Civil Procedure

Woolf, who resides in the Northern District of Texas (N.D. Tex.), wants to sue Austen, who resides in the Western District of Louisiana (W.D. La.), for negligence in an automobile accident. The accident occurred in Oklahoma (E.D. Okla.). Where would venue be proper?

(A) N.D. Tex.

(B) W.D. La.

(D) W.D. La. or E.D. Okla.

L brings suit against W for battery in state court. His counsel looks up the state’s Civil Procedure Rule for service of process and finds that the rule authorizes service of process by first class mail. He serves the complaint and summons on W by mailing them, first class, to W at his home address. If W raises the objection that service of process was improper, the court will likely . . .

(A) reject the argument, because L used a form of service that was authorized by the state’s service of process rules.

(B) uphold his objection, because service by first class mail is not constitutionally proper.

(D) reject the argument, because service of process by first class mail is constitutionally sufficient.

S sues L, M, and C, three funny guys, on a claim for unfair competition, in federal court in Virginia. W, from California, is also named as a defendant. S’s lawyer has a private investigator from her office serve L by delivering the summons and complaint to L’s home in Virginia, where the investigator hands them to F, a New York booking agent for L, M, and C, who had flown down for the weekend to discuss business. She serves M several weeks later, by having the investigator deliver the summons and complaint to F at his office in New York. She serves C by mailing the summons and complaint to C at his home in Michigan by first class mail. All three move to dismiss for improper service of process under Rule 12(b)(5). She serves W by having a constable in Los Angeles deliver the summons and complain to W at her office. When W says she does not want the papers, the constable places them in front of her on the desk.

(A) Service is proper on all four defendants.

(B) Service is proper only on L and M, but not on C or W.

(D) Service is only proper on W.

(E) Service is not proper on any of the defendants.

T sues L for negligence, alleging that he suffered emotional distress from witnessing injury to a close friend in an accident with L. L responds by moving to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) (improper venue). After the court denies the motion, but before answering, L moves to dismiss under 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted).

(A) The motion is improper b/c L cannot make a second pre-answer motion under Rule 12 to assert a defense that was available when the first motion was made.

(B) The motion is improper, b/c L’s failure to assert his Rule 12(b)(6) motion in his first pre-answer motion waives the objection of failure to state a claim.

(C) The motion is proper b/c the objection is not waived by making a motion on other grounds, and may be raised at any time.

(D) The motion is proper b/c the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is not one of the four “disfavored defenses.”

G sues H in state court, in a state that uses the special appearance approach to objections to personal jurisdiction. 10 days later, before an answer is due in the state court, H removes the case to federal court. After removing, H answers the complaint, responding on the merits to the allegations in the complaint and also raising the objection that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over him and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

(A) H has waived his objection to personal jurisdiction, b/c he did not include it in his first response to the complaint, the notice of removal.

(B) H has waived objection to personal jurisdiction, b/c he answered on the merits as well as raising the two Rule 12(b) objections in his answer.

(D) H’s objection to personal jurisdiction is waived, b/c the state court from which it was removed applied the special appearance rule.

D, who resides in the Southern District of Indiana, sues T and H. T resides in the Western District of Kentucky. H resides in the Western District of Tennessee. D sues them both for damages arising out of a business deal for the financing of a subdivision D planned to build in the Southern District of Ohio. His claim against T is for fraud, his claim against H is for fraud and for violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act. The negotiations between the parties for the financing took place in the Western District of Tennessee. D claims that, after the defendants had provided the first installment of financing for the project, and he had commenced construction, they refused to provide subsequent payments to the contractor, who consequently did not complete the project. In which venue(s) would D’s action would be proper?