Civil Procedure Flashcards
Who can remove?
ONLY DEFENDANTS!!!
A customer who was seriously injured in an accident on a retailer’s premises filed a complaint in a federal district court in State A. The complaint alleged in good faith that the customer was entitled to damages in excess of the amount-in-controversy requirement. At the time of the accident, which took place in State C, the customer and the retailer were citizens of State C. Prior to filing suit, the customer changed her domicile to State A for the sole purpose of being able to bring this action in federal court. After filing an answer, the retailer filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Should the court grant this motion?
No, because the customer and retailer were citizens of different states when the customer commenced the action.
Subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship exists with respect to this action. At the time of the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff was a citizen of a different state (i.e., State A) than the defendant (i.e., State C) and the amount-in-controversy requirement was met.
A supplier, incorporated in State A and headquartered in State B, sold bicycle parts from its warehouse in State B. A bicycle manufacturer, incorporated and headquartered in State B, sold bicycles containing parts bought from the supplier, to buyers located all over the United States, with several retail locations in State A. An individual buyer, a resident of nearby State C, purchased a bicycle from one of the manufacturer’s State A retail locations. While riding the bicycle, the buyer was seriously injured. The buyer filed suit against the supplier and the manufacturer in federal district court in State A under diversity jurisdiction, alleging that the supplier’s parts and the manufacturer’s bicycle were defective. The law of State A provides that its courts can exercise jurisdiction to the extent permitted under the Due Process Clause.
Which of the following statements is accurate regarding the federal district court’s jurisdiction?
The court has personal jurisdiction over the supplier and the manufacturer.
In general, a federal district court determines personal jurisdiction as if it were a court of the state in which it is situated. Any action may be brought against a corporation that is incorporated in the forum state (a resident corporation). Here, the supplier is incorporated in State A. Further, in a state with a long-arm statute conferring jurisdiction to the extent permissible under the Due Process Clause, the court must only determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. Because the manufacturer had retail locations in State A and the plaintiff actually purchased his bicycle from one of these retail locations, State A’s exercise of jurisdiction over the manufacturer would not be unconstitutional. Accordingly, the federal district court in State A has personal jurisdiction over both defendants.
A sports fan filed a state court action, based on an alleged assault and battery at a sporting event, against a private security officer and his employer.
The forum state has multiple federal judicial districts. On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the defendants removed the action from state court to the federal district court for the district in which the state court was located. The fan is domiciled in the forum state, but neither the fan’s residence nor the sporting venue is located in the district in which the federal court is located. The officer is domiciled in a neighboring state and the firm, which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in a third state, regularly does business in the forum state. On the basis of improper venue, the fan has challenged the removal of this action from state court to federal court.
How should the federal court rule on this challenge?
Deny the challenge, because the state court was located within the district of the federal district court at issue.
Under Section 1441(a) of the removal statute, an action may be removed to the federal court in the district where the state action is pending. That removal statute determines venue, regardless of whether venue would have been proper under the venue statute (Section 1391) if plaintiff had originally brought the action in that federal district court.
Two business partners, who were citizens of neighboring states, entered into an agreement in which one partner would pay 70% of the initial startup costs of a new solar energy business, while the other would pay 30% and repay 20% to the other partner after two years. The parties signed a promissory note outlining this agreement. After the terms outlined in the agreement had passed, the debtor-partner had not paid anything to the creditor-partner, so the creditor-partner appropriately filed suit in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. The forum state’s partnership statute contained substantive and procedural provisions that varied somewhat from a federal statute that regulated certain lending in the solar energy industry, though the existence of an actual conflict was dependent upon the facts of the matter.
How should the court proceed?
Evaluate the facts to determine whether a conflict exists.
When the court is faced with a substantive or procedural question for the purpose of applying the Erie doctrine, the district court should determine whether there is a conflict between state and federal law with respect to the issue before the court. If there is no conflict between state and federal law, then the analysis does not need to proceed any further because the court can apply both state and federal law. Here, it is unclear whether there is a conflict, so the court must determine whether there is, in fact, a conflict before proceeding with applying either law.
A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendant operated a car repair business as a sole proprietorship. The complaint alleged that, due to the defendant’s negligence in repairing the plaintiff’s car, the plaintiff was involved in an accident and suffered over $100,000 in damages. The plaintiff’s lawyer served the complaint and summons on the manager of the business at the defendant’s car repair garage. Unlike the federal rules, the procedural rules of the forum state permit service of process at the defendant’s regular place of business on a person of suitable age and discretion. The defendant timely filed a motion to dismiss based on insufficient service of process. The court denied this motion.
Was the court’s denial of the defendant’s motion proper?
Yes, because the law of the forum state permits service of process at the defendant’s place of business.
Although the federal rules do not specify that service of process is permitted at the defendant’s regular place of business on a person of suitable age and discretion, the federal rules do provide that service of process may be made by following the law of the forum state for service of process.
Pursuant to a federal statute, a taxpayer filed a complaint in federal district court against the United States for civil damages. The claim arose from an IRS employee’s alleged reckless and intentional disregard of the U.S. Tax Code and related regulations in attempting to collect federal taxes from the taxpayer. The complaint and summons were personally delivered by a 25-year-old relative of the taxpayer to the U.S. attorney for the district in which the action has been filed. The U.S. attorney has challenged the service of process as insufficient.
Should the court find that the service was insufficient?
Yes, because process was not also served on the U.S. Attorney General.
When the United States is a defendant in a civil action, service must be made on the U.S. Attorney General as well as the U.S. attorney for the district in which the action has been filed. A party must send a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the U.S. Attorney General. In this case, although the taxpayer’s relative properly served the U.S. attorney, the relative failed to mail a copy of the summons and complaint to the U.S. Attorney General by registered or certified mail. Therefore, service of process was insufficient.
A plaintiff filed a complaint against his former employer in federal court, alleging that the plaintiff had been terminated based on his race in violation of federal law. The complaint included a short and plain statement of the plaintiff’s claim and the facts upon which it was based, but not detailed factual allegations. Ten days after the complaint was filed, the defendant filed an answer. The following day, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The defendant attached to the motion an affidavit from the plaintiff’s former supervisor stating that the plaintiff was terminated based upon his performance and described an incident in which the plaintiff made a mistake that caused the employer to lose an important customer. The court granted the motion to dismiss, noting that the facts described in the affidavit undermined the plaintiff’s claims.
Was the court’s ruling granting the motion to dismiss proper?
No, because the court considered matters outside the pleadings.
The court can grant a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) if the claim fails to assert a valid legal theory of recovery or fails to allege facts sufficient to support a cognizable claim. However, if the court considers new evidence in its review of a motion to dismiss, as it did with the affidavit here, it should treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss. Here, the court was in error because it did not treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment despite considering new evidence.
A shareholder of a corporation properly filed a derivative action in federal district court on behalf of the corporation against the directors of the corporation based on breach of their statutory duty. Prior to filing an answer to the complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accompanying the motion was a certified copy of the corporation’s shareholder records, which indicated that the plaintiff was not a shareholder of the corporation at the time that the alleged wrong occurred—a requirement for bringing a derivative action. The copy of the records did, however, indicate that the plaintiff’s mother was a shareholder at the time the alleged wrong occurred. The plaintiff, in opposing the motion, attached a copy of his mother’s probated will, which devised her shares in the corporation to him—an exception to the prior rule. The court, treating the motion as a summary judgment motion, denied the motion after considering the documents submitted by each party.
Was the court’s treatment of this motion proper?
Yes, because the court considered materials outside the pleadings in reaching its decision.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court may consider only the allegations in the complaint, any exhibits attached to the complaint, and any matters subject to judicial notice. When a defendant files a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and attaches materials outside the pleadings to the motion, the court must treat the motion as a summary judgment motion if the court considers such materials in reaching its decision on the motion. Here, the court considered the shareholder records and the probated will which are both materials outside the pleadings. Therefore, the court properly treated the motion as a motion for summary judgment.
A plaintiff was involved in a serious car accident with a defendant. The plaintiff sustained damages to her vehicle and significant personal injuries. Two months after the accident, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in federal district court with subject matter jurisdiction, alleging that the defendant’s negligent conduct in failing to stop at a stop sign caused the plaintiff’s damages. Twenty days after the defendant served his answer specifically denying the plaintiff’s allegations as to the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In support of her motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from an eyewitness, stating that he saw the defendant drive through a stop sign immediately before striking the plaintiff’s car. This affidavit would be inadmissible at trial as hearsay. The defendant responded to the plaintiff’s motion by repeating the denials in his answer.
Can the court grant the plaintiff’s motion?
Yes, because there is not a genuine dispute as to the facts.
If a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, an opposing party may not rely merely on the allegations or denials in her own pleading. The opposing party must set out specific facts showing a genuine dispute for trial. If the opposing party does not so respond, then summary judgment, if appropriate, will be entered against that party. In this case, the plaintiff properly supported her motion for summary judgment with affidavits from a witness and an additional document. Thus, the defendant could not rely merely on the denials in his answer. He should have provided other evidence, such as affidavits, to support his opposition to the motion. Because he did not do so, the court can grant summary judgment for the plaintiff.
In a civil action brought in federal district court, the judge conducted voir dire of the prospective jurors. The judge refused to permit either attorney to directly question the prospective jurors. The judge did permit the attorney for each party to submit questions for her to ask the prospective jurors, but refused to ask particular questions that she found to be improper.
Has the judge conducted voir dire in accordance with the federal rules?
Yes, because the judge gave each party’s attorney the opportunity to submit questions to be asked of the prospective jurors.
If the court examines the prospective jurors, then it must permit the parties or their attorneys to make any further inquiry it considers proper, or it must itself ask any of their additional questions that it considers proper. Here, the judge conducted the voir dire of the prospective jurors. The judge properly permitted each party’s attorney to submit questions to be asked of the prospective jurors and asked the jurors the questions she deemed to be proper. Therefore, the judge conducted voir dire in accordance with the federal rules.
In a negligence action properly before a federal district court sitting in diversity, the court submitted the case to the jury. The jury’s decision, which took the form of a written special verdict, was read aloud by the court clerk in open court. The verdict stated that both parties were negligent and that both parties’ negligence proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The verdict also stated that the plaintiff had suffered damages of $1 million and was 10% at fault for his injuries. The court then asked the jury collectively if this was their verdict and they responded in unison, “Yes.” The defendant requested that the jury be polled. When questioned individually, a juror tearfully stated that the verdict was not her verdict because she did not believe that the defendant had been negligent. Upon further questioning, she maintained this position. The other seven jurors affirmed the verdict. The defendant moved for a new trial.
Is the court likely to grant the defendant’s motion?
Yes, because one juror did not affirm the special verdict as hers.
Under the federal rules, the verdict of a civil jury must be unanimous unless the parties otherwise agree. Here, one juror, when questioned individually, denied that the special verdict was her verdict. Consequently, the court may order a new trial.
A jury found for the plaintiff in a defamation action in federal district court against a newspaper publisher. Following the verdict, the newspaper publisher moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court granted the motion. The plaintiff wants to immediately appeal the court’s order granting the new trial.
Which of the following is most accurate concerning immediate appeal of the court’s order?
Immediate appeal is precluded by the final judgment rule.
An order for a new trial is not appealable because it is not a final judgment. A party who wants to raise on appeal the grant of a new trial must wait until the new trial has occurred and resulted in a final judgment. The party may then appeal from that judgment and raise as an issue the order for the new trial.
A driver of a car hit a pedestrian crossing a street in the middle of a city block. The pedestrian properly filed a suit against the driver in federal district court based on negligence for personal injuries. The driver contended that the pedestrian was also negligent. The forum state has a traditional contributory negligence statute. The general verdict of the jury was in favor of the driver.
The pedestrian then filed a suit in federal district court to recover for his personal injuries from the passenger in the driver’s car at the time of the accident. The pedestrian alleged that the accident occurred because the passenger distracted the driver just before the accident.
Can the passenger successfully assert that the pedestrian should be precluded by the prior decision from re-litigating the issue of his contributory negligence with regard to the accident?
No, because it is not known whether the issue was essential to the judgment.
Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) does not apply. Generally, an issue that constitutes a necessary component of the decision reached will be considered essential to the judgment. While the issue of the pedestrian’s contributory negligence was actually litigated in the Pedestrian v. Driver lawsuit, it is unclear what role this issue had in the jury’s decision. If the jury decided that the driver was negligent, then the jury must have also found that the pedestrian was contributorily negligent in order to arrive at its verdict in favor of the driver. However, the jury may have decided that the driver was not negligent, in which case any decision made by the jury regarding the pedestrian’s contributory negligence was not essential to the judgment. Consequently, because it cannot be established that the jury made a decision on this issue or if the jury did, that it was essential to the judgment, the pedestrian can re-litigate the issue of his contributory negligence in the current action.
A traffic accident victim initiated a diversity action for damages stemming from an accident against a truck driver and the corporation who had hired him as an independent contractor for a one-time delivery, to fill in for their own truck driver, who had fallen ill. The victim filed the complaint, which was based on negligence with regard to the truck driver and respondeat superior with respect to the corporation, in the federal district court for State A, the state in which the accident occurred. The truck driver was transporting equipment from State B, the state of incorporation and principal place of business of the corporation, to State C, where the corporation was opening a new plant. The corporation had no business dealings in State A. The victim is a citizen of State D. The forum state has a long-arm statute that permits a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
What is the corporation’s best argument that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it?
Answers:
A: You Selected: The minimum contacts test cannot not be satisfied due to the corporation’s lack of business dealings in State A.
B: The victim is not a citizen of State A.
C: The corporation had not purposefully availed itself of the benefits and laws of State A.
D: Correct Answer: The truck driver was an independent contractor, rather than an employee of the corporation.
In order for a defendant to be subject to the jurisdiction of a court, the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state. While a single contact can be sufficient if the cause of action is based on that contact, an out-of-state corporation is not subject to personal jurisdiction solely because of contacts in the state by an independent contractor. Contacts by a nonresident employer’s agents or employees, on the other hand, are generally imputed to the employer when the agent or employee is acting within the scope of the agency or employment. In this case, the truck driver was acting within the scope of his employment by transporting the equipment through State A when the accident occurred. However, if the corporation can establish that the truck driver was an independent contractor rather than an employee, then the court will not have general jurisdiction over the corporation due to the corporation’s lack of business dealings in State A and would not have specific jurisdiction over the corporation with respect to the accident.