Civil Procedure Learning Questions - Set 2 Flashcards
In order to satisfy federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must appear in:
A
The plaintiff’s complaint
B
Either the plaintiff’s complaint or the defendant’s answer
C
Either the plaintiff’s complaint or the defendant’s answer, counterclaim, or cross-claim
D
Either the plaintiff’s complaint or the defendant’s answer or counterclaim
A
In order to satisfy federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must appear in the plaintiff’s complaint. The federal question must appear as part of the plaintiff’s cause of action as set out in a well-pleaded complaint.
Federal question jurisdiction is not satisfied if the federal question appears in the defendant’s answer, counterclaim, or cross-claim.
A complaint __________ create federal question jurisdiction if it alleges federal issues only in anticipation of some defense.
A
May
B
Will
C
Will not
C
A complaint will not create federal question jurisdiction if it alleges federal issues only in anticipation of some defense. The federal question must appear as part of the plaintiff’s cause of action as set out in a well-pleaded complaint. It is therefore sometimes necessary to determine whether certain allegations are proper in pleading the cause of action, and whether the federal element is essential to the plaintiff’s case.
When a plaintiff has both federal and state-based claims against a defendant and diversity jurisdiction does not exist, the federal court has:
A
Discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim if the two claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding
B
Discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim, regardless of whether the two claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact
C
No discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim; it must transfer all claims to state court
D
No discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim; it must do so
A
In some cases, the plaintiff will have both federal and state claims against the defendant. Although there may be no diversity, the federal court has discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the claim based on state law if the two claims are so related that they are part of the same case or controversy, which essentially means that they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.
A federal court does not have discretion to exercise jurisdiction if the claims are unrelated. Hence, it is not correct that the court has discretion regardless of whether the claims are related.
The court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in such a scenario is discretionary. Thus, both answer choices asserting that the court has no discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim are incorrect. It need not exercise discretion, and it need not transfer the claims to state court.
What is the amount in controversy requirement to establish federal question jurisdiction?
A
There is no amount in controversy requirement for most federal question cases
B
In excess of $75,000
C
In excess of $100,000
D
At least $75,000
A
There is no amount in controversy requirement in federal question cases, with the narrow exception for cases brought against defendants other than the United States, its agencies, or employees under section 23(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act.
An author from State A filed a claim in federal court sitting in State B against a publisher headquartered in State B. The complaint alleged that the publisher plagiarized a portion of the author’s book and asserted both a copyright infringement claim under federal law and an unfair business practices claim under an applicable State B statute. At trial, the publisher presented evidence that the author never filed the copyright infringement claim with the appropriate federal agency, as required by the federal statute, thereby invalidating the copyright infringement claim. The claim for unfair business practices, however, was still capable of obtaining a favorable verdict. The publisher moved for dismissal of the state law claim as well.
How should the federal court rule?
A The court must remand the state law claim to state court because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction without the copyright infringement claim.
B The court must dismiss the state law claim, because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction without the copyright infringement claim.
C The court should, in its discretion, retain jurisdiction over the state law claim because the trial has begun.
D The court should, in its discretion, dismiss the state law claim because the jury has not yet begun to deliberate.
C
The court may dismiss or hear the state law claim in its discretion, but will likely retain jurisdiction over it. When a claim is in federal court under federal question jurisdiction, and the plaintiff has a state law claim against the defendant that cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction, the federal court has discretion to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state law claim if the federal and state claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding. The court may continue to exercise supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction over the state claim even though the federal claim is dismissed on the merits. However, the state claim should probably also be dismissed (without prejudice) if the federal claim is dismissed before trial. Here, although the federal copyright claim was invalid, it was deemed to be so during trial, before a verdict was rendered. Since the case is currently being tried, the court will likely hear the state claim for the sake of judicial economy. (B) is wrong, because, as stated above, the federal court has the discretion under supplemental jurisdiction to hear the state claim. (A) is wrong for the same reason, and also because remand can only occur when the action was commenced in state court and then removed to federal court. (D) is wrong because, although the decision is within the court’s discretion, the start of the trial is the point at which a federal court will usually retain jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims for the sake of judicial economy.
A plaintiff, a citizen of State A, sued a defendant, a citizen of State B, alleging that the defendant violated the Civil Rights Act by refusing to serve the plaintiff in her restaurant. The plaintiff brought his suit in state court in State B, asking for damages of $100,000. The defendant seeks to remove the case to the United States District Court for the District of State B, and the plaintiff opposes removal.
Is the case properly removable?
A No, because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
B No, because the state court has concurrent jurisdiction, making removal improper.
C Yes, because diversity of citizenship exists and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000.
D Yes, because a federal question has been presented.
D
The motion should be granted. The case may be removed because the federal court has federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s action, because it is based on the Civil Rights Act. (A) is incorrect. The limitation on removal by defendants who are citizens of the state in whose court the action was brought applies only to diversity actions. (C) is incorrect. Although diversity of citizenship appears to be present in this action, it is only incidental. The removal statute provides that “any civil action of which the district courts have [federal question jurisdiction] shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.” [28 U.S.C. 1441(b)] When both a federal question and diversity jurisdiction exist, the federal question jurisdiction normally “trumps” diversity jurisdiction. In any event, if this case were to be solely based on diversity, the defendant could not remove because she is a citizen of the forum state. (B) is incorrect because, although a state court may have concurrent jurisdiction, this jurisdiction, by itself, would not prevent removal.
A plaintiff brought an action in a state court against a defendant, a city police chief in the state, alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The defendant moves to dismiss the state suit on the ground that the action must be brought in federal court because a federal question is involved.
Should the court grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss?
A Yes, because the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over the action.
B Yes, but the plaintiff may defeat dismissal by adding a state law claim.
C No, because the federal courts and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the action.
D No, but the defendant may remove to federal court if he has a defense based on federal law.
C
The defendant’s motion will be denied. The federal courts and the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most types of actions. The few areas over which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction include bankruptcy cases, patent and copyright cases, antitrust cases, and a few other less common types of actions. (A) is incorrect for the reasons discussed above. (B) is incorrect because the appropriate remedy for a defendant would be to have the case removed to federal court. Furthermore, a defendant would be able to remove notwithstanding the state law claim; a court could invoke its supplemental jurisdiction to have a pendent state claim heard with claims based on federal law. (D) is incorrect. A defense based on federal law would not enable a defendant to remove the case to federal court.
The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, filed suit against the defendant, also a citizen of State A, in federal district court, alleging that the defendant had failed to perform a contract to provide 1,000 fully automatic machine guns. The defendant claimed that a recently enacted federal statute made the manufacture of fully automatic machine guns illegal.
Does the federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction?
A No, because no federal question has been presented and the requirements of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction have not been met.
B No, unless the plaintiff moves to another state after filing suit.
C Yes, because a federal statute has been enacted, thereby presenting a federal question.
D Yes, if the value of 1,000 fully automatic machine guns exceeds $75,000.
A
The federal district court does not have diversity jurisdiction because both parties are citizens of State A. The court does not have federal question jurisdiction because the recently enacted federal statute arises only in anticipation of the defendant’s defense. This is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. (Rationale: If, for example, the defendant relied on some other defense or defaulted instead of defending on the basis of the new federal statute, no federal question would ever be involved in the case. [See Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)]) (B) is incorrect because citizenship of the parties is determined at the time suit is filed. Assuming the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement could be met, the plaintiff would have had to move prior to filing suit to be able to invoke diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. (C) is incorrect because a federal question has not been presented, as described above. (D) is incorrect because, even if the plaintiff’s claim exceeds $75,000, diversity of citizenship would not exist because the plaintiff and defendant are both citizens of State A.
