Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Question 1

The plaintiff, a New York citizen, brings an action in federal district court alleging that the defendant, also a New York citizen, agreed to purchase his home and subsequently refused to go forward with the deal. The defendant’s answer admits that he refused to buy the home but alleges that because the plaintiff had lied on certain representations about the home contained in a federally required disclosure form, the deal was unenforceable. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

(a) Yes because this case arises under federal law.
(b) No because this case does not arise under federal law.
(c) Yes because the defendant filed an answer, waiving his jurisdictional objection.
(d) No because the parties are citizens of the same state.

Answer 1

Issue: Well pleaded complaint rule. The correct answer is (b). While it is true that the parties are not of diverse citizenship, the court would have federal question jurisdiction under Section1331 if the federal question met the well pleaded complaint rule, i.e., the federal question was part of the plaintiff’s prima facie case. Thus, option (d) is incorrect. This is a basic breach of contract claim by the plaintiff. Although a federal constitutional issue is raised in the plaintiff’s complaint, it is only there as a response to an anticipated federal defense. Thus, it is not deemed to have arisen within a well pleaded complaint. Thus, is does not arise under federal law under Section:1331 and so option (a) is incorrect. Objections to subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived and so option (c) is incorrect.

Question 2

The plaintiff, a New York citizen, brings an action in federal district court alleging that the defendant, also a New York citizen, agreed to purchase his home and subsequently refused to go forward with the deal. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that even if he misrepresented important features of the home in violation of the requirements of federal disclosure law, this statute is unconstitutional. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

(a) Yes because this case arises under federal law.
(b) No because this case does not arise under federal law.
(c) Yes because the defendant filed an answer, waiving his jurisdictional objection.
(d) No because the parties are citizens of the same state.

Answer 2

The correct answer is (b). While it is true that the parties are not of diverse citizenship, the court would have federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331 if the federal question met the well pleaded complaint rule, i.e., the federal question was part of the plaintiff’s prima facie case. This is a basic breach of contract claim by the plaintiff. Although a federal constitutional issue is raised in the plaintiff’s complaint, it is only there as a response to an anticipated federal defense. Thus, it is not deemed to have arisen within a well pleaded complaint. Thus, is does not arise under federal law under Section1331 and so option (a) is incorrect.

Question 3

The plaintiff believes that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her sex in violation of both federal and state law. But she wants to avoid being in federal court and so she files a complaint in state court asserting only a claim under the state anti-discrimination statute. Assuming the parties are not of diverse citizenship, will she be successful in staying out of federal court?

(a) No because she could state a claim arising under federal law.
(b) Yes because of the “master of the complaint” doctrine.
(c) No, because of the “artful pleading” doctrine.
(d) Yes because the parties are not diverse.

Answer 3

Issue: Master of the complaint rule. The correct answer is (b). As the master of the complaint, the plaintiff is permitted to choose which claims to assert and not assert. Assuming that a well pleaded state law claim does not contain a substantial issue of federal law, as this would not, then the plaintiff can refuse to assert the federal claim to avoid having the defendant remove the case. Thus, the fact that the plaintiff could state a federal claim is irrelevant and, therefore, option (a) is incorrect. There is an exception to the master of the complaint doctrine, the so called “artful pleading” doctrine. This states that when the plaintiff’s purported state law claim is “really” a federal law claim, it must be treated as a federal claim for subject matter jurisdictional purposes. But this occurs only when the purported state law claim asserts a right to relief in a subject that has been preempted by state law. The field of antidiscrimination law is not one in which federal law preempts any effort at state regulation. Therefore, option (c) is incorrect. The fact that the parties are not diverse would not preclude federal jurisdiction if the plaintiff’s claim was “really” a federal claim and so option (d) is incorrect.

Question 4

An Illinois plaintiff files a breach of contract action claim in federal court against a defendant who had been born and raised in North Dakota. The defendant moved to Chicago to attend college and law school in the hope of practicing law in his home town. The plaintiff’s claim is for $100,000 . Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

(a) Yes because the parties are diverse and because the claim is in excess of $75,000 .
(b) No because the parties are not diverse.
(c) No because both parties reside in Illinois.
(d) Yes because the claim is in excess of $75,000 .

Answer 4

Issue: Definition of citizenship for a natural person. The correct answer is (a). Since this is a state law claim, jurisdiction is only available under Section 1332 which requires diversity of citizenship. Citizenship for a natural person has been construed by the courts to mean domicile. The defendant was domiciled in North Dakota at least until she moved to Illinois. The question therefore is whether she changed her domicile to Illinois. To establish a change of domicile, the defendant must be both physically present in a new location and manifest an intention to remain there indefinitely. Since the defendant has not indicated any intention to remain in Illinois, but, to the contrary, has expressed an intention to return to North Dakota upon finishing her studies, she remains a domiciliary, and thus a citizen, of North Dakota. Therefore, the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Since both diversity and the amount in controversy must be present, option (d) is incorrect. Since the defendant is a citizen of North Dakota, option (b) is incorrect. Residence is an irrelevant concept for diversity purposes. The touchstone is domicile, not residence.

Question 5

Sheila Webb, a Utah citizen, purchased educational software programs invented by Simon Quant and sold by Early Bird, Inc. Simon has dual nationality; he is a citizen of both the U.S. and Germany. He permanently resides in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Easy Bird is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and that has its headquarters and warehouse located in Provo, Utah. Easy Bird also has retail outlets in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Sheila’s aunt, Margaret Welch, who also bought some of that software, is a citizen of Germany. Sheila files a breach of contract action against Easy Bird in federal court in Provo. She seeks $150,000 in damages. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

(a) Yes because the parties are diverse.
(b) No because the parties are not diverse.
(c) Yes because the defendant is not a citizen of the forum state.
(d) No because Easy Bird has no contacts with Utah.

Answer 5

Issue: Corporate citizenship The correct answer is (b). Corporate citizenship for diversity purposes is defined in Section:1332(c) as both the state of incorporation and the state of the corporation’s principal place of business. Since the defendant’s headquarters and warehouse are located in Utah, its principal place of business is in Utah. Therefore, it is a citizen of Utah. So is the plaintiff. The fact that the defendant is also a citizen of Delaware because it is incorporated there is irrelevant.

Question 6

Sheila Webb, a Utah citizen, purchased educational software programs invented by Simon Quant and sold by Early Bird, Inc. Simon has dual nationality; he is a citizen of both the U.S. and Germany. He permanently resides in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Easy Bird is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and that has its headquarters and warehouse located in Provo, Utah. Easy Bird also has retail outlets in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Sheila’s aunt, Margaret Welch, who also bought some of that software, is a citizen of Germany. Sheila files a lawsuit asserting one breach of contract claim against Simon and one breach of contract claim against Easy Bird in federal court in Provo. She seeks $150,000 in damages in connection with each claim. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

(a) Yes Simon is a citizen of New Mexico
(b) No because Easy Bird is a citizen of Utah.
(c) Yes because each claim is for $150,000 .
(d) No because the suit should have been filed in Delaware.

Answer 6

Issue: Complete diversity requirement Option (b) is the correct answer. The reason there is no diversity jurisdiction is because both the plaintiff Sheila and defendant Early Bird are citizens of Utah and, therefore, they are not diverse and so there is no complete diversity between the plaintiff and the defendants.

Question 7

A Virginia plaintiff brought a breach of contract claim in federal court in Virginia against a dual national who was a citizen of both the U.S. and France. The defendant had left the United States ten years earlier and set up permanent residence in Paris, where he intends to remain for the rest of his life. The claim is for $100,000 . Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction?

(a) Yes because the defendant is a French citizen.
(b) No because the defendant is domiciled in Paris.
(c) Yes because the claim is for $100,000 .
(d) No because the defendant has no contacts with Virginia

Answer 7

Issue: Citizenship of dual national The correct answer is (b). Individuals with dual nationality, one of whose national citizenship is American, cannot invoke Section 1332(a)(2) alienage jurisdiction. Therefore, option (a) is incorrect. The only possibility is diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332(a)(1). The defendant is an American citizen but since he is permanently domiciled in Paris, he is not domiciled in any state in the U.S. and therefore is not a citizen of any State in the U.S. Therefore, he cannot be made subject to diversity jurisdiction under Section:1332(a)(1). That is why answer (b) is the correct answer. Had the defendant been domiciled in any state other than Virginia, the parties would be diverse. Option (c) is incorrect because it is not sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement if the parties to a state law claim are not diverse. Option (d) is incorrect because the extent of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state is relevant to personal, but not subject matter jurisdiction.

Question 8

A victim of an automobile accident brings claims against both the owner and the driver of the car that caused the accident in one lawsuit. All three participants are citizens of different states. The plaintiff seeks $40,000 in damages against each of the defendants. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

(a) Yes because the parties are citizens of different states.
(b) No because the complaint does not satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement.
(c) Yes because the complaint seeks $80,000 in damages and the parties are diverse.
(d) No because the claim does not arise under federal law.

Answer 8

Issue: Aggregation of value of diversity claims. The correct answer is (b). Since the plaintiff is diverse from both defendants, the issue is whether a single plaintiff can aggregate the value of claims against multiple defendants to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement for diversity cases. The answer to this is no. While multiple claims against a single defendant can be aggregated, the courts do not permit aggregation of claims against separate defendants. Thus since the claim against neither defendant meets the jurisdictional amount requirement, option (c) is incorrect. Option (a) is incorrect because diversity without the proper amount in controversy is not enough for Section 1332 jurisdiction. Federal courts can hear claims under state law if the requirements of Section 1332 are met and therefore option (d) is incorrect.

Question 9

A Nevada plaintiff brings a tort claim in federal court in Ohio for $35,000 and a separate breach of contract claim for $55,000 against a single Ohio defendant. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

(a) Yes because the parties are of diverse citizenship.
(b) No because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
(c) Yes because the complaint seeks $90,000 in damages and the parties are diverse.
(d) No because the complaint does not satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement.

Answer 9

Issue: Aggregation of value of diversity claims. The correct answer is (c). Since the plaintiff and defendant are diverse, the issue is whether a single plaintiff can aggregate the value of claims against a single defendant to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement for diversity cases. The answer is yes. Therefore, option (d) is incorrect. Option (a) is incorrect because the fact of diversity alone is insufficient to invoke Section 1332 jurisdiction. You need to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement as well. The fact that the defendant is a citizen of the forum state is irrelevant and, therefore, option (b) is incorrect.

Question 10

A victim of an automobile accident brings claims against both the owner and the driver of the car that caused the accident in one lawsuit. All three participants are citizens of different states. The plaintiff seeks $75,000 damages against each of the defendants. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

(a) Yes because the parties are citizens of different states.
(b) No because the complaint does not satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement.
(c) Yes because the complaint does satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement.
(d) No because the claim does not arise under federal law.

Answer 10

Issue: Jurisdictional amount in controversy. The correct answer is (b). A single plaintiff cannot aggregate the value of claims against multiple defendants to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement for diversity cases. But here the amount of each claim is $75,000 . But Section 1332(a)(1) requires that the amount in controversy “exceed the value or sum of $75,000 .” Each claim against the separate defendants must be independently evaluated and since each such claim is only for $75,000, neither claim is in excess of $75,000 . Therefore, the amount in controversy requirement has not been satisfied. Thus, option (c) is incorrect. Option (a) is incorrect because diversity without the proper amount in controversy is not enough for Section1332 jurisdiction. Federal courts can here claims under state law if the requirements of Section1332 are met and therefore option (d) is incorrect.

Question 11

Two Texas citizens join in one civil action to bring separate breach of contract claims against a citizen of Alabama. Each plaintiff’s claim seeks $50,0000 in damages against the defendant. The suit is brought in federal court in Alabama. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

(a) Yes because the adverse parties are of diverse citizenship.
(b) No because the defendants are citizens of the forum state.
(c) Yes because the claims against the defendant are in excess of $75,000 and the parties are of diverse citizenship.
(d) No because the complaint does not satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement.

Answer 11

Issue: Aggregation of value of diversity claims The correct answer is (d). The claims of multiple plaintiffs against a common defendant cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement. Therefore, since neither individual claim exceeds $75,000, the amount in controversy requirement has not been met. Thus, option (c) is incorrect. Option (a) is incorrect because diversity without the proper amount in controversy is not enough for Section1332 jurisdiction. Option (b) is incorrect because the fact that the defendants are citizens of the forum state is irrelevant to this problem.

Question 12

A Wyoming plaintiff files an action in federal court in South Dakota against a South Dakota citizen. The complaint consists of a $100,000 tort claim and a completely unrelated $50,000 breach of contract action. Can the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the entire case?

(a) Yes under Section:1367.
(b) No because the two claims do not form part of the same case.
(c) Yes under Section:1332.
(d) No because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.

Answer 12

Issue: Aggregation of value of diversity claims. This is a trick question. The adverse parties are of diverse citizenship. There clearly is Section1332-based jurisdiction over the $100,000 claim since it meets both the diversity and amount in controversy requirements of Section1332(a)(1). The second claim is for less than $75,000 . But this does not make it a nondiverse state law claim that needs supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 The rules of aggregation permit a plaintiff to aggregate the value of multiple claims against a single defendant to meet the amount in controversy requirement of Section1332 Therefore, since the value of these two claims can be aggregated, they both fit under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Any discussion of supplemental jurisdiction is irrelevant. Thus, answers (a) and (b) are incorrect. Option (d) is incorrect because this fact is irrelevant to this question.

Question 13

A New Hampshire plaintiff brings an $85,000 tort claim against a Delaware defendant in federal court in Delaware. After trial, the jury awards the plaintiff $70,000 . Can the defendant successfully move to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

(a) No because by going to trial the defendant has waived his objection any defect in subject matter jurisdiction.
(b) Yes because the case did not meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement.
(c) No because the claim meets all requirements of Section:1332 (1).
(d) Yes because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.

Answer 13

Issue: Jurisdictional amount in controversy. The correct answer is (c). The issue here is whether the fact that the verdict was for less than $75,000 is relevant to the court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. Section 1332(b) provides that where the plaintiff recovers less than $75,000, the court can deny costs to the plaintiff and impose costs on the plaintiff. At the same time, Section 1332(a) requires that the matter “in controversy” in diversity cases exceed $75,000 . The courts interpret the latter requirement merely to demand that the amount placed in controversy by the plaintiff’s complaint exceed $75,000 . (There is an exception to this rule if it can be determined pre-trial that the plaintiff could not recover in excess of $75,000 to a legal certainty.) If the plaintiff ultimately recovers less than that amount, it does not deprive the court of jurisdiction, it merely provides the court with the opportunity to shift costs to the plaintiff. Option (a) is incorrect because objections to subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived. Option (b) is incorrect because the amount in controversy requirement is met. Option (d) is incorrect because the fact that the defendant is a citizen of the forum state is irrelevant to this problem.

Question 14

A citizen of Indiana brings an action against her employer, an Indiana corporation, in federal district court. Claim one alleges that she was discriminating against on the basis of her sex in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second claim consists of a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of the same series of acts of sexual harassment that formed the basis of her federal sex discrimination claim. The plaintiff seeks $250,000 in damages in connection with each claim. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over the entire lawsuit?

(a) Not over the second claim because it is a nondiverse state law claim.
(b) Yes because the two claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts and there is no reason to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.
(c) No because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
(d) Yes because federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most federal law claims.

Answer 14

Issue: Supplemental jurisdiction- The correct answer is (b). The federal claim falls within the court’s Section 1331 jurisdiction. The nondiverse state claim is subject to supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 if the two claims form part of the same case, i.e., arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts AND if none of the factors listed in Section 1367(c) justify declining to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction.

Question 15

A Nevada citizen brought a patent infringement claim against Acme Products, a Delaware corporation, in federal court in Nevada. The plaintiff alleged that Acme had infringed his patent in violation of the federal patent statute and sought damages in the amount of $65,000 . The plaintiff also asserted a $250,000 intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the President of Acme, Roy Jones, a citizen of Nevada. In this claim, the plaintiff alleges that Jones, acting on behalf of Acme, engaged in the infringing conduct and that this caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. Can the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the entire lawsuit?

(a) Yes under Section 1367a.
(b) No because courts do not permit pendent party jurisdiction.
(c) Yes because the value of the two claims can be aggregated.
(d) No because he sought less than $75,000 in his patent infringement claim.

Answer 15

Issue: Supplemental jurisdiction – pendent parties The correct answer is (a). Under Section 1367(a) if the plaintiff asserts a federal question claim against one defendant, the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a nondiverse state law claim against a separate defendant if the two claims form part of the same case, i.e, arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact and if none of the factors listed in Section1367(c) justify declining to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction. Here, the patent claim against the corporation is a federal question claim. The tort claim against the President does form part of the same case as that claim since the infringing conduct gave rise to both claims. And none of the discretionary factors listed in Section1367(c) justifies declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, jurisdiction can be exercise under Section 1367(a). Option (b) is incorrect because Section1367(a) does permit jurisdiction in cases involving a federal question claim. Option (c) is incorrect because it is irrelevant and wrong as a matter of law. The plaintiff and defendant Jones are not diverse and so Section1332 does not apply, and therefore its amount in controversy requirement, is irrelevant to this question. Moreover, a plaintiff is not permitted to aggregate the value of claims against multiple defendants in a diversity-based case. Option (d) is wrong because Section 1331 has no amount in controversy requirement.

Question 16

Vernon, a Louisiana citizen, was riding in a car driven by his friend Paul, a Texas citizen. They crashed into a car driven by Luther, a Texas citizen. Vernon and Paul filed an action in federal court in Texas in which each of the plaintiffs asserted a $150,000 tort action against Paul. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over the entire lawsuit?

(a) Yes under Section:1332 and 1367a.
(b) Not over Paul’s claim because he and Luther are both Texas citizens.
(c) Yes because each claim is for more than $75,000
(d) No because the action was filed in Texas.

Answer 16

Issue: Supplemental jurisdiction - The correct answer is (b). This is a case where the plaintiff is attempting to use supplemental jurisdiction to join a party when the claim within the court’s original jurisdiction is a diversity, rather than federal question claim. This brings Section 1367(b) into play. It is an exception to the general rule of supplemental jurisdiction codified at Section 1367(a). That general rule permits supplemental jurisdiction, subject to the discretionary factors listed in Section1367(c), when the claim within the court’s original jurisdiction and the supplemental claim form part of the same case, i.e., arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact. But Section1367(b) creates an exception to this general rule, i.e., precludes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, when the claim within the court’s original jurisdiction is a diversity claim. In such instances, supplemental jurisdiction cannot be exercised when doing so would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of Section 1332, i.e., the rule of complete diversity between adverse parties. In this problem, Vernon’s claim is a state law claim that meets both the diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amount requirements of Section 1332. Paul’s claim is a nondiverse state law claim. Thus, Section 1367(b) applies and since the joinder of Paul’s claim would destroy complete diversity between the adverse parties, there can be no supplemental jurisdiction over that claim under the terms of Section 1367(b). Therefore, option (a) is incorrect. The fact that both claims exceed the amount in controversy requirement is irrelevant since Paul and Luther are not diverse and so option (c) is incorrect. The fact that the action was filed in Texas is irrelevant to this problem and so option (d) is incorrect.

Question 17

A Virginia plaintiff filed an action against a Virginia defendant in federal court in Virginia. The complaint contained a claim alleging a violation of a federal environmental statute and a totally unrelated tort claim. The plaintiff sought $300,000 in connection with each claim. In response to a defense motion, the trial court dismissed the state law claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Two months later, the plaintiff then filed that state claim in a Virginia state court. But by that time, the limitations period set forth by the governing statute of limitations had expired. How should the state court rule on the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the claim had expired?

(a) Deny it because the state claim had been filed in federal court before the expiration of the limitations period.
(b) Grant it because the plaintiff waited two months to refile in state court
(c) Deny it because the state limitations period is tolled.
(d) Grant it because the federal court complaint contained a federal statutory claim.

Answer 17

Issue: Tolling of limitations period in supplemental jurisdiction cases. The correct answer is (b). To provide some protection to plaintiffs when its attempt to bring a nondiverse state law claim within the federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction is unsuccessful, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(d). This statute provides that where a supplemental claim is dismissed, any state limitations period governing that dismissed claim is tolled for thirty days after the dismissal of the supplemental claim, unless state law provides for a longer tolling period. This means, in effect, that even if the state limitations period has expired by the time or shortly after the supplemental claim was dismissed, the plaintiff has thirty days to refile in state court without being subjected to the application of the state limitations period. But since this plaintiff waited more than thirty days to refile in state court, the tolling period has expired and thus the claim is subject to the terms of the state limitations period and must be dismissed. Thus, option (c) is incorrect. Option (d) is incorrect because this fact is irrelevant to this problem. Option (a) is incorrect because the issue is whether the state claim was timely filed in state, not federal court.

Question 18

An Arizona citizen filed an action in New Mexico state court against the police department of Scottsdale, Arizona. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that she had been a victim of sexual harassment as the result of a barrage of sexual insults hurled at her by several of her supervisors. On the basis of these factual allegations, she asserted a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress for which she sought damages in the amount of $1 million. In her complaint the plaintiff also alleged that the sexual remarks were not protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments just because they were made by government workers. Is this action properly removable?

(a) Yes because the federal court had original jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim.
(b) No because State agencies cannot remove cases.
(c) Yes because the claim is in excess of $75,000 .
(d) No because the federal court did not have original jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim.

Answer 18

Issue: Well pleaded complaint rule The correct answer is (d). Under Section1441(a), a case is removable by the defendant if it falls within the court’s original jurisdiction. Since the parties here are not diverse, the only possible basis of original jurisdiction is Section 1331, i.e., the federal question provision. But under the well pleaded complaint rule, a federal question must appear within a well pleaded complaint, i.e., be an element of the plaintiff’s prima facie case and not appear only in the defendant’s answer or in the plaintiff’s complaint as a reply to an anticipated defense. Here, the constitutional question contained within the plaintiff’s complaint is not a part of her well pleaded complaint. Rather, it is only a reply to an anticipated defense. Thus, the claim is not removable and option (a) is incorrect. Option (b) is simply an incorrect state of law. Option (c) is wrong because the parties are not diverse and so Section 1332 is unavailable as a basis for removal.

Question 19

An Arizona citizen filed an action in New Mexico state court against the police department of Scottsdale, Arizona. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that she had been a victim of sexual harassment as the result of a barrage of sexual insults hurled at her by several of her supervisors. On the basis of these factual allegations, she asserted a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress for which she sought damages in the amount of $50,000 . The defendant seeks to remove the case on the ground that since sexual harassment is prohibited under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the plaintiff’s failure to assert this claim cannot deprive the federal court of its original jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim. Is the case properly removable?

(a) No because the parties are not citizens of different state.
(b) Yes because the plaintiff could and should have asserted a federal statutory claim.
(c) No because the plaintiff did not assert a statutory claim and federal law does not preempt the field.
(d) Yes because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.

Answer 19

Issue: Master of the complaint rule. The correct answer is (c). Since this is a nondiverse state law claim, the only possible basis for removing the case under Section 1441(a) is the presence of a federal question claim. But under the master of the complaint rule, the plaintiff can choose which claims she wishes to assert as long as federal law has not preempted the field that governs this claim. Here, federal law does not preempt the existence of state antidiscrimination law and so the master of the complaint rule applies. Thus, option (b) is incorrect. Option (a) is incorrect because the absence of diversity is not what prohibits removal here because the claim also does not meet the amount in controversy requirement, which would eliminate the possibility of a diversity-based removal even if the parties had been citizens of different states. Option (d) is incorrect because the defendant is not a citizen of the forum state since the suit was filed in New Mexico.

Question 20

A California citizen living on the border with Arizona filed an action in California state court against an Arizona citizen seeking an injunction to stop the construction of a weather tower on the defendant’s property. The plaintiff argued that the injunction was proper because the construction of the tower would constitute a nuisance under state tort law. The complaint also asserts an unrelated breach of contract claim seeking $75,000 in damages. Is the case properly removable?

(a) No because the claim does not exceed $75,000
(b) Yes because the federal court has original jurisdiction under Section 1331.
(c) No because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
(d) Yes because the federal court has original jurisdiction under Section 1332.

Answer 20

Issue: Jurisdictional amount in controversy The correct answer is (d). The parties are diverse and the claim arises solely under state law. Thus, option (b) is incorrect. The issue here is whether the plaintiff’s claim meets the amount in controversy requirement. The damages claim does not since it is not in excess of $75,000 . But there is also a request for equitable relief in the form of an injunction. In determining whether claims for equitable relief meet the amount in controversy requirement, the court attempts to place some monetary value on the right asserted by the plaintiff from the plaintiff’s perspective. Since a single plaintiff can aggregate the value of multiple claims against a single defendant to meet the amount in controversy requirement, that value of that right would only have to be one penny to meet the statutory requirement. Surely the asserted right is worth at least one cent. Thus, option (a) is incorrect. Option (c) is factually incorrect – the defendant is not a citizen of California, the forum state.

Question 21

A California citizen living on the border with Arizona filed an action in Arizona state court against an Arizona citizen alleging that the defendant had committed a breach of contract claim. The plaintiff sought $80,000 in damages. Is the case properly removable?

(a) Yes because the parties are of diverse citizenship.
(b) No because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
(c) Yes because the claim is in excess of $75,000
(d) No because the plaintiff is not a citizen of the forum state.

Answer 21

Issue: Removal by a forum defendant The correct answer is (b). The parties are diverse and the claim meets the jurisdictional amount requirement. Thus, the claim falls within the federal court’s original jurisdiction under Section 1332. But there is an exception to the general removal rule. Section 1441(b) provides that a diversity case cannot be removed by a defendant who is a citizen of the forum state. Thus, options (a) and (c) are incorrect. Option (d) is incorrect because this fact is irrelevant to removal.

Question 22

A California citizen living on the border with Arizona filed an action in Arizona state court against an Arizona citizen alleging that the defendant had violated his federally protected civil rights by refusing to rent him an apartment because of his race. The plaintiff sought $80,000 in damages. Is the case properly removable?

(a) Yes because the parties are of diverse citizenship.
(b) No because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
(c) Yes because the federal court has original jurisdiction over the claim.
(d) No because the plaintiff is not a citizen of the forum state.

Answer 22

Issue: Removal by a forum defendant. The correct answer is (c). While it is true that the defendant is a citizen of the forum state, the exception in Section 1441(b) barring removal by a defendant who is a citizen of the forum state only applies to diversity-based removal. Here, the basis of removal is Section 1331 because the plaintiff asserted a federal statutory claim. Thus, Section 1441(b) is inapposite and the claim is removable. Therefore, option (b) is incorrect. Option (a) is incorrect because the fact that the parties are diverse is irrelevant. Section 1441(b) does not apply when the court has original jurisdiction founded on a federal law claim, regardless of whether the parties also happen to be of diverse citizenship. Option (d) is incorrect because this fact is irrelevant to removal.

Question 23

A Virginia citizen brought a $100,000 tort claim against a West Virginia citizen in a Virginia state court. After the defendant removed the case, the plaintiff amended her complaint to reduce her request for damages to $75,000 . The plaintiff then filed a motion to remand. Should the court grant the motion?

(a) No because the defendant is not a citizen of the forum state.
(b) Yes because the claim is not in excess of $75,000 .
(c) No because the federal court has original jurisdiction over this claim.
(d) Yes because plaintiff is a citizen of the forum state.

Answer 23

Issue: Time of filing rule. The correct answer is (c). When the defendant removed the case, the claim was removable because it met both the diversity and amount in controversy requirements of Section1332 But the plaintiff did not want to be in federal court and so, after removal, she amended the complaint to state a claim that did not meet the amount in controversy (”in excess of” $75,000) requirement of Section:1332 The Supreme Court has held, in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity, that removability is gauged by the pleadings at time of the filing of the notice of removal and not thereafter. Thus, option (b) is incorrect and the plaintiff’s attempt to defeat federal jurisdiction by amending her complaint after the case was removed will be unavailing and the court will deny the motion to remand. Option (a) is incorrect because this fact is irrelevant to this problem. Option (d) is incorrect because this fact is irrelevant to this problem.

Question 24

A Virginia citizen brought a $100,000 tort claim against her former boss, a West Virginia citizen, in a Virginia state court. In that same suit, she also filed a $100,000 breach of contract claim against the local neighborhood grocery. Is the case properly removable?

(a) No because there is not complete diversity of citizenship between the adverse parties.
(b) Yes because her boss is not a citizen of the forum state.
(c) Yes because the breach of contract claim is for $100,000 .
(d) No because the grocery store is a citizen of the forum state.

Answer 24

Issue: Removal by multiple defendants. The correct answer is (a). Under Section 1441(a), a case involving multiple defendants is removable only if the claims against each defendant fall within the court’s original jurisdiction. Here the claim against the boss does meet the requirements of Section 1332. But the local grocery store defendant presumably is a citizen of the state in which it is located, which makes it nondiverse from the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit is not removable under Section1332 because there is not complete diversity between the adverse parties. The only way to avoid that result would be to conclude that the joinder of the grocery store was collusive, i.e., for the purpose of defeating diversity and, therefore, under Section 1359, the citizenship of this party could be ignored for jurisdictional purposes. But proving collusive joinder is a heavy burden to sustain. The defendant must convince the court to a legal certainty that the plaintiff could not recover anything against the allegedly fraudulently joined defendant. There are no facts here to suggest such a result. Consequently, the case is not removable because of the lack of complete diversity. Option (b) is incorrect because this fact is irrelevant to this problem. Option (c) is incorrect because this party is not diverse from the plaintiff so the fact that the amount in controversy requirement has been met is irrelevant. Option (d) is incorrect because Section 1441(b) does not come into play unless the case is otherwise removable under Section 1441(a).

Question 25

A citizen of Wyoming filed an action in Wyoming state court asserting a $300,000 breach of contract claim against another citizen of Wyoming. The defendant then filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff had infringed the defendant’s patent in violation of federal patent law. Is the case properly removable by the plaintiff?

(a) No because plaintiffs cannot remove cases.
(b) Yes because the federal court has original jurisdiction over the federal statutory claim.
(c) No because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
(d) Yes because the plaintiff is a citizen of the forum state.

Answer 25

Issue: Removal by plaintiff. The correct answer is (a). Section 1441(a) provides for removal “by the defendant or the defendants.” Here, the defendant could not remove the case because the plaintiff’s claim is a nondiverse state law claim. But the defendant’s counterclaim is a federal question claim under Section 1331 The question raised, then, is whether a case can be removed on the basis of a counterclaim that falls within the court’s original jurisdiction. But this, in turn, really depends upon whether a “plaintiff” can be considered a “defendant” for Section 1441(a) purposes when that “plaintiff” is the responding party to the claim serving as the basis for removal. The law is clear on this point. Thus, option (b) is incorrect. Option (c) is incorrect because since the case cannot be removed on the basis of a diverse cross-claim against a plaintiff, the fact that the responding party to that diverse claim is a citizen of the forum state is irrelevant. Option (d) is wrong because that fact is irrelevant to this problem.