
(B) If this action was filed in federal court, dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction would be required.
(C) If this case goes to trial in a state court and judgment is entered against Z, Z will have waived any lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by failing to assert it before or during trial.
(D) If this action were filed in a state court, the defendants would have the right to remove the action to federal court.
(D) If this action were filed in a state court, the defendants would have the right to remove the action to federal court.
A collector in State B bought a rare car from a local showroom in State C for $260,000. The parties executed a two-year warranty at the time of sale. The warranty was silent as to choice of forum in case of dispute. One year later, the collector relocated to State A. When the collector subsequently needed major repairs to the car, the State C showroom insisted that the warranty was void because unapproved mechanics had worked on the car. The collector sued the showroom in federal district court in State A for $83,000. The showroom filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Should the court grant the showroom’s motion?
(A) Yes, because the parties did not have a choice of forum clause that allowed either of them to sue in State A.
(B) Yes, because the showroom would not reasonably have expected to have been sued in State A.
(C) No, because it was not unforeseeable that the collector would move to another state.
(D) No, because State A’s long-arm statute could apply.
(C) No, because it was not unforeseeable that the collector would move to another state.
A man from State A rented a car and drove to State B for a work meeting. On his way back to State A, the man ran into the back of a State B driver’s car, injuring the State B driver. The State B driver then brought suit against the State A man in State B federal court claiming $100,000 in damages. The State A man argued that the case should be dismissed because the State B federal court lacked sufficient jurisdiction over him.
Which of the following statements is most accurate?
A The State B court should dismiss the case, because driving the car in State B does not provide sufficient minimum contact for the court to have jurisdiction over the State A man.
B The State B court should dismiss the case, because the rental of the car occurred in State A.
C The State B court should hear the case, because the man impliedly consented to being sued in State B by driving a car in the jurisdiction.
D The State B court should hear the case, because diversity is complete and the amount in controversy is over $75,000.
The correct answer is: The State B court should hear the case, because the man impliedly consented to being sued in State B by driving a car in the jurisdiction.
Discussion of correct answer: Consent can be implied, and one of the most common forms of implied consent is by driving on the roads of a state. Courts consider persons to have given implied consent to the laws regulating roads, and thus, if a defendant has a car accident on the road in that state, a court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant in an action arising from that accident.
The plaintiff sued the defendant in federal court. Subject matter jurisdiction existed. After discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court denied the motion, and the plaintiff won at trial. The defendant did not make a motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial. The court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict. The defendant filed a “renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law” 20 days after the court entered judgment for the plaintiff. Must the court deny the “renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law”?
(A) Yes, because the motion was not filed within 10 days of entry of judgment.
(B) Yes, because the defendant did not make a motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial.
(C) No, because the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
(D) No, because the defendant filed the motion within 28 days of the entry of judgment.
(B) Yes, because the defendant did not make a motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial.
An engineer was a citizen of State C and filed a case against a corporation in state court in State A. The corporation was incorporated in State B and had its principal place of business in State A. The complaint alleged that the corporation harmed the engineer in two unrelated transactions and that the plaintiff was harmed in each transaction in the amount of $50,000. The first claim was defamation and the second claim was based on a breach of contract. The corporation removed the case to federal court in order to assert a defense under federal law.
Was the removal to federal court proper?
(A) Yes, because the corporation asserted a federal defense.
(B) Yes, because the plaintiff could have filed the case originally in federal court.
(C) No, because the corporation had its principal place of business in State A.
(D) No, because there was an insufficient amount in controversy.
(C) No, because the corporation had its principal place of business in State A.
A plaintiff wanted to sue two defendants for damages stemming from the defendants’ reprinting of her novel in violation of copyright laws. The defendants reprinted and sold the novel in the Northern District of Illinois. One defendant resides in the Eastern District of Michigan, while the other resides in the Western District of Illinois. The plaintiff resides in the Northern District of Iowa.
Where would venue be proper for this action?
A The Northern District of Illinois.
B The Western District of Illinois or the Eastern District of Michigan.
C The Northern District of Illinois, the Western District of Illinois, or the Eastern District of Michigan.
D The Northern District of Illinois, the Western District of Illinois, the Northern District of Iowa, or the Eastern District of Michigan.
The correct answer is: The Northern District of Illinois.
Discussion of correct answer: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 1391, venue is appropriate: (1) where any defendant resides, provided that all defendants are within the same state; (2) in the district where a substantial portion of events occurred; or (3) in the district where any defendant can be found, if there is no other district in which the action could be brought. Here, the action was based on copyright, a federal question. Venue is appropriate in the Northern District of Illinois because that is where the defendants reprinted and sold the novel. Because the defendants live in different states, the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the rule allowing a plaintiff to sue in any district where a defendant resides.
A plaintiff car driver from State A sued a defendant truck driver from State B for $150,000 in damages following a collision. The suit was filed in the United States District Court in State B. The defendant sought to remove to state court in State B, where the judges were well known to him.
Can the defendant remove to state court?
(A) No, because there is no federal statute that allows removal from federal court to state court.
(B) No, because the defendant is in the “home state” of the state that he wishes to remove to.
(C) Yes, because removal must be unanimous, and there is only one defendant.
(D) Yes, because the suit is based in diversity.
(A) No, because there is no federal statute that allows removal from federal court to state court.
A woman, a citizen of State A, was involved in a car accident where she negligently injured the driver and passenger of the other car. Both the other driver and passenger are residents of State B. The other driver filed a lawsuit against the woman alleging $30,000 in damages, while the passenger filed a lawsuit against the woman alleging $50,000 in damages. The plaintiffs wish to bring their action in federal court.
Does the federal court have jurisdiction?
A No, because one plaintiff is only alleging $50,000 in damages and the other is only alleging $30,000.
B No, because the accident occurred in State B.
C Yes, because the federal court has diversity jurisdiction over the matter.
D Yes, because the federal court has federal-question jurisdiction over the matter.
The correct answer is: No, because one plaintiff is only alleging $50,000 in damages and the other is only alleging $30,000.
Discussion of correct answer: For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must be more than $75,000 [28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332]. In order to meet the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction, a claimant may combine each amount in controversy against a single defendant. However, more than one claimant cannot add their claims together. Here, there are two separate claimants, each with claims less than $75,000. If one of them had made a claim over $75,000, there might have been subject matter jurisdiction.
A wife and her husband in State A were both writers. The husband fell in love with another woman in State B, and divorced the wife and moved to State B. A year later, the husband learned that the wife had just sold a novel to a publishing company which he believed was based on his writing ideas that she had improperly used. He filed suit against her in State B federal district court. The husband delivered the proper papers to a process server, but the process server failed to serve the wife. Months later, the husband called the wife only to find out that she had never heard of his lawsuit. The husband then sent her a written request for waiver of service of process, which met the requirements for such a waiver, and the wife immediately responded by waiving service. The wife then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that she had no contacts with State B and thus the court did not have personal jurisdiction over her.
If the husband now argues that the wife may not assert the argument that the court does not have personal jurisdiction over her, will he prevail?
A No, because the husband was responsible for any insufficiency in the service of process.
B No, because the wife did not waive her objections to the court’s jurisdiction.
C Yes, because the wife waived her objections to the court’s jurisdiction.
D Yes, because waiver of service automatically subjects a party to a court’s jurisdiction.
The correct answer is: No, because the wife did not waive her objections to the court’s jurisdiction.
Discussion of correct answer: When a defendant waives service, she does not waive her objections to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction. Therefore, despite the fact the wife waived the husband’s service of process, she may still argue that the court does not have jurisdiction over her.
A driver rented a car from Rental Company in State B. The driver was a citizen of State A. Rental Company was incorporated in State C, and had places of business in State B and State C. The driver was driving on a highway in State B when the accelerator pedal got stuck, and he hit the victim, a resident of State B, who was also driving on the highway, causing severe injuries to the victim. The victim filed a lawsuit in federal district court in State B against the driver for $90,000 in damages. She served the summons and complaint on the driver two weeks later. The driver, citing the stuck accelerator pedal, filed a third-party complaint against Rental Company, seeking indemnification for the $90,000 the victim sought against the driver, as well as additional damages in the amount of $50,000. Rental Company filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Will the federal district court grant Rental Company’s motion to dismiss?
A Yes, because there is no longer complete diversity of citizenship amongst the parties in the lawsuit as a whole.
B Yes, because the amount in controversy the driver seeks against Rental Company is insufficient for federal court diversity jurisdiction.
C No, because the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the driver’s claim against Rental Company.
D No, because there is complete diversity of citizenship between the driver and Rental Company.
The correct answer is: No, because the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the driver’s claim against Rental Company.
Discussion of correct answer: Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367, a federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims that arise from the same case or controversy, if the court already has original jurisdiction over the main claim. Here, the third-party complaint arises out of the same accident. The court has diversity jurisdiction over the original claim because there is complete diversity of the original plaintiff and defendant, and the amount in controversy meets the mandatory minimum required. Therefore, the federal district court is entitled to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party complaint, whatever the citizenship of the third-party defendant and regardless of the contested amount between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant.
A fashion designer and a pattern maker entered into a services contract. The fashion designer’s place of business was located in Somerset County, which is in State A. The contract contained a provision stating that any dispute arising out of the contract would be litigated either in a state court located in Somerset County, or in the federal district court located in Somerset County. The pattern maker was a resident of State B, and the services that were the subject of the contract were to be performed in State B. A few months after the contract was signed, the fashion designer sued the pattern maker, alleging breach of the contract and citing damages in the amount of $150,000. The fashion designer brought the suit in the federal district court in Somerset County. The pattern maker argued that the venue was improper, and that the suit should have been brought in State B.
Will the court accept the pattern maker’s argument?
(A) Yes, because the services that were the subject matter of the contract were to be performed in State B.
(B) Yes, because a forum selection clause cannot override federal law regarding venue.
(C) No, because the pattern maker consented to the forum.
(D) No, because one of the litigants is located in the forum state.
(A) Yes, because the services that were the subject matter of the contract were to be performed in State B.
