Civ Pro Final_spring 2020 {coronavirus}
Personal Jxd, Subject Matter Jxd, Joinder, Venue, Erie
- 1.
A chef from State A sued a butcher from State B in State A federal court seeking $100,000 in compensation. The compensation was for tortious injuries caused in a car accident by the butcher's allegedly negligent driving while he was in State A. Apart from the single day of the car accident, the butcher has not spent any time in State A. The butcher does not wish to litigate in State A because he would have to close his butcher shop in order to travel to State A, thus losing all profits during that time. What course of action may the butcher's lawyer take?
- A.
File a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the butcher does not have minimum contacts with State A.
- B.
File a motion to transfer the case to State B federal court in order to cure the defect in personal jurisdiction.
- C.
File a motion to transfer venue due to the burden that would be imposed on the butcher if he were required to litigate in State A.
- D.
File a notice of removal in the federal district court of State B, where the butcher resides
Correct Answer
C. File a motion to transfer venue due to the burden that would be imposed on the butcher if he were required to litigate in State A.Explanation
The butcher's lawyer may file a motion to transfer venue due to the burden that would be imposed on the butcher if he were required to litigate in State A. This is because the butcher has not spent any time in State A apart from the single day of the car accident, and closing his butcher shop to travel to State A would result in losing all profits during that time. By transferring the case to State B, where the butcher resides, the burden on the butcher would be reduced and he would not have to close his business.Rate this question:
-
- 2.
An ecologist, a citizen of State A, brings suit against a cab driver, a citizen of State B, in the federal district court in State C. The lawsuit seeks $77,000 as compensation for tortious injuries caused by the cab driver's allegedly negligent driving while the ecologist and cab driver were in State D. The cab driver was served with process while on vacation in State C in accordance with State C law. What would be a valid argument for the cab driver's attorney to make?
- A.
The court should dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
- B.
The court should dismiss the lawsuit because State C is an improper venue.
- C.
The court should dismiss the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- D.
The court should transfer the lawsuit for the convenience of parties and witnesses to a state court in State D
Correct Answer
B. The court should dismiss the lawsuit because State C is an improper venue.Explanation
The cab driver's attorney could argue that State C is an improper venue for the lawsuit. Since the alleged tortious injuries occurred in State D, it would be more appropriate for the lawsuit to be filed in a state court in State D. The attorney could argue that it would be inconvenient for both parties and witnesses to have the case heard in State C, where the incident did not occur. Therefore, the attorney could request the court to dismiss the lawsuit based on improper venue.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
A bakery incorporated and headquartered in State A had a dispute with a mill incorporated and headquartered in State B over the quality of the flour the mill had delivered to the bakery. The bakery sued the mill in a federal court in State A for breach of contract, seeking $100,000 in damages. The contract between the bakery and the mill contained a clause designating State B courts as the sole venue for litigating disputes arising under the contract. Under precedent of the highest court in State A, forum-selection clauses are unenforceable as against public policy; under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, such clauses are enforceable. The mill has moved to transfer the case to a federal court in State B, citing the forum-selection clause in the parties' contract and asserting the facts that the flour was produced in State B and that the majority of likely witnesses are in State B. Is the court likely to grant the mill's motion?
- A.
Yes, because federal law governs transfers of venue, and it would be more convenient for the witnesses and parties to litigate the claim in State B.
- B.
Yes, because federal common law makes the forum-selection clause controlling
- C.
No, because the mill should have instead filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue.
- D.
No, because State A law treats forum-selection clauses as unenforceable
Correct Answer
A. Yes, because federal law governs transfers of venue, and it would be more convenient for the witnesses and parties to litigate the claim in State B.Explanation
The court is likely to grant the mill's motion because federal law governs transfers of venue and it would be more convenient for the witnesses and parties to litigate the claim in State B. The forum-selection clause in the contract designates State B courts as the sole venue for litigating disputes arising under the contract, and under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, such clauses are enforceable. Additionally, the fact that the flour was produced in State B and the majority of likely witnesses are in State B further supports the transfer of the case to a federal court in State B.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
An employee, a citizen of State A, sues the State B corporation for which he works in federal district court in State B. The employee works in the corporation's factory located in State B. His one-count complaint seeks damages of $125,000 for the corporation's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law that requires that higher wages be paid for overtime work. The corporation files an answer with a single counterclaim, alleging that the employee took $2,500 worth of the corporation's tools in violation of State A's wrongful conversion statute. The employee then files a motion to dismiss the corporation's counterclaim. Will Plaintiff's motion to dismiss be granted?
- A.
Yes, the counterclaim runs afoul of pleading requirements because it does not arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subjectmatter of the original action
- B.
No, because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow permissive counterclaims.
- C.
Yes, because the federal court does not have jurisdiction over the corporation's counterclaim
- D.
No, because there is supplemental jurisdiction over this properly pled permissive counterclaim.
Correct Answer
C. Yes, because the federal court does not have jurisdiction over the corporation's counterclaimExplanation
The correct answer is Yes, because the federal court does not have jurisdiction over the corporation's counterclaim. This is because the employee's complaint is based on a federal law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the federal court has jurisdiction over that claim. However, the corporation's counterclaim is based on a state law, State A's wrongful conversion statute, and the federal court does not have jurisdiction over that claim. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the counterclaim will likely be granted.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
A homeowner from State A sued a man from State B in a federal court in State B. The single-count complaint alleged breach of contract, asked for the remedy of specific performance, and demanded a jury under the Seventh Amendment. The man's lawyers argue that the homeowner is not entitled to a jury. How will the judge rule?
- A.
The homeowner is entitled to a jury because this is a civil case in which the plaintiff seeks purely legal remedies.
- B.
The homeowner is entitled to a jury because this is a civil case in which the plaintiff seeks both legal and equitable remedies.
- C.
The homeowner is not entitled to a jury because this is a civil case in which the plaintiff seeks purely equitable remedies
- D.
The homeowner is not entitled to a jury because the federal court's jurisdiction is based on diversity, and the Seventh Amendment applies only to federal question jurisdiction. B: The homeowner is entitled
Correct Answer
C. The homeowner is not entitled to a jury because this is a civil case in which the plaintiff seeks purely equitable remediesExplanation
The judge will rule that the homeowner is not entitled to a jury because this is a civil case in which the plaintiff seeks purely equitable remedies. The Seventh Amendment only guarantees the right to a jury trial in cases where the plaintiff seeks legal remedies, not equitable remedies. Since the homeowner is seeking specific performance, which is an equitable remedy, they do not have the right to a jury trial in this case. Additionally, the federal court's jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity, not federal question jurisdiction, so the Seventh Amendment does not apply.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
A man from State A sues a contractor from State B in a State B federal court. The single-count complaint alleged breach of contract, requested damages of $225,000, injunctive relief and demanded a jury. State B law provides a right to a jury in these circumstances. The contractor's lawyers argued that the man was not entitled to a jury. How is the judge most likely to rule?
- A.
There is no right to a jury because the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury for suits at common law. Injunctive relief is a remedy at equity, not law
- B.
There is a right to a jury because the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury for suits at common law. The plaintiff here is seeking damages, a legal remedy.
- C.
There is no right to a jury because the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury for suits at common law. The plaintiff here is seeking both damages and an injunction, an equitable remedy
- D.
There is a right to a jury because state law determines whether there is to be a jury in a federal case based on diversity jurisdiction.
Correct Answer
B. There is a right to a jury because the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury for suits at common law. The plaintiff here is seeking damages, a legal remedy.Explanation
The judge is most likely to rule that there is a right to a jury because the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury for suits at common law. The plaintiff in this case is seeking damages, which is considered a legal remedy.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
A teacher from State A filed a diversity action against a janitor from State B in State B federal court. The janitor was served with a summons from the court, but not a copy of the complaint. What should the janitor's attorney do?
- A.
File a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
- B.
File an answer, including an affirmative defense of insufficient service of process.
- C.
File a motion to dismiss for insufficient process.
- D.
File an answer, including an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.
Correct Answer
C. File a motion to dismiss for insufficient process.Explanation
The janitor's attorney should file a motion to dismiss for insufficient process. The janitor was served with a summons from the court, but not a copy of the complaint. Insufficient process refers to a defect in the manner in which the summons and complaint are served. Since the janitor did not receive a copy of the complaint, there is a procedural error in the service of process. Therefore, the attorney should file a motion to dismiss on these grounds.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
A tennis player from State A filed a diversity action in State B federal court against a reporter from State B. The tennis player alleged that the reporter failed to pay a debt due on a valid contract. The reporter filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, which the court denied. The reporter then filed an answer and argued in defense that the court is without personal jurisdiction and that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. What should the tennis player's attorneys do?
- A.
File a motion to strike both the reporter's lack of personal jurisdiction and the statute of limitations affirmative defenses on the ground that they were waived.
- B.
File a motion to strike only the reporter's affirmative defense for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground that it has been waived.
- C.
File a motion to strike only the statute of limitations affirmative defense on the ground that it has been waived.
- D.
Continue with the case without filing a motion to strike any of the reporter's affirmative defenses.
Correct Answer
B. File a motion to strike only the reporter's affirmative defense for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground that it has been waived.Explanation
The tennis player's attorneys should file a motion to strike only the reporter's affirmative defense for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground that it has been waived. This is because the reporter already filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, which the court denied. By doing so, the reporter has waived their right to challenge personal jurisdiction. However, the statute of limitations affirmative defense has not been waived, so it should not be challenged at this stage.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
A contractor filed a diversity action against a homeowner in federal court in State A. The contractor alleges that the homeowner failed to pay $150,000 due on a valid service contract to install a kitchen in the homeowner's home. At trial, however, the homeowner disputed the contract's validity, testifying before the jury that the contractor installed the kitchen as a gift and that exchanged emails referring to a “contract” had been in jest. The homeowner’s testimony also made clear that both parties were citizens of State A. Shortly into the homeowner's presentation of evidence, the contractor's attorney became concerned that the jury was overly sympathetic to the homeowner. What if any options does the contractor's attorney have now?
- A.
File a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- B.
File a motion for summary judgment
- C.
File a motion for judgment as a matter of law
- D.
The contractor’s attorney has no option but to continue with the trial.
Correct Answer
A. File a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.Explanation
The correct answer is to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This is because both parties are citizens of State A, which means there is no diversity of citizenship, a requirement for a diversity action in federal court. The contractor's attorney can argue that the case should be dismissed because the federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
A buyer of goods brought suit in federal court against a seller in the only federal district court in State A, where the seller resides. The buyer's suit was based on a state law claim arising in State B, the buyer's home state. The buyer bought the goods in State A and brought them back to State B. The seller moved to dismiss the buyer's complaint, claiming that the buyer failed to join a manufacturer, an indispensable party from State C. The court ordered that the manufacturer be joined, and the buyer then amended his complaint to add the manufacturer. In its answer to the buyer's amended complaint, the seller asserted lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue as defenses. The buyer filed a motion to strike the seller's defenses, claiming that the seller waived them. Should the court grant the buyer's motion to strike?
- A.
The court should strike both of the seller's defenses for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue because the seller waived these defenses.
- B.
The court should not grant the motion to strike because the seller did not waive either defense
- C.
The court should strike only the defense of improper venue as it was waived by the seller
- D.
The court should strike only the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction as it was waived by the seller.
Correct Answer
D. The court should strike only the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction as it was waived by the seller.Explanation
The correct answer is that the court should strike only the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction as it was waived by the seller. This is because the seller initially moved to dismiss the buyer's complaint, but then later amended their complaint to add the manufacturer as a party. By doing so, the seller submitted themselves to the personal jurisdiction of the court. However, the defense of improper venue was not waived by the seller, as it was asserted in their answer to the buyer's amended complaint.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
An investor from State A filed an action against a stockbroker from State B in federal court in State A. The stockbroker moved to dismiss the investor's suit against him, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. In support of his motion, the stockbroker submitted his own affidavit and the affidavits of three other persons, detailing the stockbroker's lack of contacts with State A. How should the district court respond to the stockbroker's pre-answer motion?
- A.
The court should refuse to accept the affidavits because pre-answer motions should be decided by referencing only the complaint and the facts which the court may take judicial notice.
- B.
The court should accept the affidavits and convert the stockbroker's motion into one for summary judgment
- C.
The court should deny the stockbroker's motion because, by failing to make a special appearance, the stockbroker consented to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him.
- D.
The court should accept the affidavits and grant the stockbroker's motion if it finds that the stock broker lacks minimum contacts with the state.
Correct Answer
D. The court should accept the affidavits and grant the stockbroker's motion if it finds that the stock broker lacks minimum contacts with the state.Explanation
The court should accept the affidavits and grant the stockbroker's motion if it finds that the stockbroker lacks minimum contacts with the state. This is because personal jurisdiction requires a defendant to have sufficient contacts with the forum state, and the stockbroker has submitted affidavits detailing his lack of contacts with State A. By accepting the affidavits, the court can consider this evidence in determining whether it has personal jurisdiction over the stockbroker.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
A shopper brought suit against a grocer in federal court for violation of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act. In its pre-answer motion, the grocer raised the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denies the motion. Thereafter, the grocer realized that it arguably had available to it the defenses of improper venue and failure to join a party. If the grocer now files an answer to the shopper's complaint raising these two additional defenses, should the court consider them?
- A.
Yes, the court should consider whether each defense is a valid defense to the case at bar.
- B.
The court should only consider whether failure to join a party is a valid defense to the case at bar, but it should refuse to consider the merits of the defense of improper venue.
- C.
No, the court should refuse to consider either of the grocer's additional defenses as being a valid defense to the case at bar
- D.
The court should only consider whether improper venue is a valid defense to the case at bar, but it should refuse to consider the merits of the defense of failure to join a party.
Correct Answer
B. The court should only consider whether failure to join a party is a valid defense to the case at bar, but it should refuse to consider the merits of the defense of improper venue.Explanation
The court should only consider whether failure to join a party is a valid defense to the case at bar, but it should refuse to consider the merits of the defense of improper venue. This is because the grocer raised the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in its pre-answer motion, and the court denied the motion. Once the court has denied a pre-answer motion, the defendant is generally precluded from raising additional defenses in the answer. Therefore, the court should not consider the defense of improper venue, but it should consider the defense of failure to join a party if it is raised in the answer.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
A jeweler brought suit against a designer in federal court in State A for patent infringement. The case went to a jury trial. After jury deliberations, the jury returned a verdict for the designer. The jeweler then made a timely motion for a new trial, which the district court granted. The designer then timely filed an appeal from the grant of the new trial motion. The jeweler then moved to dismiss the appeal. Should the appellate court grant the jeweler's motion to dismiss the appeal?
- A.
No, because but for the new trial order, final judgment would have been rendered for the designer and it is most efficient for the court of appeals to decide now whether the new trial order was an abuse of discretion, rather than have a new trial proceed to final judgment before any appeal can be taken.
- B.
Yes, because the designer is not aggrieved by the new trial order since he has not lost on any claim or defense.
- C.
Yes, because no final judgment exists and there is no other basis for appellate jurisdiction.
- D.
No, because both the jeweler and the designer have an interest in an appellate determination of whether the new trial order was an abuse of discretion and such a determination now will save both parties from an expenditure of time, money and effort that might be unnecessary.
Correct Answer
C. Yes, because no final judgment exists and there is no other basis for appellate jurisdiction.Explanation
The correct answer is Yes, because no final judgment exists and there is no other basis for appellate jurisdiction. In this case, the jury returned a verdict for the designer, but the district court granted a new trial motion by the jeweler. As a result, there is no final judgment in place for the designer to appeal from. Without a final judgment, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
A patient domiciled in State A sued a surgeon domiciled in State B in a federal court in State A, alleging claims for malpractice. The surgeon moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion and set discovery cutoff and trial dates. The surgeon has appealed the denial of the motion. Should the appellate court hear the merits of the surgeon's appeal?
- A.
No, because the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.
- B.
No, because the district court's decision on jurisdiction is final.
- C.
Yes, because a contrary appellate decision could terminate the action.
- D.
Yes, because the surgeon's personal-jurisdiction challenge raises a constitutional question.
Correct Answer
A. No, because the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.Explanation
The correct answer is "No, because the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal." In this scenario, the surgeon appealed the denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. However, appellate courts typically do not have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals, meaning appeals on issues that are not final decisions of the case. The denial of the motion to dismiss is not a final decision, as the case is still ongoing with discovery cutoff and trial dates set. Therefore, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear the merits of the surgeon's appeal at this stage.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
An art collector living in State A recently had a painting from his home appraised for $50,000.00. The art collector believes he is the rightful owner of the painting. However, each of his two cousins, a historian living in State B, and a teacher living in State C, also claim rightful ownership of the painting. The art collector would like to resolve, once and for all, who is the true owner of the painting. Neither the historian nor the teacher has ever traveled outside the state where each presently live. Which of the following is true regarding the art collector's ability to bring suit against the historian and teacher in federal court under the federal interpleader statute?
- A.
The art collector can bring an interpleader action against the historian living in State B only, and that court's decision will also be binding on the teacher
- B.
The art collector can bring an interpleader action against both the historian and teacher in State A federal court, even if State A's state court would not have personal jurisdiction over the historian or the teacher under State A's long-arm statute.
- C.
The art collector would have been able to bring an interpleader action in State A federal court against the historian or teacher if the painting had been appraised at more than $75,000.
- D.
The art collector can bring an interpleader action against the historian and the teacher in federal court in State A, but only if a State A state court would have had personal jurisdiction over the historian and teacher under State A's long-arm statute.
Correct Answer
B. The art collector can bring an interpleader action against both the historian and teacher in State A federal court, even if State A's state court would not have personal jurisdiction over the historian or the teacher under State A's long-arm statute.Explanation
The art collector can bring an interpleader action against both the historian and teacher in State A federal court, even if State A's state court would not have personal jurisdiction over the historian or the teacher under State A's long-arm statute. This is because the federal interpleader statute allows for the resolution of disputes involving multiple claimants to property, regardless of whether the state court would have jurisdiction over the parties involved. The federal court can assert jurisdiction over the case based on federal law, allowing the art collector to bring suit against both cousins in the same court.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
A man from State A, sues a woman and a driver, citizens of State B, in a two-count complaint filed in a federal district court in State B. The first count alleges that the woman breached a contract, for which the man is owed damages of $186,000. The second count alleges that the driver negligently struck his car and injured him, for which he is due $92,000. Which of the following motions has the greatest likelihood of success?
- A.
A motion to dismiss, filed by the driver, because there is not complete diversity, therefore the court lacks jurisdiction
- B.
A motion to sever the causes of action, filed by the driver, because she has been improperly joined as a defendant.
- C.
A motion to dismiss, filed by the woman, because she is not a required party.
- D.
A motion to dismiss, jointly filed by the woman and the driver, because the case would be better heard in state court.
Correct Answer
B. A motion to sever the causes of action, filed by the driver, because she has been improperly joined as a defendant.Explanation
The correct answer is a motion to sever the causes of action, filed by the driver, because she has been improperly joined as a defendant. This is because the complaint alleges two separate causes of action - breach of contract by the woman and negligence by the driver. The driver can argue that the claims against them are unrelated and should be heard separately, as joining them together would be improper. By filing a motion to sever, the driver can request that the court separate the claims into two separate cases, increasing the likelihood of success.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
A man from State A sues two mortgage brokers, who are citizens of State A, in federal district court in State A. The man's complaint alleges that the brokers failed to make disclosures that are required by an applicable federal lending law. The first broker then files an answer and a cross-claim against the second broker. The cross-claim alleges that the second broker underpaid him in violation of the federal labor laws. The first broker is seeking $150,000 in damages. The second broker files a motion to dismiss. Will the court grant the motion to dismiss?
- A.
Yes, because there is no diversity of citizenship since all parties are citizens of State A
- B.
No, because the court has jurisdiction over the cross-claim.
- C.
Yes, because the cross-claim does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action.
- D.
No, because the cross-claim satisfies the amount in controversy requirement.
Correct Answer
C. Yes, because the cross-claim does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action.Explanation
The court will grant the motion to dismiss because the cross-claim does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action. In this case, the original action is the man's complaint against the mortgage brokers for failing to make required disclosures under federal lending law. The cross-claim, on the other hand, alleges a violation of federal labor laws and involves a dispute between the two brokers. Since the cross-claim is not directly related to the original action, the court will dismiss it.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
A man from State A who has never left the state, sues a computer company in a jurisdictionally valid diversity lawsuit in State A federal court on a single breach of warranty claim. The computer company's affirmative defense is that the man's suit is barred by a final judgment entered in a class action lawsuit in federal court in State B in which the man had been a member of the class. Which of the following is true?
- A.
The man's lawsuit can go forward if he did not receive actual notice of the class action lawsuit.
- B.
The man's lawsuit can go forward if State B did not have personal jurisdiction over the man.
- C.
The man's lawsuit can go forward if he can establish that the class did not receive adequate representation in the class action lawsuit.
- D.
The man's lawsuit can go forward if he can establish that the class was not so numerous that joinder of all members was impracticable.
Correct Answer
C. The man's lawsuit can go forward if he can establish that the class did not receive adequate representation in the class action lawsuit.Explanation
The man's lawsuit can go forward if he can establish that the class did not receive adequate representation in the class action lawsuit. This is because if the class did not receive adequate representation, it could be argued that the final judgment in the class action lawsuit does not have binding effect on the man's individual claim. The man may argue that he was not adequately represented in the class action lawsuit and therefore should not be barred from pursuing his own claim in State A federal court.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
A man, a citizen of State A, is the class representative of a valid class action lawsuit in State B federal court against a State B corporation. The lawsuit claims that the corporation breached the terms of its sales contract by failing to notify consumers after the corporation became aware of certain problems with its product. The class representative and the corporation agreed to settle the case, which would bind all members of the class and provide each member with coupons worth $250 towards the future purchase of any product sold by the corporation. With a class of 100,000 members, the coupons' total value is $25 million, and attorneys' fees were set at 10% ($2.5 million). Which of the following is true?
- A.
The class representative and corporation may, but need not, seek court approval of the settlement agreement
- B.
The court must allow absent class members to opt out of the settlement agreement
- C.
Attorneys' fees must be approved by the court, and this award will be approved.
- D.
The court must hold a settlement hearing.
Correct Answer
D. The court must hold a settlement hearing.Explanation
The court must hold a settlement hearing because it is a class action lawsuit and the settlement agreement affects all members of the class. In such cases, the court needs to ensure that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for all class members. A settlement hearing allows the court to review the terms of the agreement, consider any objections from class members, and make a determination on whether to approve the settlement.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
A man, a citizen of State A, had a pacemaker surgery that was unsuccessful. The man properly brought a single-count products liability complaint in State A federal district court against the manufacturer of the pacemaker, a State B corporation, seeking $125,000 in damages. The district court has both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over the man's lawsuit against the corporation. However, the corporation believes that the surgeon who implanted the pacemaker committed malpractice. The state law that governs the claim allows joint and several liability, and State A does not have personal jurisdiction over the surgeon. Which of the following is true?
- A.
The corporation can move the court to dismiss the action for failure to join a necessary party, and the court will be required to dismiss the action.
- B.
The corporation can move the court to dismiss the action for failure to join a necessary party, and the court will have some discretion in determining whether to dismiss the action.
- C.
The corporation will not be able to successfully move the court to dismiss the action for failure to join a necessary party.
- D.
The corporation can move the court to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, because the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the surgeon.
Correct Answer
C. The corporation will not be able to successfully move the court to dismiss the action for failure to join a necessary party.Explanation
The corporation will not be able to successfully move the court to dismiss the action for failure to join a necessary party because the surgeon who implanted the pacemaker is not subject to personal jurisdiction in State A. Even though the state law allows joint and several liability, the court cannot force the man to join the surgeon as a defendant if the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the surgeon. Therefore, the corporation cannot use the failure to join a necessary party as a basis for dismissing the action.Rate this question:
-
- 21.
An athlete and a cyclist, both citizens of State A, jointly file a single lawsuit in State B federal court, against a bike manufacturer, a State B corporation. The complaint recites that the athlete was injured when the brakes of his Model C bicycle failed to deploy. The athlete seeks $125,000 in damages. The complaint also recites that the cyclist owns a Model D bicycle, and alleges that the manufacturer violated State A's fair trade act with misleading advertisements for its Model D bicycles. The complaint claims the advertisements state the Model D bike weighs only 15 pounds, but the cyclist's factory equipped Model D bike weighs more than 17 pounds. The cyclist seeks $98,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. All relevant actions pertaining to the lawsuit occurred in State A, and the cyclist has never been to State B. Which of the following is the manufacturer's best option?
- A.
File a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for misjoinder of parties
- B.
File a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, because there is not complete diversity of parties.
- C.
File a motion to sever and order plaintiffs to bring separate lawsuits.
- D.
File a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the cyclist.
Correct Answer
C. File a motion to sever and order plaintiffs to bring separate lawsuits.Explanation
The manufacturer's best option is to file a motion to sever and order plaintiffs to bring separate lawsuits. This is because the athlete and the cyclist have different claims against the manufacturer, and their lawsuits should be treated separately. Additionally, the athlete's claim for personal injury and the cyclist's claim for violation of the fair trade act are unrelated. By ordering the plaintiffs to bring separate lawsuits, the court can ensure that each claim is dealt with individually and avoid any confusion or prejudice that may arise from joining the two claims together.Rate this question:
-
- 22.
A cyclist, a citizen of State A, sued a State B corporation with its principal place of business in State C. The complaint, filed in State C federal court, asserted a single claim under State C products liability law, alleging that the cyclist suffered in excess of $85,000 in damage to person and property when the wheel on his bicycle detached in transit due to a defect in the bicycle's rear axle. The corporation purchased its rear axles from a State A manufacturer. Concerned that any defects in the rear axle may have been the fault of the manufacturer, the corporation wants the manufacturer to be part of the lawsuit. What is the best course for the corporation's attorneys to follow?
- A.
Move the court to order that the manufacturer be joined as a required party.
- B.
Serve a summons and complaint on the manufacturer as a third-party defendant
- C.
Join the manufacturer as a defendant under the federal interpleader statute.
- D.
Nothing. The manufacturer cannot be joined in this lawsuit because doing so would destroy the court's diversity jurisdiction.
Correct Answer
B. Serve a summons and complaint on the manufacturer as a third-party defendantExplanation
The best course for the corporation's attorneys to follow is to serve a summons and complaint on the manufacturer as a third-party defendant. This is because the corporation is concerned that any defects in the rear axle may have been the fault of the manufacturer, so they want to include them in the lawsuit. By serving them as a third-party defendant, the manufacturer can be brought into the case and held responsible if they are found to be at fault.Rate this question:
-
- 23.
A man, a citizen of State A, sues a car manufacturer, a State B corporation with its principal place of business in State C, in federal district court in State C. Injured in an automobile accident, the man asserts the novel tort theory that car manufacturers should be held strictly liable for losses sustained in accidents because cars are inherently dangerous products. A foreign corporation that manufactures cars that are sold in the United States does not think the car manufacturer is defending itself well in the lawsuit. The foreign corporation is concerned that an adverse ruling might generate tort doctrines that will leave it and the world's thirty other car manufacturers vulnerable to many lawsuits. What is the most promising strategy for the foreign corporation's lawyers to follow?
- A.
File a motion with the court in which the foreign corporation argues that it is an indispensable party and must be joined
- B.
File a motion with the court in which the foreign corporation seeks permissive intervention.
- C.
File a motion asking that the court certify a class representing all automobile manufacturers.
- D.
File a motion with the court in which the foreign corporation seeks permissive joinder.
Correct Answer
B. File a motion with the court in which the foreign corporation seeks permissive intervention.Explanation
The most promising strategy for the foreign corporation's lawyers to follow is to file a motion with the court seeking permissive intervention. This would allow the foreign corporation to join the lawsuit as a party and actively participate in the defense of the car manufacturer. By intervening in the lawsuit, the foreign corporation can protect its own interests and ensure that any adverse ruling does not create unfavorable tort doctrines that could leave it and other car manufacturers vulnerable to future lawsuits.Rate this question:
-
- 24.
A man, a citizen of State A, files suit in State B federal court as representative of a class against a State B corporation. Thereafter, he files a motion to certify the class consisting of approximately 250 persons from across the United States. The man claims that the corporation defrauded consumers under State B law by failing to refund taxes it collected after State B reduced its sales tax. The man seeks compensatory damages of $77,000, though no other member of the class is owed more than $100. The corporation urges the court not to certify the class. What is the judge likely to do?
- A.
Certify the class. There is diversity jurisdiction since the man's claim exceeds $75,000 and the man and the corporation have diverse citizenship
- B.
Not certify the class. The man's claims are not typical of the claims of the rest of the class.
- C.
Certify the class. Questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
- D.
Not certify the class. There is no jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act since the matter in controversy does not exceed $5,000,000.
Correct Answer
B. Not certify the class. The man's claims are not typical of the claims of the rest of the class.Explanation
The judge is likely to not certify the class because the man's claims are not typical of the claims of the rest of the class. In order to certify a class action, the claims of the representative plaintiff must be typical of the claims of the other class members. Since the man is seeking compensatory damages of $77,000 while no other member of the class is owed more than $100, his claim is not representative of the rest of the class.Rate this question:
-
- 25.
A farmer, a citizen of State A, sues a rancher, a citizen of State B, in federal district court in State B. The farmer asks the court to quiet title to certain property in State B on which the rancher currently resides. The rancher believes the property was bequeathed to her, but the rancher knows that a cousin of hers – a man who is a citizen of State A – believes that the property belongs to him. The rancher files a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party. Which of the following is true?
- A.
The court must dismiss the action. The man is an indispensable party, and the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the man's claim.
- B.
The court may retain the case. Though the man is an indispensable party and the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the man's claim, the court may retain the case without the man's joining the lawsuit if the court determines in equity and good conscience that the action should proceed.
- C.
The court may retain the case. The man is not an indispensable party.
- D.
The court may retain the case. Although the man is an indispensable party, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his claim and therefore can order that he be joined as a party.
Correct Answer
B. The court may retain the case. Though the man is an indispensable party and the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the man's claim, the court may retain the case without the man's joining the lawsuit if the court determines in equity and good conscience that the action should proceed.Explanation
The court may retain the case because even though the man is an indispensable party and the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over his claim, the court has the discretion to determine whether the action should proceed in equity and good conscience. In other words, the court can decide if it is fair and just to continue the case without the man joining the lawsuit.Rate this question:
-
- 26.
A car owner sued the manufacturer of the car she owned and the dealer that serviced her car in federal district court. She sued the manufacturer for negligent design of the exhaust system and airbag deployment system because the airbags did not deploy under circumstances when they should have. The car owner also sued the servicing dealer for negligence and incompetence in its repeated failures to fix the car's ignition, which frequently failed to turn on the car. The manufacturer and dealer then moved for dismissal or severance on the ground of misjoinder. How should the court rule on the defendant's motion to dismiss or sever?
- A.
The court should dismiss the lawsuit because misjoinder is a ground to dismiss and the manufacturer and dealer are misjoined.
- B.
The court should deny the motion to dismiss, sever the claims against the manufacturer from the claim against the dealer, and determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over each of the severed suits
- C.
The court should deny both the motion to dismiss and the motion to sever because misjoinder is not a ground to dismiss and the manufacturer and dealer are not misjoined
- D.
The court should deny both the motion to dismiss and the motion to sever because misjoinder is not a ground to dismiss and the manufacturer and dealer are not misjoined
Correct Answer
B. The court should deny the motion to dismiss, sever the claims against the manufacturer from the claim against the dealer, and determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over each of the severed suitsExplanation
The court should deny the motion to dismiss, sever the claims against the manufacturer from the claim against the dealer, and determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over each of the severed suits. This is because misjoinder is not a ground to dismiss and the manufacturer and dealer are not misjoined. The court should separate the claims against the manufacturer and the dealer to address them individually and determine if the court has jurisdiction over each case.Rate this question:
-
- 27.
A group of foreign-born employees, now living in State A, brought suit against their corporate employer, from State B, in federal court alleging that the employer discriminated against the employees on the basis of their national origin and had denied them promotions and pay raises at the company. The employees sought damages in the amount of $100,000 to remedy the harms they believed they had suffered. The employer made a motion to join additional parties, arguing that the American-born employees of the same origin should be joined to the case because their interests will be impaired if they are left out. Some of the American-born employees that the employer wishes to join to the case are from State B. The employer insists that if the American-born employees cannot be added, then the foreign-born employees' lawsuit must be dismissed. If the court finds excluding the State B American-born employees from the suit would impair those American-born employees interests, must the court dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit?
- A.
Yes. The court must dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit because a court must dismiss claims when necessary parties cannot be added
- B.
No. If the court determines that excluding the State B American-born employees would only impair and not prejudice the Americanborn employees then the court does not need to dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit.
- C.
Yes. The court must dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit because courts must dismiss suits when the exclusion of a potential party to the suit would impair that party's interest.
- D.
No. The court does not need to dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit because courts do not need to dismiss suits even when indispensable parties cannot be joined.
Correct Answer
B. No. If the court determines that excluding the State B American-born employees would only impair and not prejudice the Americanborn employees then the court does not need to dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit.Explanation
The correct answer is No. If the court determines that excluding the State B American-born employees would only impair and not prejudice the American-born employees, then the court does not need to dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit. This is because the court does not need to dismiss suits even when indispensable parties cannot be joined.Rate this question:
-
- 28.
A record label brought suit against ten disc jockeys in a single suit in federal court alleging that, in violation of federal law, the disc jockeys "pirated" music that the record label sought to distribute in exchange for payment. The disc jockeys did not know one another and did not communicate with one another when they engaged in the alleged piracy over a 6-month period. Each took the position that he or she was a first-time violator. The disc jockeys moved to sever the record label's suit for improper joinder, as well as to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. In support of their motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the disc jockeys argued for an interpretation of the relevant federal law that excepted first-time violators from liability. Should the court grant the disc jockeys' motion to sever for improper joinder?
- A.
No. The court should deny the motion to sever because the record label's claim amongst the disc jockeys worked in tandem and therefore the record label's claim arises out of the same transaction.
- B.
Yes. The court should grant the motion to sever because the record label failed to assert, against the disc jockeys, a right to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or a series of transactions or occurrences
- C.
Yes. The court should grant the motion to sever because no question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action
- D.
The court should postpone ruling on the motion to sever, then deny it if it holds that the complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted
Correct Answer
B. Yes. The court should grant the motion to sever because the record label failed to assert, against the disc jockeys, a right to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or a series of transactions or occurrencesExplanation
The correct answer is that the court should grant the motion to sever because the record label failed to assert, against the disc jockeys, a right to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or a series of transactions or occurrences. This means that the disc jockeys did not engage in the alleged piracy together or have any connection to each other, and therefore their cases should be considered separately.Rate this question:
-
- 29.
In federal court, a Hispanic accountant, currently employed by a corporation, brought a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of a class of Hispanic employees at the corporation. The Hispanic accountant claimed that the employees had been victimized by discriminatory policies and practices of the corporation, in both hiring and promotion. On her own behalf and on behalf of the proposed class, the Hispanic accountant sought back pay, money damages, and injunctive relief prohibiting the corporation from continuing its discriminatory ways and requiring affirmative steps to remedy past discrimination. The potential class amounted to 500 people. The Hispanic accountant moved the court to "certify" the class. In deciding whether the prerequisites for class actions have been met, which of the following should most concern the court?
- A.
Whether the class was so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable
- B.
Whether there were questions of law or fact common to the class
- C.
Whether the defenses of the company to the representative female Hispanic's claims were typical of the defenses of the company to the claims of the class members.
- D.
Whether there would be conflicts-of-interest among the class members that would undermine the adequacy of the representation that the named Hispanic accountant and her attorney could provide.
Correct Answer
D. Whether there would be conflicts-of-interest among the class members that would undermine the adequacy of the representation that the named Hispanic accountant and her attorney could provide.Explanation
The court should be most concerned about whether there would be conflicts-of-interest among the class members that would undermine the adequacy of the representation that the named Hispanic accountant and her attorney could provide. This is because a class action lawsuit requires the representative plaintiff to adequately represent the interests of all class members. If there are conflicts-of-interest among the class members, it could undermine the fairness and effectiveness of the representation, potentially leading to an unfair outcome for some members of the class.Rate this question:
-
- 30.
A consumer from State A filed a $100,000 products liability action in federal court against a manufacturer incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. The consumer claimed that a flaw in the manufacturer's product had resulted in severe injuries to the consumer. In its answer, the manufacturer asserted a third-party complaint against the product designer, also incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. Believing that the consumer had sued the wrong defendant, the manufacturer claimed both that the designer was solely responsible for the flaw that had led to the consumer's injuries and that the manufacturer was not at fault. The designer is aware that the manufacturer did not follow all of the designer's specifications when making the product. Which of the following arguments is most likely to achieve the designer's goal of dismissal of the third-party complaint?
- A.
The court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint, because both the manufacturer and the designer are citizens of State B.
- B.
The manufacturer failed to obtain the court's leave to file the third-party complaint
- C.
The manufacturer's failure to follow the designer's specifications caused the flaw that resulted in the consumer's injuries.
- D.
The manufacturer's third-party complaint failed to state a proper third-party claim.
Correct Answer
D. The manufacturer's third-party complaint failed to state a proper third-party claim.Explanation
The designer's best argument for dismissal of the third-party complaint is that the manufacturer's complaint failed to state a proper third-party claim. This means that the manufacturer did not provide sufficient evidence or legal grounds to support their claim against the designer. By pointing out this failure, the designer can argue that the complaint should be dismissed as it does not meet the necessary requirements for a valid claim.Rate this question:
-
- 31.
A mail clerk domiciled in State A slipped and fell on ice that had formed near the loading dock of the building in State B where the clerk's State B employer leased space for its headquarters. The building was owned and operated by a State C corporation. As a result of the fall, the clerk was injured and the employer's expensive computer he was carrying was badly damaged. The clerk sued the building owner for negligence in a federal district court in State B, seeking $100,000 in personal-injury damages. The employer has filed a timely motion to intervene, asserting an $80,000 negligence claim against the building owner for the damage to its computer. Is the court likely to grant the employer's motion to intervene?
- A.
No, because although the employer has an interest in the clerk's action, that interest is not likely to be impaired in the employer's absence
- B.
No, because the clerk chose not to join the employer as a co-plaintiff in his action.
- C.
Yes, because the employer is an indispensable party
- D.
Yes, because the employer's claim shares common questions of law and fact with the clerk's action.
Correct Answer
D. Yes, because the employer's claim shares common questions of law and fact with the clerk's action.Explanation
The court is likely to grant the employer's motion to intervene because the employer's claim shares common questions of law and fact with the clerk's action. This means that both the employer and the clerk have similar legal and factual issues that need to be resolved in order to determine liability for the damages. Allowing the employer to intervene will ensure that all relevant parties are present and that the court can make a comprehensive decision on the case.Rate this question:
-
- 32.
A gardener, a citizen of State A, sues a homeowner, a citizen of State B, in a State A federal court seeking damages for breach of contract. It would not violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution for a State A federal court to hear the case. However, State A's long-arm statute would not grant a State A state court jurisdiction over the homeowner. Can the State A federal court exert personal jurisdiction over the homeowner?
- A.
Yes. The federal court has personal jurisdiction over the homeowner. State A's long-arm statute is irrelevant because the gardener's lawsuit was filed in federal court.
- B.
No. The federal court does not have personal jurisdiction over the homeowner. State A's long-arm statute is applicable under Erie's constitutional analysis.
- C.
No. The federal court does not have personal jurisdiction over the homeowner. State A's long-arm statute is applicable on account of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- D.
Yes. The federal court may have jurisdiction if the homeowner is served not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued.
Correct Answer
C. No. The federal court does not have personal jurisdiction over the homeowner. State A's long-arm statute is applicable on account of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. -
- 33.
A garbage man, a citizen of State A, sues a truck driver, a citizen of State B, in federal court in State B. The garbage man is seeking $125,000 as compensation for injuries he suffered in a car accident that occurred in State A. State B law does not permit a court to order plaintiffs to submit to examination by physicians, but State A law does. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize courts to order a physical examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner. The truck driver files a motion with the court, challenging the garbage man's claimed injuries and requests that the garbage man be ordered to submit to an examination by a physician. Should the court grant the truck driver's motion?
- A.
Yes. The court should grant the truck driver's motion, but only if State B choice-of-law rules indicate that State A tort law applies in this case.
- B.
No. The court should deny the truck driver's motion. State B law applies because this is a diversity suit and the federal court is situated in State B.
- C.
Yes. The court should grant the truck driver's motion because the federal rule applies.
- D.
No. The court should deny the truck driver's motion. This is a substantive issue and therefore state law applies.
Correct Answer
C. Yes. The court should grant the truck driver's motion because the federal rule applies.Explanation
The court should grant the truck driver's motion because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize courts to order a physical examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner. This rule applies regardless of the choice-of-law rules or the location of the federal court. State B law not permitting a court to order plaintiffs to submit to examination by physicians is irrelevant in this case as the federal rule takes precedence.Rate this question:
-
- 34.
A geologist filed a diversity action against a farmer in federal court in State A. The geologist is seeking recovery for the damage to her very expensive sports car and the broken arm that she suffered as a result of a car crash with the farmer. At trial, after two days of testimony, the jury returned a verdict for the geologist and awarded her $75,000 in compensatory damages. Under federal law, a judge who believes compensatory damages are so excessive as to "shock the conscience" can offer the plaintiff the choice between a new trial or remittitur of the excessive damages. Under substantive State A law, the court can reduce a jury's awards by way of remittitur if it thinks damages are "excessive." Which of the following is true?
- A.
The farmer should submit a motion for remittitur, on the ground that the jury's damage award "shocks the conscience."
- B.
The farmer should move for remittitur or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the ground that the jury's damage award "shocks the conscience."
- C.
The farmer should submit a motion for remittitur, on the ground that the jury's damage award was "excessive."
- D.
The farmer should move for remittitur or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the ground that the jury's damage award was "excessive."
Correct Answer
D. The farmer should move for remittitur or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the ground that the jury's damage award was "excessive."Explanation
The correct answer is that the farmer should move for remittitur or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the ground that the jury's damage award was "excessive." This is because under federal law, a judge can offer the plaintiff the choice between a new trial or remittitur if the compensatory damages are deemed excessive. Additionally, under substantive State A law, the court can reduce a jury's awards by way of remittitur if it thinks damages are "excessive." Therefore, the farmer has the option to request a new trial or a reduction in the damages awarded.Rate this question:
-
- 35.
A patient, a citizen of State A, brings a tort claim in State A federal court based on diversity against a cardiologist, located in State B. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that "[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court." State A does not have the same provision. Tort claims have a three-year statute of limitations under State A law, and a State A statute provides that statutes of limitations are tolled when service of process is made on the defendant. The patient's tort claim arose on January 5, 2005. The patient filed his lawsuit with the court on January 4, 2008, but the cardiologist was not served until January 15, 2008. Which of the following is true?
- A.
The patient's claim will be time-barred because it did not comply with State A's tolling statute.
- B.
The patient's claim is not time-barred because the action was "commenced" on January 4, 2008.
- C.
The patient's claim will be time-barred because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not applicable in diversity actions.
- D.
The patient's claim is not time-barred; because the patient's lawsuit is timely under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Correct Answer
A. The patient's claim will be time-barred because it did not comply with State A's tolling statute.Explanation
The patient's claim will be time-barred because it did not comply with State A's tolling statute. The patient filed the lawsuit on January 4, 2008, but the cardiologist was not served until January 15, 2008. State A's tolling statute provides that the statute of limitations is tolled when service of process is made on the defendant. Since the cardiologist was not served until after the statute of limitations had expired on January 5, 2008, the patient's claim would be time-barred and cannot proceed.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 22, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 02, 2020Quiz Created by
K_monck
Back to top