CIV PRO MBE

1. “The Scallion,” an online newspaper with incorporation in Delaware and its only headquarters in Washington, DC, ran a story suggesting the current Secretary of Defense had colluded with Russia to interfere in the most recent presidential election. The Secretary, a resident of Washington, DC, sued The Scallion in federal court on state law libel charges, alleging $1M in damages. In his complaint, the Secretary anticipated that The Scallion would assert its constitutional free press rights as a defense, but alleged that the First Amendment right does not extend to libel. Twenty days later, the Scallion answered the complaint, raising its First Amendment rights as its only defense and consenting to personal jurisdiction and venue. Should the federal court dismiss the case sua sponte?

A. Yes, because the federal issue does not appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

B. No, because the federal constitutional issue creates an implied right of action.

C. No, because defendant failed to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and thus the issue has been waived.

D. No, because the federal court has diversity jurisdiction.

2. Victor, a citizen of California, comes to your law office claiming that police officer Dinkel (also a citizen of California) used excessive force when searching his person, seizing his marijuana, and arresting him last week. Victor wants to sue Dinkel under federal law, 42 U.S. Code § 1983. He has $20K in medical bills and claims another $50K in pain and suffering. Dinkel asks you whether he should sue in federal or state court. Where should you advise Victor to sue Dinkel?

A. In state court only because the parties are not diverse and the amount in controversy is less than $75K.

B. In state court because the state court has general jurisdiction.

C. In federal court only because the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over federal questions of law such as this.

D. In either state or federal court, because the federal and state court have concurrent federal question jurisdiction.

3. Arch, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, filed a breach of contract against Patty, a California citizen, in California state court for $75,000. Ten days after Patty was served, Patty’s lawyer removed the case to the federal district court in California. Three months later, Arch moved to remand the action to state court. With respect to the motion for remand, the federal court should:

A. Deny the motion for remand if California laws on subject matter jurisdiction allow the federal district court to hear this case.

B. Deny the motion because there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.

C. Deny the motion because the defendant needed to bring its motion to remand within 30 days.

D. Grant the motion because the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

4. Jazmine was born and raised in Austin, Texas. She attended college in Pennsylvania, but she always returned to her beloved family home in Austin for summer vacations. Her parents promised to give her the family home after she graduated from college. Right before she graduated from college, Jazmine’s parents gave the family home to her brother instead (those jerks!) and then retired to Miami, Florida. Jazmine begrudgingly stayed in Pennsylvania for the summer, except that she went to Miami for two days while her parents were out of town to steal her mom’s jewelry. Then, she started law school in Los Angeles, California, with plans to return to Texas and practice law. Jazmine took contracts and decided to sue her parents in federal court in California for $80K on a claim of promissory estoppel. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction?

A. No, because Jazmine and her parents are all domiciled in Texas, so the court lacks diversity jurisdiction.

B. No, because Jazmine’s parents are domiciled in Florida and have not purposefully availed themselves of California.

C. Yes, because Jazmine is domiciled in California and her parents are domiciled in Florida, and the amount in controversy is over $75K.

D. Yes, because Jazmine is domiciled in Texas and her parents are domiciled in Florida, and the amount in controversy is over $75K.

5. In which of the following cases would a federal court lack subject matter jurisdiction?

A. Jessica, from Alabama, Kenny, from Kentucky, and Gerry, from Massachusetts, sue Hamilton, from New York and Franklin, a company incorporated in New York with its corporate and financial headquarters in Massachusetts and manufacturing plant in California, for an event that took place in Colorado. Each plaintiff claims damages of $100K against each defendant.

B. Javier, from Virginia, sues Danny, from New Jersey and Lafayette Corp., incorporated in Delaware with its corporate headquarters in Maryland, its only manufacturing plant in Virginia, and offices in all fifty states. Javier alleges damages of $80K against each defendant.

C. Rex, from Arizona, and Maribelle, from Spain, sue Dennis, from France, and Hinds, a limited liability company based in California with 30 partners, 29 of whom live in California and one of whom lives in Nevada, and 3 full time staff members, all of whom live in California. Rex and Maribelle each claim damages of $200K.

D. Both a and b are correct.

6. Passenger, a citizen of State L, was riding in a car driven by his friend Driver, a citizen of State T. They crashed into a car driven by Plaintiff, a State T citizen. Plaintiff and Passenger filed an action in federal court in State T in which each of the plaintiffs asserted a $100,000 tort action against Driver. Driver filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which the court granted. Did the court err in granting the motion?

A. Yes, because jurisdiction is proper under diversity and supplemental jurisdiction.

B. No, because Driver and Plaintiff are both citizens of State T.

C. Yes, because each claim is for more than $75,000.

D. No, because the action was filed in State T

7. Plaintiff and Defendant were married in State A, where their children were also born. Thereafter, Plaintiff received a promotion and sizeable bonus at work, so he moved to State B, while his spouse and children remained in State A. Plaintiff purchased a home in State B, converted his driver’s license to State B, and began paying all applicable taxes in State B. After 17 years of marriage, the couple decided to divorce. Plaintiff filed for divorce in federal district court in State B, seeking joint custody of the children and a court order splitting the marital estate (2 homes and $3 million in marital assets) equally to each spouse. Defendant moved to dismiss the divorce action. How should the court rule on her motion?

A. The district court should deny the motion, because diversity jurisdiction is satisfied where Plaintiff and Defendant are now citizens of different states and the marital estate exceeds $3,000,000.

B. The district court should remand the divorce action to a State B state court, because the federal court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction.

C. The district court should transfer the divorce action to a State B probate and family court.

D. The district court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the action.

8. Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court against the Defendant for breach of contract. The contract was for the sale of real estate worth $75,000. In fact, not only did the Defendant refuse but the day after signing the contract with Plaintiff, the Defendant sold the land to a bona fide purchaser. Plaintiff is a citizen of State M and Defendant is a citizen of State C. After suit was filed, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule?

A. The district court should grant the motion, because the court lacks subject matter over the controversy.

B. The district court should grant the motion, because the federal court does not have jurisdiction over state law contract claims.

C. The district court should deny the motion, because the court has jurisdiction over the claim based on diversity jurisdiction.

D. The district court should deny the motion, because the parties stipulated in the signed contract that the federal district court will resolve all disputes arising from performance or nonperformance of the contract.

9. Plaintiff, a citizen of State A, filed suit in federal district court against Defendant, citizen of State B alleging one count of negligence resulting from a car accident and one count for breach of contract resulting from an unrelated agreement the parties entered into a year prior to their accident. Plaintiff alleged total damages from the car accident in the amount of $50,000. The contract called for liquidated damages in the amount of $45,000. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the entire suit. How should the court rule?

A. The court should grant Defendant’s motion, because Defendant lacks sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to be bound by the court’s judgment.

B. The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff cannot aggregate their damages from two unrelated claims against the Defendant in order to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.

C. The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff can aggregate their damages from two unrelated claims against the Defendant in order to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.

D. The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff and Defendant are from different states, thereby satisfying the complete diversity of citizenship required for diversity jurisdiction.

10. Plaintiff, a citizen of State X, filed suit against her neighbor, also a citizen of State X, for damages to her new car resulting from an accident on their street. The neighbor had also caused significant damage to Plaintiff’s front yard and fencing. Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in State X alleging damages against the neighbor exceeding $75,000. The neighbor filed a motion to dismiss. How should the court rule?

A. The court should deny the neighbor’s motion because the federal district court has exclusive jurisdiction over claims that exceed $75,000.

B. The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff cannot aggregate the damages to the car, front yard, and fence in order to meet the jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.

C. The court should deny the motion, because the plaintiff is the master of her complaint and can choose which court she wishes to hear her case.

D. The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff has not met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

11. Plaintiff, a citizen of State X, filed suit in federal district court against Defendant Car Co., incorporated in State Y with its principal place of business in State X. Plaintiff alleges a defect in the manufacturing of her car by Defendant caused her accident where she incurred property damage and severe bodily injuries. Due to the severity of her injuries, Plaintiff alleges her medical expenses alone exceed $1,000,000. After filing suit in federal district court in State Z, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion and Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint, denying any liability for Plaintiff’s losses. A month thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that Defendant waived its right to object to the court‘s power when it failed to assert it with its previous motion. How should the court rule on Defendant’s second motion to dismiss?

A. The district court should deny Defendant’s motion because Defendant waived its right to object to the court’s power when it unreasonably delayed in asserting this defense.

B. The district court should grant Defendant’s motion, because the court lacks jurisdiction over the parties because Plaintiff and Defendant are both from State X.

C. The district court should deny Defendant’s motion, because Plaintiff and Defendant are from different states, State X and State Y, respectively.

D. The district court should grant Defendant’s motion, because the court erred in its decision to deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

12. Plaintiffs were travelling in their home state of A when Defendant, from State Z, crashed into Plaintiffs’ car, causing the car to spin out of control and into oncoming traffic. Both plaintiffs suffered significant personal injuries, requiring long-term hospital stays and rehabilitation. A year after the accident, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant in federal district court in State Z based on diversity jurisdiction, each plaintiff alleging damages exceeding $250,000. The next day, prompted by a lucrative job offer, Plaintiffs decided to permanently move to State Z. Several months later, Defendant learned that Plaintiffs moved to State Z and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule?

A. The court should grant the motion, because diversity was destroyed when Plaintiffs moved to State Z.

B. The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiffs cannot prove with reasonable certainty that their damages are $250,000 each.

C. The court should deny the motion, because the Defendant delayed in asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

D. The court should deny the motion, because the court has proper subject matter jurisdiction over this claim.

13. Student was a student attending State A University. While at school, Student lived in a dormitory on campus. During holidays and breaks, Student returned to his childhood hometown in State B, where his parents still reside. During his senior year in college, Student decided to move to State A permanently, so he began looking for an off-campus apartment. After graduating, Student was recruited by a multi-national firm based in State C. Student was recruited to head up their State D office. While travelling to State D to begin searching for an apartment, Student was in a car accident which required a six month stay at a rehabilitation hospital in State A. Plaintiff wants to file a diversity action against Student. Where is Student domiciled?

A. State A, where Student has been living for over four years for school and rehabilitation.

B. State D, where Student is planning on living and working after his release from the hospital.

C. State B, where he lived prior to attending college and returned to on holidays and breaks.

D. State C, where his current employer is incorporated and has its principal place of business.

14. The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, filed a claim in federal district court alleging that the defendant, a Delaware corporation, violated her rights under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and sought damages in the amount of $50,000. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

A. No, because the plaintiff is seeking only $50,000.

B. No, because the claim does not arise under federal law.

C. Yes, because the parties are diverse.

D. Yes, because the claim arises under federal law.

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

A. Yes, because this case arises under federal law.

B. Yes, because the defendant filed an answer, waiving his jurisdictional objection.

C. No, because this case does not arise under federal law and the parties are citizens of the same state.

D. No, because the parties are citizens of the same state.

16. The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, brought a state breach of contract action in federal district court alleging that the defendant, also a citizen of State A, agreed to purchase his home and subsequently refused to go forward with the deal. The defendant's answer admits that he refused to buy the home but alleged that because the plaintiff had lied in certain representations about the home contained in a federally required disclosure form, the deal was unenforceable under the governing federal disclosure statute. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?

A. Yes, because this case arises under federal law.

B. Yes, because the defendant filed an answer, waiving his jurisdictional objection.

C. No, because this case does not arise under federal law.

D. No, because the parties are citizens of the same state.

17. An industrial accident injured Worker while using a machine for work. Worker was using the machine as intended while working for Shipping Co., incorporated in State A and principal place of business in State B. Worker worked in State B but was a citizen of State C. Worker was severally injured requiring months of hospitalization and rehabilitation. After Worker recovered he filed suit in State B state court against his employer Shipping Co. Under the State B workman’s compensation statute. Before filing its answer, Shipping Co. Removed the case from state court to federal court in State B. Worker filed a motion to remand. How should the court rule on the Worker’s motion?

A. The court should grant the motion because Shipping Co.’s removal was untimely.

B. The court should grant the motion because the federal district court does not have jurisdiction over the Worker’s claim and because Shipping Co. Is a citizen of State B.

C. The court should deny the motion because the federal district court has jurisdiction over the Worker’s claim.

D. The court should deny the motion because diversity jurisdiction is satisfied where the Worker and Shipping Co. Are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is reasonably likely to exceed $75,000.

18. Plaintiff, from State M, sued his employer, Del Corp., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in State O, for wrongful termination. Plaintiff’s attorney prepared the complaint on May 1st, but did not email a copy of the prepared complaint to Del Corp. until August 2nd. After Del Corp did not respond to the email, Plaintiff had his attorney file the complaint in State M state court, seeking $100,000 in damages, and properly served Del Corp on August 15th. On August 16th, Del Corp. Removed the case to federal court. Plaintiff filed a motion for remand arguing the time for removal had lapsed. How should the court rule?

A. The court should grant the motion, as the defendant had until May 31st to remove the case.

B. The court should deny the motion, as the defendant has until September 1st to remove the case.

C. The court should deny the motion, as the defendant has until September 14th to remove the case.

D. The court should deny the motion, as the defendant can remove a case from state court to federal court at any time prior to trial.

19. A citizen of State A brings an action against her employer, a State A corporation, in federal district court. Claim I alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second claim consists of a tort claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of the same series of acts of sexual harassment that formed the basis of her federal sex discrimination claim. The plaintiff seeks $100,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages under each of these two claims. The availability of punitive damages in negligent infliction of emotional distress cases has not previously been addressed under the governing State A state law. Should the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the entire lawsuit?

A. Yes, because the two claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts.

B. No, not over the state law claim because the parties are not diverse.

C. Yes, because the issues raised in the two claims are nearly identical.

D. No, not over the state law claim because it raises a novel issue of state law.

20. After buying a new television set, Buyer brought an action against the television manufacturer in federal district court in State A containing a claim that the manufacturer participated in a conspiracy to engage in unlawful price-fixing in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff is a citizen of State A and the defendant is a citizen of State A and State D. In his complaint, the plaintiff also asserted a breach of contract claim, alleging that the television was defective and that the manufacturer refused to honor the warranty contained in the purchase agreement. In connection with this second claim, the plaintiff seeks $100,000 in damages. Can the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the entire lawsuit?

A. No, because both parties are citizens of State A.

B. Yes, because the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim and federal question jurisdiction over the federal claim.

C. No, because the claims do not arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact.

D. Yes, because the value of the state claim exceeds $75,000.

21. Plaintiff is injured in a crash between his car and another car and a truck on a narrow country road in State A. Plaintiff is a citizen of State A. The driver of the other car is a citizen of State B, and the owner of the truck, Trucks, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in State C. Plaintiff filed an action in the federal court for the District of State A seeking damages of $250,000 against each of the two named defendants, Driver and Trucks, Inc. In the same suit, Driver filed a claim against Trucks, Inc. seeking $75,000 in damages for the damage to her car. Trucks, Inc. Filed a tort claim against Plaintiff seeking $70,000 in damages for the damages to its truck. Trucks, Inc. Also filed a claim against Trucker, a citizen of State C who was driving its truck at the time of the accident, seeking indemnity from any loss it might suffer in connection with Plaintiff's claim against it. Can the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Trucks, Inc.’s claim against Trucker?

A. No, because Trucks, Inc. and Trucker are citizens of the same state.

B. Yes, because Trucker is not a citizen of State B.

C. Yes, because this indemnity claim arose out of the same car crash.

D. No, because original jurisdiction was based solely on diversity jurisdiction.

22. Seller refurbished speedboats for resale from his home in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. One summer, Buyer noticed Seller's roadside advertisement while driving his family to Florida for vacation. On his way back from vacation, Buyer purchased a refurbished speedboat from Seller, agreeing to make three yearly payments for the purchase. The next year, Seller relocated to Pawley's Island, South Carolina. Buyer paid the first of his three installments, but failed to pay the second or third installments. Several months later, Seller saw Buyer having lunch with a business client at a restaurant in Pawley's Island. If Seller is able to have Buyer served with a complaint and summons before Buyer finishes his lunch, would it satisfy constitutional due process if the South Carolina courts exercised jurisdiction over Buyer?

A. Yes, but only because Seller is now a citizen of South Carolina.

B. Yes, but only if Buyer was lunching in South Carolina voluntarily.

C. No, unless Buyer has sufficient other minimum contacts with South Carolina.

D. No, unless Buyer is a citizen of South Carolina.

23. Executive commissioned Painter to paint her portrait after seeing his work at an arts festival in Florida. Executive was unhappy with the portrait and refused to pay for it. Painter recalled that Executive told him she traveled to Austin, Texas where Painter lived, to attend a music festival each year. Shortly before the festival, Painter filed a complaint in Texas State court, then hired a process server to locate and serve Executive while she was attending the festival in Austin. Executive was so served. Executive later filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Texas courts did not have personal jurisdiction over her. Assume that the Texas long arm statute authorizes jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by the United States Constitution, and that Executive's only contacts with Texas are her annual vacation trips to Austin. How will the court likely rule?

A. The court will likely grant the motion because Painter's claims are unrelated to Executive's contacts with Texas.

B. The court will likely grant the motion because Executive's annual trips to Texas are not sufficiently regular and systematic to support general jurisdiction.

C. The court will likely deny the motion because Executive's annual trips to Texas are sufficiently regular and systematic to support general jurisdiction.

D. The court will likely deny the motion because Executive was served while in Texas.

24. Angry Fireworks Corp. Was incorporated in Delaware and, for many years, had its sole factory in Missouri. It sold fireworks to passing motorists along a busy Missouri highway. One summer, as they were traveling past the Angry Fireworks Co. factory, Parents stopped and purchased a set of fireworks to entertain their children. That same summer, Parents set off the fireworks near their home in Oklahoma, causing tragic injuries to their entire family. Parents hoped to sue Angry Fireworks Corp. In an Oklahoma court. The U.S. Constitution would most likely permit Oklahoma to exercise general personal jurisdiction over Angry Fireworks Corp. If which of the following were true?

A. A steady flow of fireworks manufactured by Angry Fireworks Corp. Make their way into Oklahoma each year.

B. Angry Fireworks Corp. Is now operating, but just temporarily, out of leased warehouse space in Oklahoma while its existing factory is being refurbished.

C. At regular intervals throughout each year, Angry Fireworks Corp. Purchased telephone equipment for its manufacturing factory from Oklahoma vendors.

D. Angry Fireworks Corp. Earns sizable volumes of income each year from fireworks sales to Oklahoma citizens.

25. Skateboard Company manufactured and sold skateboards in San Francisco, California. It placed advertisements in the College Newspaper in nearby Reno, Nevada. College Student, a Nevada resident, traveled to San Francisco, purchased a skateboard from Skateboard Company there, and subsequently was injured when one of the wheels broke. College Student sued Skateboard Company in federal court in Nevada. Skateboard Company does not have any employees or property in Nevada. Skateboard Company filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. How should the court rule?

A. Grant the motion because College Student lives and was injured in Nevada, and therefore has sufficient minimum contacts with Nevada.

B. Grant the motion because Skateboard Company does not have sufficient minimum contacts with Nevada.

C. Deny the motion because Skateboard Company's advertisement in College Newspaper satisfies minimum contacts with Nevada.

D. Deny the motion because skateboards are portable, and it is "foreseeable" that a customer could take a Skateboard Company skateboard to another State.

26. Isaac was a goaltender on State University's traveling soccer team. During a soccer match held at a college in a neighboring State, Isaac was injured severely when the opposing team started a brutal fist-fight. Isaac brought a personal injury diversity lawsuit in federal court. In such a lawsuit, which of the following would not ensure that the federal court had personal jurisdiction over Mitch, a member of that opposing team?

A. If Mitch were subject to personal jurisdiction of the courts of the State where the federal court is located, and was served properly with process.

B. If Mitch were joined to the lawsuit as a required party and was served with process in the United States within 100 miles of the place where the summons was issued.

C. If Mitch were agreeable to waiving formal service of process.

D. If Mitch were subject to personal jurisdiction in accordance with the terms of a federal statute, and served with process as the statute required.

27. Financial Officer lives and works in Connecticut, but had an important business meeting to attend in Phoenix, Arizona. Financial Officer booked a flight on Airline for the trip. The trip had a connection with one stop: Connecticut to Chicago, then Chicago to Phoenix. After landing at the Chicago airport, Financial Officer became belligerent with Airline Employee over seat assignments on his connecting flight to Phoenix. The confrontation caused Employee to leave the flight counter in distress. Co-Employee witnessed the entire incident, and schemed a retaliation. By altering Financial Officer's reservation record, Co-Employee caused Financial Officer to miss his connecting flight to Phoenix and, as a consequence, to be fired from his employment back in Connecticut. If Financial Officer files a lawsuit in Connecticut, which fact would be most helpful to establish that State's personal jurisdiction over Co-Employee?

A. In a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, that Co-Employee was aware that Financial Officer's trip to Phoenix was related to his employment back in Connecticut.

B. In an emotional battery claim, that Co-Employee's alteration of Financial Officer's airline reservation record was an intentional tort.

C. In an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, that Co-Employee's actions had a deleterious effect on Financial Officer that was felt in Connecticut.

D. In a libel claim, that Co-Employee knew Financial Officer lived and worked in Connecticut, and posted a notice to Airline's office there describing him as evil.

28. A Chinese company manufactured hoverboards. It entered into a contract with an American distribution company to sell the hoverboards in State A, which had many colleges with students that the manufacturer thought would be receptive to hoverboards. A college student, attending college in State A, bought a hoverboard manufactured by the Chinese company after seeing advertisements in the college's newspaper placed by the distributor. The student then transferred to another college in State B. While the student was at college in State B, the hoverboard subsequently caught on fire in the student's dormitory room, injuring the student and destroying some of his personal property. The student filed suit in federal court in State B, naming the Chinese manufacturer and the U.S. Distributor as defendants. Both the manufacturer and the distributor filed motions challenging personal jurisdiction, submitting affidavits asserting that neither defendant had any employees or property in State B. Placed advertising in State B, or had made sales in State B. The student responded that specific jurisdiction was appropriate because the harm had occurred in State B. Will the defendants likely succeed in their challenge to personal jurisdiction?

A. Neither defendant will likely succeed.

B. The manufacturer will likely succeed but the distributor will likely not succeed.

C. The distributor will likely succeed but the manufacturer will likely not succeed.

D. Both defendants will likely succeed.

29. Process Server was hired to serve Ms. Defendant with a summons and complaint. Process Server subsequently learned that Ms. Defendant and her Husband were staying at a nearby hotel for the past 11 months while she was working as a consultant for a local project. The couple maintained their domicile in another State and intended to return there when her assignment concluded. One afternoon, Process Server located their hotel room and knocked on the door. Husband answered the door, and Process Server handed him the summons and complaint. Has Process Server properly served Ms. Defendant?

A. Yes, because this constitutes proper service.

B. No, because the hotel is not Ms. Defendant's permanent residence or place of dwelling.

C. No, because proper service requires in-hand or personal service on the defendant if possible, and Process Server has not demonstrated that personal service was not possible.

D. No, because the Constitution requires that service be "reasonably calculated" to provide notice to the defendant.

30. Parents brought their child to Hospital for medical care, and contended that the care the child received there was negligent. Parents sued Hospital in federal district court. Hospital was a sprawling 500-bed institution, operating in the same location in the same city for more than 100 years. Aware that Hospital was unlikely to attempt to evade service, Parents proposed to Hospital a waiver of formal service of process. Which of the following is true about using that procedure in federal court?

A. If Hospital agrees to waive, it will receive an additional 39 days to answer the complaint.

B. By asking Hospital to waive, Parents ensure that they will avoid the need to serve original process through formal, traditional means.

C. A waiver by Hospital will constitute a surrender of any objections Hospital might otherwise have to the manner of service and to personal jurisdiction.

D. For the waiver to be effective, it must be delivered to Hospital accompanied by copies of both the complaint and summons.

31. Two business partners operated a field of gas wells, but a disagreement arose over daily pumping practices. Partner A sued Partner B in federal court in Oklahoma. Partner B owned a farmhouse in rural Oklahoma where he lived with his spouse and three children. On the property was an old barn, which Partner B had since converted into a recreation room with spare bedroom and bath. One day, while shooting pool with his children in the bar, a process-server arrived, confirmed Partner B's identity, and then handed him an envelope containing Partner A's complaint. Was Partner A served properly in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

A. Yes, because he was served by personal delivery.

B. Yes, because the location of service qualifies as a usual place of abode.

C. Yes, because service was made upon an adult of suitable age and discretion residing there.

D. No.

32. Promoter engaged Rock Star to perform a concert at Promoter's outdoor stage. Shortly before the concert was scheduled to occur, Rock Star decided that he was tired of being on the road, and canceled all the events on his tour. Promoter filed a complaint against Rock Star in federal court, then personally brought the complaint and summons to Rock Star's house. When Rock Star opened the door, Promoter attempted to hand the documents to Rock Star. However, Rock Star knocked the papers out of Promoter's hand and slammed the door. Has Promoter properly served Rock Star?

A. No, because personal service requires in-hand delivery.

B. No, because Promoter is a party to the lawsuit.

C. Yes, because abode service is an allowable alternative to personal service.

D. Yes, because a process server may leave process in the "vicinity" of an evasive defendant.

33. A group of Parents sued School District and each of its Board Members for the failure to provide their elementary school children with minimally nutritious lunches. The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Idaho. Attorney for Parents served School District at its headquarters and each of the Board Members by mail, in a manner authorized by Idaho State law, sent to their last known addresses. One Board Member challenged this service as improper. How will the district court resolve that challenge?

A. Service will be quashed, because service by mail is not permitted in federal court.

B. Service will not be quashed, if the service by mail satisfied Idaho State law for serving individuals.

C. Service will be quashed, if the challenging Board Member failed to receive actual notice of the lawsuit.

D. Service will not be quashed, if the challenging Board Member received actual notice of the lawsuit.

34. A taxpayer believed that his accountant had given him poor tax advice, and engaged an attorney to prepare a complaint to file in federal court. The attorney hired a process server. The accountant lived alone, and the process server repeatedly attempted unsuccessfully to serve the accountant at his residence. Believing that the accountant was avoiding service, the process server delivered the summons and complaint to the receptionist at the accountant's office, who promised to deliver it to the accountant. Did the process server properly effect service on the accountant?

A. No, because service at the accountant's regular place of business was not reasonably calculated to apprise the accountant of the action.

B. No, because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize service at the defendant's regular place of business.

C. Yes, but only if the state law of the state where the taxpayer filed the complaint authorizes service at the defendant's regular place of business.

D. Yes, but only if the court finds the process server was sufficiently diligent in attempting to effectuate abode service before resorting to service at the accountant's regular place of business.

35. Novelist contracted with Publishing House to publish a new work of fiction, for which Novelist would be paid royalties on each sale. Novelist later believed Publishing House was wrongfully concealing the true volume of book sales in a scheme to deprive Novelist of earned royalties. Novelist's attorney brought suit in federal court against Publishing House. Although the attorney had Publishing House's proper postal mailing address, the attorney chose to serve original process on Publishing House by email, relying on a local procedure permitting service by email in State court. The email address Novelist's attorney used was the one Publishing House supplied to Novelist for all business correspondence and which had proven highly reliable in the past. This time, however, Novelist's attorney received an immediate, automated email message which read: "This Email Recipient's mailbox is full. Delivery will not be re-attempted. Try again later." The attorney made no further attempt at service. What best describes the status of the attorney's attempted service of process by email?

A. The email service was invalid because email service is never permitted in federal court.

B. The email service was valid because it was, at the time of transmission, reasonably calculated under the circumstances to afford Publishing House constitutionally proper notice.

C. The email service was invalid because it deprived Publishing House of its due process rights.

D. The email service was valid if the service comported with the State procedures for service of original process by email.

36. A judicial district:

A. Is the same thing as a state.

B. Can extend beyond the borders of a state.

C. Might be contained within part of a state.

D. Is always smaller than a state.

37. Danny resides in Miami and Debbie resides in Tallahassee. They decide to travel north to Toronto for spring break, driving in separate cars. On the way, they take a drive in Pittsburgh, going down Murray Avenue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Still in separate cars, they are temporarily distracted by the wonderful smells coming from Mineo’s Pizza Parlor on Murray Avenue. They both run into Paul, who was trying to pull out of a parking spot in front of Mineo’s. If Paul sues Danny and Debbie for negligence, what venue or venues are appropriate? Note: Miami is located in the Southern District of Florida, Tallahassee is located in the Northern District of Florida, Pittsburgh is located in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

A. Southern District of Florida.

B. Northern District of Florida.

C. Western District of Pennsylvania.

D. All of the above.

38. Fredo (resident of Las Vegas) and Johnny (resident of Miami) are sued by Michael (resident of New York) for breach of contract. The contract was negotiated and was to be performed in New Jersey. Fredo and Johnny never showed up to do the work they were hired to do. Venue against Fredo and Johnny would be appropriate in which federal district? Note: Miami is located in the Southern District of Florida. There is only one judicial district in New Jersey, and there is only one judicial district in Nevada.

A. In the District of New Jersey only.

B. In the District of New Jersey, the Southern District of Florida, or the District of Nevada.

C. In the Southern District of Florida or the District of Nevada.

D. No venue exists for a suit over both Johnny and Fredo. Michael will have to file two suits.

39. Danny resides in Miami and Debbie resides in Tallahassee. They drive together on a trip to Kansas City where their car crashes into Paula’s car. Paula resides in Oregon. Paula sues Danny and Debbie for negligence, claiming that Danny was intoxicated and that Debbie shared beer with Danny while Danny was driving. Of the following potential venues, which are appropriate? Note: Miami is located in the Southern District of Florida, Tallahassee is located in the Northern District of Florida, there is only one judicial district in Kansas, and there is only one judicial district in Oregon. 1. Northern District of Florida. 2. Middle District of Florida. 3. Southern District of Florida. 4. District of Kansas 5. District of Oregon

A. 1, 2, and 3

B. 1, 3, 4, and 5

C. 1, 3, and 4

D. 4

40. Mall-Mart is a large national corporation headquartered in Bentonville (in western Arkansas) and incorporated in Delaware. Mall-Mart has thousands of department stores all over the United States. Pam, a resident of Miami, goes to a Mall-Mart store in Coral Gables and slips on a wet floor, injuring herself. She wants to file suit for negligence against Mall-Mart. Venue is arguably proper: Note: Bentonville is located in the Western District of Arkansas, Miami is located in the Southern District of Florida, and there is only one judicial district in Delaware.

A. In the Western District of Arkansas.

B. In the District of Delaware.

C. In the Southern District of Florida.

D. All of the above.

41. Under section 1391, where there is more than one district in a state, a corporation’s residence for purposes of venue exists only in the district with which the corporation has the most significant contacts.

A. True

B. False

42. Brian (resident of Miami) and Stewie (resident of Las Vegas) are introduced to Peter (resident of Quahog, RI) in Tijuana, Mexico. Brian and Stewie beat up Peter. If Peter sues Brian and Stewie for battery, venue is proper in: Note: Miami is located in the Southern District of Florida, there is only one judicial district in Nevada, and there is only one judicial district in Rhode Island. 1. Northern District of Florida 2. Middle District of Florida 3. Southern District of Florida 4. District of Nevada 5. District of Rhode Island

A. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

B. 3 and 4

C. 1, 4, and 5

D. None of the above.

43. Rider, domiciled in North Dakota, was injured on a bicycle trip in Wyoming when his bicycle malfunctioned. The bicycle was manufactured by Bicycle Company, and Rider purchased it from Store in South Dakota while on a business trip. Rider sued both Bicycle Company and Store in federal court in the District of North Dakota (the only district in that State). Bicycle Company was a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Michigan; it had no activities or property in North Dakota. Store was a North Dakota corporation with its principal place of business in North Dakota. It was a retail chain, with sister stores in South Dakota. Is venue proper in the District of North Dakota?

A. Yes, because Rider resides in North Dakota.

B. Yes, as to Store, but not as to Bicycle Company.

C. No, because Bicycle Company is a citizen of Delaware and Michigan, not North Dakota.

D. No, because Bicycle Company does not reside in North Dakota and the sale and accident occurred outside North Dakota.

44. Soccer Fan One attended the World Cup in a country outside the United States. Soccer Fan One met two other United States citizens while at the event, Soccer Fan Two and Soccer Fan Three, and they struck up a friendship. Soccer Fan Two and Soccer Fan Three told Soccer Fan One that they knew a bar where there was good music and the food and beverages were inexpensive. Soccer Fan One asked whether the bar was in a safe part of the city, and Soccer Fan Two and Soccer Fan Three assured him it would be safe. Soccer Fan One went to the bar and had a nice evening, but when he left the bar, he was robbed and beaten, suffering significant injuries. Subsequent investigation revealed that the bar was in a notoriously dangerous neighborhood. Soccer Fan One was a domicile of State A. Soccer Fan Two was a domicile of State B. Soccer Fan Three was a domicile of State C. Soccer Fan One brought a state law claim in federal court in State B, invoking the court's diversity jurisdiction. Soccer Fan Three brought a motion challenging venue. How will the judge likely rule on the venue motion?

A. The judge will likely grant the motion if it finds that Soccer Fan Three is not subject to personal jurisdiction in State B with respect to Soccer Fan One's claim.

B. The judge will likely grant the motion if it finds that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Soccer Fan One's claim did not occur in State B.

C. The judge will likely deny the motion if Soccer Fan Two did not join in the motion.

D. The judge will likely deny the motion if it finds that Soccer Fan Two is subject to personal jurisdiction in State B with respect to Soccer Fan One's claim.

45. Traveler was on vacation in Hawai'i and was hit and injured by Surfer. Traveler was a South Carolina domiciliary and Surfer was a Hawai'i domiciliary who frequently vacations in South Carolina. Traveler filed an action against Surfer in federal court in South Carolina. Surfer filed a timely motion to dismiss for lack of venue. Which response best describes the court's options?

A. The court may not dismiss the action because venue is proper in South Carolina.

B. The court must dismiss the action because venue is improper in South Carolina.

C. The court must either dismiss the action or transfer the case.

D. The court may dismiss the action but may not transfer the case.

46. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, what will a federal trial court not do?

A. Presume that all of the contested pleading's allegations of fact are true.

B. Accept all the contested pleading's legal conclusions as true.

C. Refrain from dismissing claims that seem unlikely to be believed.

D. Examine not just the allegations in the complaint itself, but also documents that the complaint incorporates by reference.

47. Owner entered into contracts with Engineering Firm and Builder to construct a new office building in California. Both Engineering Firm and Builder were Massachusetts corporations with their principal places of business in Boston, Massachusetts, but both performed the work for Owner exclusively out of their offices in California. The project did not go smoothly, and Owner eventually fired Engineering Firm and Builder, and then signed contracts with other entities to complete the project at substantial additional cost. For tactical reasons, Owner filed suit against Engineering Firm and Builder in federal court in Massachusetts, which has only one district. Engineering Firm and Builder filed a timely joint motion to dismiss for lack of venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to California. How will the court likely rule on this motion?

A. The court will grant the motion to dismiss and deny the motion to transfer because Massachusetts has no connection to this action and it is not a proper venue.

B. The court will deny the motion to dismiss and deny the motion to transfer because venue is proper in Massachusetts and the plaintiff is entitled to pick the forum.

C. The court will deny the motion to dismiss and grant the motion to transfer because venue is proper in Massachusetts but the location of the witnesses and building in California makes California a more convenient forum.

D. The court will deny the motion to dismiss and deny the motion to transfer because venue is proper in Massachusetts and the defendants should have filed a motion asserting the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

48. TourCo operated a sightseeing bus for tourists in Europe. It is a corporation organized under the laws of Great Britain with its principal and sole place of business in London. TourCo purchased limited advertising space in the New York Times Sunday newspaper. Passengers were all retired citizens of Montreal, Canada on an excursion through Europe. They approached TourCo's offices in London, negotiated a group bus rate, and then contracted for TourCo to provide them with two days of sightseeing services. While speeding out to a visit at the Houses of Parliament in London, the TourCo bus crashed over a bridge railing and plummeted twenty feet to an underpass roadway below. The negligent operation of the bus and the plunge off the bridge were witnessed by scores of London bystanders. Passengers were all injured in the accident. Passengers filed a lawsuit against TourCo in federal court in Buffalo, New York. TourCo filed a motion opposing venue in Buffalo. How is the federal court most likely to rule on TourCo's venue motion?

A. It may dismiss the case in Buffalo.

B. It can transfer the case to the London courts because that is where the bus accident occurred.

C. It must not change the venue if British negligence law is less friendly to the bus passengers than New York negligence law.

D. It may not grant the motion because the bus passenger plaintiffs all chose to litigate in Buffalo federal court.

49. Child's parents are divorced; both are citizens of Tennessee. While on an extended business trip to Kentucky, Custodial Parent enrolled Child in Day Care Center. During an unsupervised playtime incident, Child fell, suffering a serious eye injury that resulted in permanent right-eye blindness. To avoid a dismissal, what must Custodial Parent allege in a federal lawsuit against Day Care Center?

A. Detailed factual allegations.

B. A claim that, based on the pleaded facts, is possible.

C. A demand for relief.

D. A probable claim.

50. After high school, Stephanie, who grew up in California, enrolled at the University of Colorado. She was unsure if she wanted to be in college, but her parents agreed to foot the bill, so off she went. She met Al, an Italian citizen, in Chemistry 101 – and the two had instant chemistry. The whimsical pair were texting back and forth during labs about their plans to move to Hollywood and become movie stars when a fire broke out, injuring them both. They sued the instructor, Toussaint, for violations of state tort law in federal court, each seeking damages of $100,000 dollars. Although Toussaint had lied, telling her class she was a U.S. citizen, she was in fact a French citizen and had not been admitted to the United States for “lawful permanent residence.” She had moved to Colorado to take a one-year visiting professorship, hoping to get tenure there and stay. The jury ruled in plaintiffs’ favor, awarding each plaintiff $20,000 dollars. Toussaint appealed, seeking to vacate the judgment, on the basis that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction. Is the appellate court likely to vacate the judgment?

A. No, because an objection to subject matter jurisdiction must be made before the district court enters a valid, final judgment.

B. No, because the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction.

C. Yes, because the amount in controversy requirement was not satisfied.

D. Yes, because the diversity of citizenship requirement was not satisfied.

51. Arch is a manufacturer of specialty archery equipment. Its sole factory is located in Nebraska, and all of its employees reside there. It is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its corporate headquarters in New York. Patty, a Nebraska citizen, sued Arch for negligent manufacturing and failure to warn (state tort claims) in state court in Nebraska after she was injured by an Arch bow and arrow, seeking $85,000. Among other things, her complaint stated: “Arch breached its duty of care when it failed to comply with federal regulations. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission requires warning labels on specific products, including bows and arrows.” Ten days after Arch was served with process, it filed a notice of removal at the federal district court for the District of Nebraska. Three months later, Patty moved to remand the action to state court, arguing that the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Should the federal court remand the case?

A. No, because a motion to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days of removal.

B. No, because the court may exercise diversity jurisdiction.

C. No, because the court may exercise federal question jurisdiction.

D. Yes, because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

52. Jackson, a Colorado citizen, hired Quinn, a Wyoming citizen, to landscape his yard. Quinn had recently worked on projects for other clients with Vaughan, a Wyoming citizen who runs a backhoe business. Quinn hired Vaughn to dig the necessary holes for the landscaping. After the work was completed, the new plants in Jackson’s yard all died, and he discovered that the landscaping had damaged his underground sprinkler system and his septic system. He sued Quinn in federal court for $90,000 in damages based on the faulty yard work. After the suit was filed, Quinn filed a third party complaint against Vaughan, demanding contribution for half of any damages Jackson recovers, on the ground that Vaughan was also negligent in causing the yard damage. Under the relevant law, impleader claims between joint tortfeasors are permissible. May the court exercise jurisdiction over Quinn’s third party complaint?

A. No, because Quinn and Vaughan are citizens of the same state.

B. No, because it is legally impossible for Quinn to recover more than $45,000 from Vaughan and thus the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied.

C. Yes, because the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

D. Yes, because this is a proper FRCP 14 impleader claim.

53. Jackson, a Colorado citizen, hired Quinn, a Wyoming citizen, to landscape his yard. Quinn had recently worked on projects for other clients with Vaughan, a Wyoming citizen who runs a backhoe business. Quinn hired Vaughn to dig the necessary holes for the landscaping. After the work was completed, the new plants in Jackson’s yard all died, and he discovered that the landscaping had damaged his underground sprinkler system and his septic system. He sued Quinn in federal court for $90,000 in damages based on the faulty yard work. After the suit was filed, Quinn filed a third party complaint against Vaughan, demanding contribution for half of any damages Jackson recovers, on the ground that Vaughan was also negligent in causing the yard damage. Under the relevant law, impleader claims between joint tortfeasors are permissible. Now, Assume that in the third party complaint, Quinn also asserted a claim against Vaughan for $80,000 in personal injury and property damages that resulted when Vaughan’s backhoe hit Quinn’s riding mower while working on a different job for another client. May the court hear Quinn’s claim for $80,000 in property damages from Vaughan?

A. Yes, because the court may exercise original subject matter jurisdiction.

B. Yes, because the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

C. No, because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

D. No, because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow a party making a third party complaint to join unrelated claims.

54. Yo-Play, a Florida corporation, sells multiple brands of yogurt. It markets three of its brands - Yo-Plavia, Yo-Plavia Light, and Yo-Gut - as “clinically proven to boost immunity and improve digestive health in two weeks or less.” Sue, a Florida citizen, sued Yo-Play in federal district court, alleging that it had exaggerated its claims about all three brands’ health benefits and breached its express warranty to consumers in violation of state consumer-protection laws. Sue had purchased Yo-Plavia once in the year prior to the lawsuit but had never purchased Yo-Plavia Light or Yo-Gut. She named as class members thousands of consumers across the country who had purchased any of the three brands over the last two years, estimating that the total recovery will be upwards of $30 Million dollars. Which of the following is the strongest argument for denying class certification?

A. There is no common question of law or fact.

B. Sue’s claims are not typical of the class.

C. The class is so numerous that a class action is impracticable.

D. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

55. Dennis, an orthodontist with a sole proprietorship in California, sued Bill, a Nevada citizen and former administrative assistant and billing specialist for Dennis’s practice, seeking $70,000 for embezzlement, a tort claim, in state court in California. Dennis alleges that Bill pocketed payments from clients in the amount of $70,000. He claims to have terminated Bill as a result. Bill defends on the basis that he was fired in retaliation for reporting Dennis’s allegedly fraudulent billing practices to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and that any deficit in the company account was a result of his refusal to overcharge clients. At the time he was served with process, Bill had been consulting with a lawyer to sue Dennis in federal court for claims arising under the Federal Whistleblower Act, a statute that creates a right of action for anyone dismissed or disciplined for reporting fraud to the Justice Department. In both actions, the primary issue will be whether Bill was fired for reporting Dennis to the DOJ or whether he was fired for misappropriating company money. What can Bill do if he wishes to have a federal court hear his claim?

A. File a separate claim in federal court, invoking federal question jurisdiction.

B. File this compulsory counterclaim and remove the case to federal court, invoking federal question jurisdiction.

C. File this compulsory counterclaim and remove the case to federal court, invoking supplemental jurisdiction.

D. Nothing; this is a compulsory counterclaim and he cannot remove the case because the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

56. Georgia, a California citizen, sued AppleFly, Inc., a restaurant franchise incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York, in federal district court. She sought damages under the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging that she was fired from her waitressing position based on her age. AppleFly filed a third party complaint impleading Nick, a California citizen and the franchisor of the AppleFly location where Georgia worked, alleging that Nick had made the actual decision to fire Georgia. Under the Nick/AppleFly franchise agreement, Nick is liable for indemnification to AppleFly for wrongfully terminating employees. Shortly thereafter, Georgia asserted a claim directly against Nick seeking $70,000 for breach of her employment contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress related to comments Nick allegedly made about her age (both state law claims). May the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Georgia’s claim against Nick?

A. Yes, because it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the original complaint.

B. Yes, because the court may exercise original subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

C. No, because Georgia (original plaintiff) may not assert state law claims against a third party defendant who is a citizen of the same state.

D. No, because a court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the original claim is premised solely on federal question jurisdiction.

57. Daria, a citizen of Virginia, Terrance, a citizen of Virginia, and Carlos, a citizen of North Carolina, have an agreement whereby Carlos sells Terrance a rare type of wood Terrance uses to make sculptures, and Terrance then sells his wood sculptures to Daria, the owner of a boutique art store. Carlos stopped delivering the wood to Terrance, making it impossible for Terrance to complete his sculptures. Daria and Terrance filed a lawsuit against Carlos in federal district court. Terrance is seeking $40,000 in lost profits, and Daria is seeking $80,000 in lost profits. Carlos defends on the basis that he refused to deliver the wood because Terrance was behind on his payments. He filed a counterclaim against Terrance for the missed payments in the amount of $10,000. Daria, who had been unaware of the missed payments, then filed a claim against Terrance for $80,000 for breaching the contract. Which of the following claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

A. Terrance’s claim against Carlos for $40,000.

B. Carlos’s counterclaim against Terrance for $10,000.

C. Daria’s claim against Terrance for $80,000.

D. None. The court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over all three the claims because they share a common nucleus of operative fact.

58. Assume, in each of the following lawsuits, the complete diversity requirement is satisfied and the plaintiffs are making state law claims. Over which of the following lawsuits does a federal court lack subject matter jurisdiction?

A. One plaintiff sues one defendant for $30,000 of property damages and $10,000 of personal injury damages arising from the same car accident and for $50,000 for breach of an unrelated contract.

B. Two plaintiffs who jointly hold title to a parcel of land in which they have a common and undivided interest sue a builder who is constructing a home for them on the land for $90,000.

C. Two passengers in a car sue one defendant for personal injuries resulting from the same accident, each seeking $45,000 in damages.

D. Two passengers in a car sue one defendant for personal injuries resulting from the same accident, one seeking $80,000 in damages and one seeking $10,000 in damages.

59. Professor Tenn, a California citizen, and her friend, an Illinois citizen, had their phones and wallets stolen one night at The Tavern, a California club with its sole location in Palm Springs. Shortly thereafter, the Palm Springs Times reported a pickpocketing problem at The Tavern; in fact, there had been 85 police reports of pickpocketing at The Tavern in the two months prior to the incident. Professor Tenn, who taught Civ Pro but had never litigated a class action, drafted and filed a complaint in federal district court against The Tavern for failing to post warnings, negligence, and various other torts. The complaint contained a motion to certify a class of all patrons who filed police reports alleging pickpocketing at The Tavern in the last two years and named Professor Tenn and her friend as the sole named class representatives. No claimant has a claim exceeding $75,000, but the amount in controversy is estimated to be $5.1 Million collectively. The court denied certification. What is the likeliest reason the court declined to certify the class?

A. Professor Tenn cannot adequately represent the class as counsel and has a conflict of interest as a named class representative and class counsel.

B. Some pickpocketing victims may not have filed police reports, and a judgment in the class action would bind them in violation of their due process rights.

C. Individual class members’ claims will vary based on the value of the items stolen, the personnel at the club when the incidents occurred, and various other facts, and thus there is no commonality.

D. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

{"name":"CIV PRO MBE", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"1. “The Scallion,” an online newspaper with incorporation in Delaware and its only headquarters in Washington, DC, ran a story suggesting the current Secretary of Defense had colluded with Russia to interfere in the most recent presidential election. The Secretary, a resident of Washington, DC, sued The Scallion in federal court on state law libel charges, alleging $1M in damages. In his complaint, the Secretary anticipated that The Scallion would assert its constitutional free press rights as a defense, but alleged that the First Amendment right does not extend to libel. Twenty days later, the Scallion answered the complaint, raising its First Amendment rights as its only defense and consenting to personal jurisdiction and venue. Should the federal court dismiss the case sua sponte?, 2. Victor, a citizen of California, comes to your law office claiming that police officer Dinkel (also a citizen of California) used excessive force when searching his person, seizing his marijuana, and arresting him last week. Victor wants to sue Dinkel under federal law, 42 U.S. Code § 1983. He has $20K in medical bills and claims another $50K in pain and suffering. Dinkel asks you whether he should sue in federal or state court. Where should you advise Victor to sue Dinkel?, 3. Arch, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, filed a breach of contract against Patty, a California citizen, in California state court for $75,000. Ten days after Patty was served, Patty’s lawyer removed the case to the federal district court in California. Three months later, Arch moved to remand the action to state court. With respect to the motion for remand, the federal court should:","img":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/3012/images/ogquiz.png"}