LA BAR EXAM NON-CODE TOPIC 4 FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE: MULTIPLE CHOICE SHUFFLE Flashcards
- The plaintiff and the defendant are both citizens of Nebraska. The plaintiff wished to sue the defendant in a federal court on a $100,000 claim. For this reason, and only this reason, she moved permanently to low and filed suit in a federal court there, with jurisdiction being based on diversity of citizenship. A few days after being properly served, the defendant, after accepting a job offer from a company based in Iowa, moved permanently to lowa.
For purposes of the plaintiff’s case, what are the citizenships of the parties?
(a) Both the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of Iowa.
(b) The defendant is a citizen of Nebraska, and the plaintiff is a citizen of Iowa.
(c) The defendant is a citizen of Iowa, and the plaintiff is a citizen of Nebraska.
(d) Both the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of Nebraska.
- (b)
The defendant is a citizen of Nebraska, and the plaintiff is a citizen of Iowa. Diversity is determined at the time the action is filed, not when the cause of action accrues or after the action commences. Also, the plaintiff’s motive for moving to Iowa is irrelevant, as long as the change of citizenship is genuine; i.e., she intends to remain there. The defendant’s motive is also irrelevant. Even though he moved to Iowa for reasons unrelated to the case and his move appears to be enough to change his citizenship, citizenship is still determined at the time the action is filed, and thus he is still considered to be a citizen of Nebraska for purposes of this lawsuit.
- Acitizen of Wisconsin asserted a state law claim of $80,000 against a citizen of Illinois in the federal district court. The Illinois citizen has a state law claim against another citizen of Illinois for $90,000 arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original complaint. As a result, the Illinois citizen brought a third-party action against that person. After learning of the third-party action, the Wisconsin citizen decided to bring his own state law claim against that person for $90,000, and amends his original complaint accordingly.
Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim in the amended complaint?
(a) No, because the amount in controversy is insufficient.
(b) No, because there is no diversity of citizenship.
(c) Yes, because the requirements of diversity jurisdiction have been met.
(d) Yes, because the court has supplemental jurisdiction.
- (c)
The court has subject matter jurisdiction because the requirements of diversity jurisdiction have been met. A court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against parties added as a third party. [28 U.S.C. §1367(b)] Thus, for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a claim by a plaintiff, the prerequisites for diversity jurisdiction must be met. Here, the Wisconsin citizen and the defendant in the amended complaint are residents of different states, and the Wisconsin citizen claims damages of more than $75,000. Thus, diversity jurisdiction exists, and the court would have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. (A) and (B) are factually incorrect; the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, and diversity of citizenship exists. (D) is incorrect because a court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims by a plaintiff in a diversity action.
- On January 15, the plaintiff sued his doctor and his surgeon in Nevada state court for medical malpractice.
All acts of malpractice took place in Nevada. The plaintiff and the surgeon are citizens of Nevada; the doctor is a citizen of Montana. Fifteen months later, it was learned after extensive discovery that the surgeon was only peripherally involved in the plaintiff’s treatment and was in no way negligent, so the plaintiff dismissed his cause of action against the surgeon. Two weeks later, the doctor seeks to remove the case against him to federal court in Nevada, alleging diversity jurisdiction.
May he do so?
(a) Yes, because removal was sought within 30 days of the date that the doctor first learned that the case had become removable.
(b) Yes, because removal was sought within one year of the case becoming removable.
(c) No, removal may not take place more than one year after the action was commenced.
(d) No, because a defendant may not seek removal if the cause of action accrued in the forum state.
- (c)
The doctor may not remove the case. If a diversity action is not initially removable but later becomes removable (as by dismissal of a nondiverse defendant), it may not be removed more than one year after it was commenced in state court. (A) is incorrect. In all cases, the defendant has 30 days after a case becomes removable to file a notice of removal; however, for diversity cases only, removal must also occur within one year from the date the case is commenced. (B) is incorrect. The one-year limit begins when the action is commenced, not when the case first became removable. (D) is incorrect. There is no such rule.
- A foreign correspondent, a United States citizen, has lived in England for many years. Prior to living in England, he resided in Wisconsin. However, he no longer maintains any home in the United States and has few contacts there. The reporter falsely wrote that the plaintiff, a citizen of low, stole a Greek artifact from a foreign museum. The plaintiff sued the reporter for libel in federal court in Iowa, one of the states where the false story was published. The plaintiff claimed damages of $500,000. The reporter was properly served while on a brief trip to lowa. The reporter moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Will the reporter’s motion be granted?
(a) No, because the reporter is considered to be a citizen of Wisconsin.
(b) No, because the reporter committed a tort in low and is subject to jurisdiction in Iowa.
(c) Yes, because the reporter is not a citizen of any state, and he is not an alien.
(d) Yes, unless the reporter is employed by a newspaper based in the United States.
- (c)
The reporter’s motion will be granted. A United States citizen domiciled abroad is not a citizen of any state and is not an alien, and thus cannot be sued on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The reporter appears not to be a citizen of any state. (A) is incorrect. A person’s domicile may change to that of a foreign country. (B) is incorrect. Although the reporter may be subject to jurisdiction in state court in Iowa (assuming statutory authorization of jurisdiction plus constitutionality of the exercise of such jurisdiction), jurisdiction in federal court would not be authorized by statute because the requirements for diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction are not met. (D) is incorrect. The employer may be subject to jurisdiction in federal court; however, this does nothing to gain jurisdiction over an employee.
- A citizen of Indiana was killed in a car accident caused by a motorist who was also a citizen of Indiana. A citizen of Ohio is executor of the deceased’s estate. He files a complaint in federal court in Indiana alleging wrongful death. The motorist files a motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
How should the court rule?
(a) The court should grant the motion because diversity of citizenship does not exist.
(b) The court should grant the motion, because probate matters are within the sole jurisdiction of the state courts.
(c) The court should deny the motion, because diversity of citizenship exists.
(d) The court should deny the motion, because a plaintiff is entitled to choose his forum.
- (a)
The court should grant the motion because diversity of citizenship does not exist. Although the general rule is that diversity is determined as of the time the action is commenced, the diversity statute provides that the legal representative of the estate of a decedent is deemed a citizen of the same state as the decedent. [28 U.S.C. $1332(c)(2)] Here, then, there is no diversity because the deceased and the motorist were from the same state. (C) is thus incorrect. (B) is incorrect. Although probate matters are not tried in federal court, this is an action for wrongful death, which is not a probate matter. (D) is incorrect because it is too broad a statement. A plaintiff may choose the forum, but that forum still must be able to validly assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
- The plaintiff, a citizen of Colorado, sued the defendant, a citizen of Utah, alleging that the defendant violated the Civil Rights Act by refusing to serve him in her restaurant. The plaintiff brought his suit in state court in Utah, asking damages of $100,000. The defendant seeks to remove the case to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, and the plaintiff opposes removal.
Who will prevail?
(a) The plaintiff, because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.
(b) The plaintiff, because the state court has concurrent jurisdiction, making removal improper.
(c) The defendant, because diversity of citizenship exists and the amount in controversy is more than
$75,000.
(d) The defendant, because a federal question has been presented.
- (d)
The defendant will prevail. The case may be removed because the federal court has federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s action, because it is based on the Civil Rights Act. (A) is incorrect. The limitation on removal by defendants who are citizens of the state in whose court the action was brought applies only to diversity actions. (C) is incorrect. Although diversity of citizenship appears to be present in this action, it is only incidental. The removal statute provides that “any civil action of which the district courts have [federal question jurisdiction] shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.” [28 U.S.C. §1441(6)] When both a federal question and diversity exist, the federal question normally “trumps” diversity. In any event, if this case were to be solely based on diversity, defendant could not remove because she is a citizen of the forum state. (B) is incorrect because, although a state court may have concurrent jurisdiction, this jurisdiction, by itself, would not prevent removal.
- A resident of Lake Charles, LA (located in the Western District of Louisiana) brought a diversity action against a resident of Orange, TX (located in the Eastern District of Texas). The cause of action arose in Orange. The defendant commutes daily from his home in Orange to his office in Lake Charles and would find it much more convenient to litigate the action there than in Beaumont, where the appropriate court for the Eastern District of Texas is located. The plaintiff would also find it more convenient to litigate in Lake Charles, but will go to Beaumont if necessary.
May the action be litigated in Lake Charles?
(a) No, because venue is not proper there.
(b) No, if process is served in Louisiana.
(c) Yes, because a plaintiff is entitled to choose venue.
(d) Yes, if the defendant waives proper venue.
- (d)
The action may be litigated in Lake Charles because improper venue may be waived. The defendant may inform the plaintiff that he will waive any objection to venue in Lake Charles. Given that the plaintiff has indicated a willingness to bring the action in Beaumont if necessary, the defendant would seem not to gain any advantage by insisting on proper venue at great inconvenience to him, unless other factors make Beaumont a preferable venue. (A) is incorrect because although Lake Charles is not a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. §1391, improper venue may be waived. (B) is incorrect because the place where process is served has no effect on venue. (C) is incorrect because a defendant may object to improper venue.
- The plaintiff, a citizen of Louisiana, filed suit against the defendant, also a citizen of Louisi. + in federal district court, alleging that the defendant had failed to perform a contract to provide the pets of 1,000
“freshly skinned” baby alligators. The defendant claimed that a recently enacted federal statute made skinning baby alligators illegal.
Does the federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction?
(a) No, because no federal question has been presented and the requirements of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction have not been met.
(b) No, unless the plaintiff moves to another state after filing suit.
(c) Yes, because a federal statute has been enacted, thereby presenting a federal question.
(d) Yes, if the value of 1,000 baby alligator skins exceeds $75,000.
- (a)
The federal district court does not have diversity jurisdiction because both parties are citizens of Louisiana. The court does not have federal question jurisdiction because the recently enacted federal statute arises only in anticipation of the defendant’s defense. This is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. (Rationale: If, for example, the defendant relied on some other defense or defaulted instead of defending on the basis of the new federal statute, no federal question would ever be involved in the case. [See Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)]) (B) is incorrect because citizenship of the parties is determined at the time suit is filed. Assuming the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement could be met, the plaintiff would have had to move prior to filing suit to be able to invoke diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. (C) is incorrect because a federal question has not been presented, as described above. (D) is incorrect because, even if the plaintiff’s claim exceeds $75,000, diversity of citizenship would not exist because the plaintiff and defendant are both citizens of Louisiana.
- Plaintiff is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in New Jersey. Defendant is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Ohio. As per a contract between the parties, the plaintiff delivered 100,000 widgets, worth $0.76 each, to one of the defendant’s smaller plants in New Jersey.
Defendant failed to pay for them. Plaintiff sued defendant in the Ohio Southern District Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. After trial, a judgment was entered for the plaintiff. It is then learned that the plaintiff is also incorporated in Ohio, a fact that plaintiff forgot when it filed suit. Defendant appeals, alleging that the court lacked jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues that its status was a matter of public record and that the defendant may not now raise the issue.
The court of appeals should:
(a) Dismiss the appeal because the defendant failed to object before trial.
(b) Dismiss the appeal because the Ohio Southern District Court had personal jurisdiction over all parties.
(c) Grant the appeal because the Ohio Southern District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
(d) Grant the appeal because the cause of action did not arise out of the defendant’s conduct in Ohio.
- (c)
The court of appeals should rule that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because diversity of citizenship was not present. Lack of subiect matter jurisdiction is a nonwaivable defense that may be raised for the first time even on appeal.
(A) is incorrect because the lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. (B) is incorrect. Subject matter jurisdiction should not be confused with personal jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s power over a particular type of case, whereas personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s power over a particular party. (D) is incorrect. The fact that the cause of action did not arise in Ohio is not relevant under the facts. Here, the defendant was a citizen of Ohio, and a court in Ohio would have personal jurisdiction over the defendant for all claims against it. (This is called “general jurisdiction.”)
- The plaintiff, a cracklins salesman from Erath, Louisiana, sued the defendant, a citizen of Gulfport, Mississippi, in federal court for extensive injuries that the plaintiff received from a fight with the defendant in an elevator. Plaintiff’s medical bills totaled $15,000, and he also alleges $70,000 in damages for pain and suffering. Defendant has a claim against the plaintiff for a breach of contract, in that one of the plaintiff’s deliveries turned out to be spoiled cracklins. Defendant alleges $76,000 in damages.
May the defendant have his claim heard as a counterclaim in the plaintiff’s action?
(a) Yes, because the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.
(b) Yes, because the defendant may bring the claim as a permissive counterclaim.
(c) No, because the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.
(d) No, because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying claim.
- (b)
Under Federal Rule 13(b), a party may plead a counterclaim against an opposing party. Note, however, that the court would have discretion under Rule 42 to sever the counterclaim from the underlying action. (A) and (C) are incorrect. Here, the federal court would not need supplemental jurisdiction, as the counterclaim meets the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.
(D) is incorrect. The court has diversity jurisdiction over the underlying action, given that the plaintiff has $85,000 of claims against a single defendant and all plaintiffs are of diverse citizenships from all defendants.
- A resident of California recently purchased a new home for $275,000 from a developer, a limited partnership.
Shortly after the buyer moved in, the house slid into a canyon and was no longer habitable.
The buyer sued the developer in federal court. The developer’s organizational structure consists of two general partners, who are citizens of Georgia, and four limited partners, who are all citizens of California. The developer moves to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Will the developer’s motion be granted?
(a) No, because the citizenships of the limited partners are not considered when determining whether diversity exists.
(b) No, because the general partners and limited partners are of diverse citizenships.
(c) Yes, because the buyer and the limited partners share California citizenship.
(d) Yes, because actions regarding real estate must be brought exclusively in state court.
- (c)
The developer’s motion will be granted because diversity of citizenship is not present. In determining the citizenship of a limited partnership, the court will consider the citizenship of all partners, both limited and general. Because the buyer and the four limited partners are citizens of California, adequate diversity does not exist. [See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494
U.S. 185 (1990)] (A) is incorrect because the citizenships of all partners, limited and general, are considered to determine if diversity exists. (B) is incorrect because diversity requires that all plaintiffs be of diverse citizenships from all defendants.
There is no requirement that defendants be of diverse citizenships. (D) is incorrect because there is no such rule.
- A resident of Pennsylvania sued a resident of Delaware in federal court in Delaware for breach of contract.
Jurisdiction was based on diversity. The plaintiff alleged that the contract was entered into in Virginia and was to be performed in Maryland. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant failed to perform.
The court should apply:
(a) The law that the Maryland state court would apply.
(b) The law that the Virginia state court would apply.
(c) The law that the Delaware state court would apply.
(d) The law that the federal court believes most logically applies.
- (c)
The court should apply the law that the Delaware state court would apply. In a diversity case, the federal court applies the law that would be applied by the courts of the state in which the federal court is located. This includes the state’s conflict of laws rules. In the instant case, the federal court sitting in Delaware may well, as an end result, apply the law of Maryland or Virginia, but if it does so, it will be because Delaware’s conflict of laws rules require such a result. (A) and (B) are incorrect because the answers imply that the federal court will apply Maryland’s or Virginia’s conflict of laws rules, which is incorrect. (D) is incorrect because the federal court cannot ignore the law the state would apply even though it finds that law to be unsatisfactory.
- The plaintiff brought an action in a state court against the defendant, a city police chief in the state, alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The defendant moves to dismiss the state suit on the grounds that the action must be brought in federal court because a federal question (i.e., a cause of action based on a federal statute) is involved.
Is the defendant correct?
(a) Yes, because the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over the action.
(b) Yes, but the plaintiff may defeat dismissal by adding a state law claim.
(c) No, because the federal courts and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the action.
(d) No, but the defendant may remove to federal court if he has a defense based on federal law.
- (c)
The defendant’s motion will be denied. The federal courts and the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most types of actions. The few areas over which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction include bankruptcy cases, patent and copyright cases, antitrust cases, and a few other less common types of actions. (A) is incorrect for the reasons discussed above. (B) is incorrect because the appropriate remedy for a defendant would be to have the case removed to federal court.
Furthermore, a defendant would be able to remove notwithstanding the state law claim; a court could invoke its supplemental jurisdiction to have a pendent state claim heard with claims based on federal law. (D) is incorrect. A defense based on federal law would not enable a defendant to remove the case to federal court.
- The plaintiff, a citizen of Mexico City, Mexico, sues the defendant, a citizen of Louisiana, on a note for $80,000 in federal court in Louisiana.
The federal court has subject matter jurisdiction because:
(a) Diversity of citizenship exists and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000.
(b) Federal courts have jurisdiction over all suits involving foreign nationals.
(c) The plaintiff consented to jurisdiction by filing suit.
(d) The defendant is a citizen of Louisiana.
- (a)
The federal court has diversity jurisdiction in this case. The diversity statute provides that the federal courts have jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. …” [28 U.S.C. $1332(a)] (B) is an incorrect statement of law. (C) is incorrect. Although plaintiff has, by filing suit, consented to the court exercising personal jurisdiction over him, he cannot provide the court with subject matter jurisdiction by consent. (D) is incorrect. Here, the citizenship of the defendant is only relevant to determine if diversity exists.
- The plaintiff is a resident of Chicago, located in the Northern District of Illinois. The defendant is a resident of Milwaukee, located in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The defendant negligently ran a red light in Milwaukee, resulting in a collision between his car and the delivery van that plaintiff was driving. The result:
100 pounds of cork that the plaintiff was delivering wound up striking him in the back of the head, causing severe injuries. The plaintiff sued the defendant in the Northern District of Illinois. The defendant moves to dismiss based on improper venue.
The court will:
(a) Grant the motion to dismiss, because the Northern District of Illinois is not a place of proper venue.
(b) Grant the motion to dismiss, because the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
(c) Deny the motion to dismiss, but it will transfer the case to the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
(d) Deny the motion to dismiss, because the Northern District of Illinois is a place of proper venue.
- (c)
The court will deny the motion to dismiss and transfer the case. Venue in this case (a diversity case) would be proper in a judicial district in which (i) any defendant resides, if all reside in the same state or (il) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Thus, venue would be proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin because that venue is both the defendant’s residence and the place where a substantial part of the events took place. The plaintiff’s choice of venue in the Northern District of Illinois must be corrected. To correct improper venue, a court will usually transfer the case to a place of proper venue, not dismiss the case, with the standard being whether transfer would be in the interests of justice. There are no facts here to indicate that an injustice would be worked by transferring the case; as a result, the case should be transferred rather than dismissed. Thus, (A) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect because an objection to personal jurisdiction may be waived by failing to timely raise the issue. Here, the defendant has not raised the issue, thus waiving it.
(D) is incorrect, because the Northern District of Illinois is not a place of proper venue.
