MBE Questions Flashcards
An entrepreneur in State A decided to sell hot sauce to the public, labeling it as “Best Hot Sauce.”
A company incorporated in State B and HQ’d in State C sued the entrepreneur in federal court in State C. The complaint sought $50K in damages and alleged that the entrepreneur’s use of the name “Best Hot Sauce” infringed on the company’s federal trademark. The entrepreneur filed an answer denying the allegations, and the parties began discovery. Six months later, the entrepreneur moved moved to dismiss for lack of SMJ.
Should the court grant his motion?
A) No because the company’s claim arises under federal law
B) No because the entrepreneur waived the right to challenge SMJ by not raising the issue initially by motion or in the answer
C) Yes because although the claim arises under federal law, the AIC is not satisfied
D) Yes, because although there is diversity, the amount in controversy is not satisfied
A) No because the company’s claim arises under federal law
§1331 - SMJ is present when the issue arises under federal law
An investor from State A filed an action against his State B stockbroker in federal court in State A. The summons and complaint were served at the stockbroker’s office in State B, where the process server handed the documents to the stockbroker’s administrative assistant.
The stockbroker answered the complaint, asserting the defense of improper service of process. Assume that both states’ requirements for service of process are identical to the requirements of the FRCP.
Is the court likely to dismiss the action for improper service of process?
A) No, because service was made on a person of suitable age found at the stockbroker’s place of employment
B) No, because the stockbroker waived her claim for improper service of process by asserting it in her answer
C) Yes, because an individual defendant may not be served by delivering process to a third party found at the defendant’s place of employment.
D) Yes, because process of State A courts is not effective in State B.
C) Yes, because an individual defendant may not be served by delivering process to a third party found at the defendant’s place of employment.
Service of process may take place at the defendant’s place of employment if delivered to an agent of the defendant
A railroad worker’s widow brought a wrongful death action in federal court against the railroad, claiming that its negligence has caused her husband’s death. At trial, the widow offered the testimony of a coworker of the husband. The coworker testified that he had seen the rail car on which the husband was riding slow down down and the cars behind it gain speed. The coworker also stated that he later heard a loud crash, but did not turn around to look because loud noises were common in the yard. Three other railroad employees testified that no collision had occurred.
At the close of the evidence, the railroad moved for judgment as a matter of law, which was denied, and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for the widow.
The railroad made a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. What standard should the court apply to determine how to rule on the motion?
A) Whether the evidence revealed a genuine dispute of material fact supporting the widow’s claim
B) Whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence
C) Whether the widow presented a scintilla of evidence to support the verdict
D) Whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict, resolving all disputed issues in the widow’s favor.
D) Whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict, resolving all disputed issues in the widow’s favor.
Renewed motion = same standard as the initial motion for judgment as a matter of law
A university student, citizen of State A, believes that her university violated federal law when it eliminated funding for the women’s varsity volleyball team. She had sued the university, a nonprofit corporation, located in incorporated in State B, and the university’s athletic director, a citizen of state B, in federal court in State B.
What is the best method of serving the defendants?
A) Service as required by State B’s rules of civil procedure
B) Service by process server’s leaving copies of the summons and complaint with secretaries in the respective offices of the athletic director and the university president
C) Service by emailing copies of the summons and complaint to the athletic director and the university president
D) Service by the student herself on the athletic director and the university president
A) Service as required by State B’s rules of civil procedure
Federal courts recognize the state rules for service of process
A small commercial airplane crashed in State A. The passengers and pilot, all citizens of State B, were killed in the crash. The airline that owned and operated the airplane is incorporated and has its maintenance facilities and principal place of business in State C.
One day before the SOL on their claims have run, the estates of the pilot and each of the passengers filed a wrongful death action against the airline in federal court in State A. The airline was served one week later and wants to prevent State A federal court from hearing the action.
A) Motion to dismiss the action for improper venue
B) A motion to dismiss the action for lack of PJ
C) A motion to dismiss the action under forum non conveins
D) Motion to transfer the action to a federal court in State
D) Motion to transfer the action to a federal court in State
Forum non conveins = out of the country
A woman sued her former employer in state court, asserting age and sex and age discrimination under both state and federal law. The woman’s attorney had recently been embarrassed in court by the judge to whom the case was assigned. Wishing to avoid difficulties with the judge, the woman’s attorney promptly removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction. The employer’s attorney has timely moved to remand.
How is the federal court likely to proceed?
A) Remand the entire case
B) Remand the state claims but keep the federal claims
C) Retain the case to avoid the risk of bias and impropriety in having it proceed before a judge who has shown clear hostility towards the woman’s attorney
D) Retain the case, because it was timely removed and the woman alleges federal claims
A) Remand the entire case
Only defendants can remove cases
The distracted driver of a powerboat struck and seriously injured two water skiers who, at the time of the accident, were performing a stunt in which one was on the shoulders of the other. The unrelated skiers, who each suffered damages in excess of $100,000, filed a joint complaint based on negligence in a federal court located in the district in which the accident occurred. One of the skiers was a citizen of the forum state. The driver-defendant and the other skier were citizens of a neighboring state. The forum state has a long-arm statute that permits the exercise of jurisdiction to the extent permissible under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Upon which of the following grounds can the driver most likely obtain dismissal of the claim asserted by the skier who is not a citizen of the forum state?
A) Improper joinder.
B) Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
C) Lack of personal jurisdiction.
D) Lack of venue.
B) Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Here, both skiers satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement because they each sought $100,000 in damages. However, the neighboring-state skier and the driver are domiciled in the same state, so there is no diversity of citizenship between them.
A plaintiff, a resident of State A, filed a complaint against two defendants in a state court in State B, where a car accident between the parties took place. The claims were based solely on state law. One defendant resides in State B, where the accident occurred, and another resides in State C, a neighboring state. The complaint alleged that each defendant caused $100,000 in damages. The defendant who resides in State B was personally served with a complaint and summons while he was walking to work in State B. The defendant who resides in State C was served by a process server in the forum state after attending a business meeting in that state. Shortly thereafter, both defendants filed a notice to remove the case to the federal district court in the district where the case was filed. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand. The federal district court granted the plaintiff’s motion.
What is the most likely reason that the motion was granted?
A) One of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the action was filed.
B) The federal court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over both defendants.
C) The federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims.
D) Venue would be improper in the federal district where the case was filed.
A) One of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the action was filed.
The home-court-advantage rule prohibits removal from state to federal court when:
(1) the federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction arises from diversity jurisdiction; and
(2) a defendant is a citizen of the state where the case was filed.
Here, since one of the defendants is a citizen of State B—where the action was filed—the home-court-advantage rule prohibits removal to federal court.
Note: For a case that is removed from state court, venue is proper in the federal district court in the district where the state action was pending. Therefore, venue was proper in the federal district where the case was originally filed.
A plaintiff was severely injured when her car collided with the defendant’s truck on a highway in State A. The plaintiff was a citizen of State B, and the defendant was a citizen of State A. The defendant had no contacts with State B. The plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in State B under diversity jurisdiction, asserting a state-law claim for damages resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligence. The defendant filed an answer, specifically denying each of the plaintiff’s claims. Three months later, after discovery concluded and just before trial, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Should the court dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant?
A) No, because dismissal would prejudice the plaintiff, since discovery has already occurred in the case.
B) No, because the defendant has waived the objection to the court’s jurisdiction.
C) Yes, because the defendant had no contacts with State B.
D) Yes, because a court may dismiss an action for lack of personal jurisdiction at any time prior to final judgment.
B) No, because the defendant has waived the objection to the court’s jurisdiction.
The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is waived if it is not asserted in a pre-answer motion or an answer, whichever occurs first.
During the defendant’s cross-country road trip, he was involved in a car accident with the plaintiff in the state where the plaintiff lived. Following the accident, the plaintiff sued the defendant in federal court located in the state where the accident occurred. Prior to the accident, the defendant had never been to the forum state. The defendant flew home from the forum state directly following the accident and has not been back to the forum state since that time. Before filing a responsive pleading, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The court denied the defendant’s motion.
What is the most likely basis for the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant in this case?
A) General jurisdiction.
B) In rem jurisdiction.
C) Quasi in rem jurisdiction.
D) Specific jurisdiction.
D) Specific jurisdiction.
Specific personal jurisdiction exists when
(1) the plaintiff’s claim arises from the defendant’s minimum contacts with the forum state and
(2) the exercise of jurisdiction would comply with notions of fair play and substantial justice.
A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction seeking damages for injuries arising out of a car accident with the defendant. The following day, the plaintiff’s 20-year-old spouse served the complaint together with the summons on the defendant. Twenty days later, the defendant learned that the plaintiff’s spouse had not submitted proof of service to the court. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
Should the court grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss?
A) No, because the failure to file proof of service does not affect the validity of the service.
B) No, because the time for filing a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process had expired.
C) Yes, because the time for filing proof of service has expired.
D) Yes, because the plaintiff’s spouse served the summons and complaint.
A) No, because the failure to file proof of service does not affect the validity of the service.
The plaintiff must provide proof of service of process to the court when service was properly made in the U.S. and not waived by the defendant. But a failure to prove service of process does not affect the validity of the service.
The plaintiff resides in a city in the Southern District of State C. The plaintiff credibly alleges that her federal legal rights were violated in a city in the Western District of State D by two defendants. The first defendant resides in a city in the Northern District of State C. The second defendant resides in a town in the Central District of State C, where the plaintiff’s employer is located.
In which districts would venue be proper as to all the parties?
A) The Western District of State D, the Northern District of State C, or the Southern District of State C.
B) The Western District of State D, the Central District of State C, or the Southern District of State C.
C) The Western District of State D, the Northern District of State C, or the Central District of State C.
D) The Western District of State D, the Northern District of State C, the Central District of State C, or the Southern District of State C.
C) The Western District of State D, the Northern District of State C, or the Central District of State C.
Venue is proper in any federal district where (1) any defendant resides, as long as all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a substantial part of the events occurred or a substantial part of the property at issue is located, or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction (if the first two provisions do not apply).
A bakery negotiated with a supplier regarding a long-term commitment to supply flour. They agreed to specific terms to be memorialized in a written contract. Due to an oversight, the supplier never signed the written contract, although it began providing flour to the bakery under the terms of their agreement. Six months later, the price of flour rose dramatically following a nationwide drought. The supplier, realizing that it had never signed the contract, told the bakery that it would have to charge a higher price for the flour. The bakery properly filed a complaint in federal district court, alleging that the supplier had breached their contract. The supplier filed an answer in which it denied the factual allegations in the complaint regarding the price and duration of the contract but did not raise any affirmative defenses. The following day, the supplier filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the oral contract between the parties violated the statute of frauds.
Can the court grant the supplier’s motion to dismiss?
A) Yes, because the answer denied the factual allegations regarding the terms of the contract.
B) Yes, because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
C) No, because the supplier waived any objection on the pleadings by filing an answer.
D) No, because the supplier did not assert the statute of frauds in its answer.
D) No, because the supplier did not assert the statute of frauds in its answer.
An answer must include
(1) admissions and denials;
(2) motions that have not been waived;
(3) affirmative defenses; and
4) compulsory counterclaims.
Otherwise, these items will be waived.
Here, the bakery filed a complaint in federal district court, alleging that the supplier had breached their contract. In its answer, the supplier denied the factual allegations regarding the contract’s terms—i.e., the price of flour and the contract’s duration—but did not raise any affirmative defenses.
A defendant filed a complaint against a third-party defendant for contribution permitted under federal law for any environmental damages for which the defendant may be found liable. The third-party defendant and the defendant were domiciled in the same state. The third-party defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The third-party defendant also submitted affidavits in support of its position, but the court refused to consider them. After taking all well-pleaded facts in the defendant’s complaint as true and resolving all doubts and inferences in the defendant’s favor, the court denied the motion to dismiss.
Has the court acted properly in making its ruling?
A) No, because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint against the third-party defendant.
B) No, because the court failed to consider the third-party defendant’s affidavits.
C) Yes, because the court took all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and resolved all doubts and inferences in the defendant’s favor.
D) Yes, because a third-party defendant cannot file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
C) Yes, because the court took all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and resolved all doubts and inferences in the defendant’s favor.
When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court must
(1) treat all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and
(2) view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant
Note: *If the court considers matters outside the pleadings, such as affidavits, then the motion for failure to state a claim will be treated as a motion for summary judgment. When this occurs, the parties will be given an opportunity to present all material information to the court for consideration.
Two unrelated passengers on a small plane sued the pilot of the plane for injuries suffered during a rough landing after a sightseeing trip. They filed a negligence action in federal district court with the younger passenger, who had only minor injuries, claiming $5,000 in damages and the older passenger, whose injuries were life-threatening, claiming $95,000. The two passengers are citizens of the same state. The pilot is a citizen of another state. The pilot moved to dismiss the younger passenger’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Should the court dismiss the younger passenger’s claim?
A) No, because the total damages sought exceed the amount-in-controversy requirement.
B) No, because the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.
C) Yes, because this claim fails to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.
D) Yes, because the younger passenger is a citizen of the same state as the older passenger.
B) No, because the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.
A federal court may generally exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that fall outside of its original subject-matter jurisdiction IF
1) those claims share a common nucleus of operative facts
2) with a claim that falls within its original subject-matter jurisdiction.
A plaintiff filed an action against a defendant in federal district court. The complaint alleged that the defendant had infringed upon a trademark held by the plaintiff under federal law and sought $55,000 in damages. In addition, the plaintiff claimed damages of $10,000 allegedly attributable to the defendant’s negligence in causing an auto accident involving the two parties. The plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states. The defendant moved to dismiss the negligence claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion.
Was the court’s ruling correct?
A) No, because a claim based on state law may not be joined with a claim over which the court has federal-question jurisdiction.
B) No, because neither diversity nor supplemental jurisdiction exists with respect to the negligence claim.
C) Yes, because the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim.
D) Yes, because the court has diversity jurisdiction over the negligence claim.
B) No, because neither diversity nor supplemental jurisdiction exists with respect to the negligence claim.
A federal court will generally exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that fall outside its original subject-matter jurisdiction (i.e., federal-question or diversity jurisdiction) IF
1) the claims share a common nucleus of operative facts
2) with a claim within its original jurisdiction
Here, federal-question jurisdiction exists over the plaintiff’s trademark claim because it arises under federal law. But such jurisdiction does not exist over the plaintiff’s state negligence claim. And though the opposing parties are citizens of different states, the amount-in-controversy requirement is not satisfied—even after the negligence claim ($10,000) and trademark claim ($55,000) are aggregated.
Three shareholders brought an action in federal district court for a violation of federal securities law against a corporation. The shareholders sought certification of a class of all persons who had purchased stock during a two-year period. The members of the class suffered damages that ranged from $75 to $65,000, with the total damages sought just exceeding $3 million. Some members of the class are citizens of the same state as the corporation, but none of the three representative shareholders is a citizen of the same state as the corporation.
Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over this action?
A) Yes, because none of the three representative shareholders is a citizen of the same state as the corporation.
B) Yes, because the action is based on a violation of federal securities law.
C) No, because no member of the class has suffered damages in excess of $75,000.
D) No, because some members of the class are citizens of the same state as the corporation.
B) Yes, because the action is based on a violation of federal securities law.
A federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a class action when the action arises under the U.S. Constitution, a treaty, or federal law (i.e., federal-question jurisdiction) OR when the named opposing parties are diverse and the amount in controversy for any named plaintiff’s claim exceeds $75,000 (i.e., diversity jurisdiction).
The plaintiff, a State N citizen, properly invokes a State M federal court’s diversity jurisdiction in a tort suit against the defendant, an airplane manufacturer based in State M. The plaintiff credibly alleges that he was severely injured when the defendant’s airplane crashed as a result of an improperly installed engine part. During discovery, the plaintiff learns that an employee of the defendant who installed engine parts at the time the plane was manufactured was an alcoholic whose drinking may have impaired his work. The defendant fired the employee before the plane crash that injured the plaintiff.
What discovery device may the plaintiff use to obtain more information from the former employee?
A) An oral deposition.
B) An interrogatory.
C) A physical examination.
D) A request for admission.
A) An oral deposition.
A deposition is a discovery method in which a party conducts a written or oral examination of a party or nonparty under oath and outside of court.
Here, the plaintiff can use an oral deposition to obtain information from the defendant’s former employee—and, if necessary, can obtain a subpoena to compel the nonparty’s attendance.
A tenant properly filed a complaint under state law against his landlord in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction, alleging that the landlord’s negligence in failing to repair the stairs in a common area of the apartment building resulted in the tenant falling and sustaining significant injuries. After the landlord served his answer, the tenant moved for summary judgment. In support of his motion, the tenant submitted (1) an affidavit from another tenant in the building who had told the landlord prior to the accident that the stairs needed to be fixed after she almost fell, (2) an affidavit from a friend who had witnessed the tenant’s fall and drove him to the emergency room, and (3) the written lease signed by the landlord and the tenant which required the landlord to make all repairs in the common areas of the building. In opposition to the motion, the landlord submitted an affidavit from the maintenance worker employed by the landlord, stating that the stairs were in good condition on the day of the tenant’s accident.
How should the court rule on the motion for summary judgment?
A) Deny the motion, because a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the landlord.
B) Deny the motion, because the tenant did not meet the burden of production.
C) Grant the motion, because in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the tenant, the tenant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
D) Grant the motion, because the tenant presented more evidence in support of the motion than the landlord presented in opposition to it.
A) Deny the motion, because a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the landlord.
Summary judgment should be granted if the movant shows:
(1) there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
(2) the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A mayor sued a blogger for defamation in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction. The mayor alleged in her complaint that the blogger had published defamatory statements about her that suggested she was having an adulterous relationship. The mayor’s entire case rested on her own testimony establishing the prima facie elements of her claim and a properly authenticated and admitted copy of the allegedly defamatory publication. At the end of the mayor’s presentation of evidence to the jury, the blogger filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Finding that the mayor’s meager evidence was insufficient for a jury to reasonably find that the publication was false, as was required by state law, the judge granted the blogger’s motion and directed a judgment in favor of the blogger. The mayor immediately appealed the judgment, contending that the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard in granting the motion.
On these facts, should the judgment be set aside on appeal?
A) No, because the district court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous.
B) No, because the mayor failed to meet her burden of establishing a prima facie case as a matter of law.
C) Yes, because a motion for judgment as a matter of law cannot be granted until both parties have presented their cases.
D) Yes, because the district court improperly evaluated the weight of the evidence.
D) Yes, because the district court improperly evaluated the weight of the evidence.
When considering a motion for JMOL, the court must
(1) view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant,
(2) disregard any evidence favorable to the movant that the jury need not believe, and
(3) not consider the credibility of witnesses or the weight of evidence.
Here, the blogger timely moved for JMOL before the case was submitted to the jury. However, the judge improperly evaluated the weight of the mayor’s evidence by determining that it was meager and therefore insufficient for a jury to reasonably find that the blogger’s publication was false. The judge therefore applied the wrong legal standard in granting the motion for JMOL, so the judgment should be set aside on appeal.
In a civil action properly brought in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction, a jury of seven persons was impaneled. During the trial, the court excused a juror for good cause. After the case was submitted to the jury for deliberation, the court excused a second juror, also for good cause. The remaining jurors returned a unanimous verdict for the plaintiff.
Can the defendant successfully challenge this verdict?
A) No, because the jury verdict was unanimous.
B) No, because the court excused both jurors for good cause.
C) Yes, because fewer than six jurors returned the verdict.
D) Yes, because the court may not excuse a juror once deliberations have begun.
C) Yes, because fewer than six jurors returned the verdict.
A jury verdict must be unanimous and returned by a jury of at least 6 (but no more than 12) members unless the parties stipulate otherwise.
A consumer filed a products liability action against a manufacturer in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. Prior to trial, the manufacturer filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony by an expert on the consumer’s witness list on the grounds that it was based on subjective belief and unsupported speculation. After holding a hearing, the judge granted the manufacturer’s motion. Because of this ruling and the consumer’s inability to produce other evidence in support of her case, the judge granted the manufacturer’s subsequent motion for summary judgment. The consumer appealed the judgment, contending that the district court judge had erroneously excluded the testimony of the consumer’s expert.
In reviewing this challenge to the trial court’s ruling, what standard should the appellate court apply?
A) Abuse of discretion, because the judge had made an evidentiary ruling.
B) Absence of a genuine dispute and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, because the ruling affected the summary judgment motion.
C) Preponderance of the evidence, because the ruling was outcome determinative.
D) Clearly erroneous, because the ruling was made by the judge.
A) Abuse of discretion, because the judge had made an evidentiary ruling.
The abuse-of-discretion standard of appellate review applies to a trial court’s discretionary rulings—e.g., whether to admit evidence. Under this highly deferential standard, the appellate court will only reverse a clearly arbitrary or unreasonable ruling.
A mother bought reusable snack bags from a company. The company uses an antibacterial agent called triclosan in its reusable snack bags to help prevent mold from growing in the bags. Triclosan is a known toxin that may, if used in a sufficient amount, weaken the immune system, especially when used in a moist environment, such as with reusable snack bags containing fruit or other damp foods. The mother who purchased the snack bags sued the company in federal court because she believed that the toxins in the company’s snack bags caused her son to contract an illness due to his weakened immune system. At a bench trial, the judge found that the amount of triclosan used by the company in its snack bags was sufficient to weaken a child’s immune system and that the boy would not have suffered from this particular illness unless his immune system had been weakened. As a result, the judge entered a judgment in favor of the mother at the conclusion of trial.
In an unrelated action also filed against the company in the same federal court, a father sought damages from the company on behalf of his daughter, who had contracted an illness after using the company’s snack bags. During the trial, the father moved for partial summary judgment on the basis of collateral estoppel to prevent the company from contending that the amount of triclosan it used in its snack bags was insufficient to cause the weakening of a child’s immune system.
Should the court grant this motion?
A) No, because a jury did not render a final judgment on the merits.
B) No, because the daughter was not a party in the prior case.
C) Yes, because offensive use of collateral estoppel is permitted.
D) Yes, because the facts involved are related in time, space, origin, or motivation.
C) Yes, because offensive use of collateral estoppel is permitted.
Issue Preclusion: Collateral estoppel can be used offensively by the plaintiff in a second action to establish an issue against parties from the first action—with limited exceptions.
Here, the judge in the first action entered a final judgment after finding that the amount of triclosan used in the company’s snack bags was sufficient to weaken a child’s immunity. The father, on behalf of his daughter (a nonparty to the first action), then filed an unrelated lawsuit against the company. Since the first action determined that triclosan can weaken a child’s immunity, the father’s use of offensive, nonmutual collateral estoppel is permitted.
A plaintiff filed a negligence-based action against a defendant in state court but did not serve the complaint on the defendant for several days. After being served with the complaint, the defendant properly removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Under state law, an action commences by service of the complaint on the defendant. State law also provides that a negligence action must be commenced within two years of the date on which the cause of action arose. At the time the action was filed, two years had not passed from the date on which the cause of action arose. However, at the time of service, more than two years had passed from the date on which the cause of action arose. The defendant has timely moved to dismiss the action as barred by the statute of limitations.
Should the federal court grant this motion?
A) No, because the federal rules provide that an action commences upon the filing of a complaint.
B) No, because the federal court is not required to apply the state procedural rule.
C) Yes, because the action was not removed to federal court prior to the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations.
D) Yes, because under state law the action did not commence until the defendant was served with the complaint.
D) Yes, because under state law the action did not commence until the defendant was served with the complaint.
Erie: state law applies if
(1) it is outcome determinative—i.e., forum-shopping or inequitable administration of the laws would result if it is not applied—and
(2) there is no countervailing federal policy interest.
Here, failing to apply state law would result in the inequitable administration of the laws as it would encourage litigants to sue in federal court to obtain a longer limitations period.
Note: there is no countervailing federal policy to prevent the application of state law.