Civil Procedure Chapter 2- MBE Quiz
Plaintiff went on a vacation to Europe with her two best friends, D1 and D2. D1 is a resident of State A, and D2 is a resident of State M. Plaintiff had been a lifelong resident of State M but moved to State Z, just before leaving for vacation. While they were in European City, D1 and D2 rented motorcycles and during their ride, they ran over Plaintiff. Plaintiff returned home and filed a civil action in federal court in State Z asserting $200,000 tort claims against both D1 and D2. Neither D1 nor D2 has ever been to State Z nor have either of them had any contact with the state. Does venue lie in the chosen forum? (A) No, because neither defendant resides there and the accident occurred in European City. (B) Yes, because there is no other district in which venue would lie. (C) No, because State A law would govern the merits of the case. (D) Yes, because Plaintiff is a resident of State Z.
(A) No, because neither defendant resides there and the accident occurred in European City.
Plaintiff went on a vacation to Europe with her best friend, Friend. Friend is a resident of State M. Plaintiff had been a lifelong resident of State M but moved to State A just before leaving for vacation. While they were in European City, Plaintiff and Friend rented motorcycles and during their ride, Friend's motorcycle ran into Plaintiff's motorcycle while Plaintiff was on it. Plaintiff returned home and filed a civil action in federal court in State M asserting $200,000 tort claims against Friend and Moto Co., the motorcycle rental company in European City. Does venue lie in the chosen forum? (A) Yes, because Friend resides there and Moto Co. is a European company. (B) No, because Moto is a European company. (C) Yes, because Plaintiff used to live in State M. (D) No, because the accident occurred in European City.
(A) Yes, because Friend resides there and Moto Co. is a European company.
Traveler, a lifelong resident of State A, went to State B for a convention. One night, he tasted a local Cajun whiskey. Liking what he tasted, he bought a case of the whiskey to take back to State A. Upon his return to State A, Traveler gave a bottle to his boss, Boss, a citizen of State A. After work that evening, Boss decided to try the whiskey and prepared himself a cocktail consisting of the Cajun whiskey and water. After three or four sips of his cocktail, Boss experienced a severe burning sensation in his throat and stomach. He called his doctor, who advised him to come to the hospital and bring the bottle of the whiskey with him. At the hospital it was determined that the bottle contained a high percentage of acid. Boss was treated accordingly. He survived, but had to have part of his stomach removed and will talk in a low raspy voice for the rest of his life. Boss comes to you, an attorney in State A, and wants you to represent him in his personal injury action. He wants to sue for $1 million to pay for his medical expenses and be compensated for his pain and suffering and permanent physical impairments. You agree to represent him and immediately begin making certain investigations. You learn that the Cajun whiskey is a product distilled by the Whiskey Company, a State B corporation with its principal place of business in State B. It distributes its products in State B, State C, and State D. You learn that Whiskey Company places ads in B magazine at all local hotels, including the one where Traveler stayed during his visit. You learn that about 45% of all sales of the Cajun whiskey are made to State A tourists who take the product back to their home state and 50% of its sales are made to citizens of State A who purchase the liquor through Whiskey Company's highly interactive web site. Sales to citizens of State A account for in excess of $3 million annually. In addition, you learn that Whiskey Company has $500,000 on deposit in a State A bank. Assume that the legislature in every state in the country has passed the following statute: The courts of this state shall have personal jurisdiction over an individual, corporation or other entity who, in person or through an agent: transacts business within the state; or commits a tortious act without the state causing injury within the state; or is personally served within the state; or owns property within the state. Can a state court in State A exercise specific jurisdiction over Whiskey Company? (A) Yes, because Whiskey Company transacts business in State A and the cause of action arose out of those contacts. (B) Yes, because of the presence of Whiskey Company's bank account in State A. (C) No, because it did not commit a tortious act in State A. (D) No, because Whiskey Company has no contacts with State A.
(A) Yes, because Whiskey Company transacts business in State A and the cause of action arose out of those contacts.
The defendant/purchaser, a State A citizen, bought a television from the plaintiff/retailer, a State B corporation. The written sales agreement provides that the purchaser designated the company president's secretary to receive service of process for the purchaser in any action brought by the retailer under the terms of this agreement. When the purchaser failed to make a payment, the retailer sued him for breach of contract in federal district court and served the company president's secretary. The secretary, who was unknown to the defendant, mailed a copy of the service to the defendant's home and the defendant received it. Is this service proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? (A) Yes, because the defendant agreed to it by signing the contract and received the process. (B) No, because this is a form contract and the service provision was in small type. (C) No, because the secretary was unknown to the defendant and was the plaintiff's employee. (D) Yes, because the secretary was paid for being a recipient of service.
(A) Yes, because the defendant agreed to it by signing the contract and received the process.
University is a for-profit educational institution incorporated in the state of State A. Its main campus is also in State A. The University's only other campus is a slightly smaller one in State B. Both campuses have operated for over 50 years. A student from State C who attends class at the State A campus sues University for sex discrimination by one of her professors in class. The student brings this suit in a State B federal court and then serves process on the University in State A. If the University moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), which doctrine of personal jurisdiction would provide the strongest argument for maintaining jurisdiction in State B? (A) General jurisdiction based on consent to the State B court's power (B) General jurisdiction based on the University's activity in State B. (C) In rem jurisdiction (D) General jurisdiction based on in-forum service.
(B) General jurisdiction based on the University's activity in State B.
Plaintiff, a resident of State A, was vacationing in State B when the taxi she was riding in collided with an automobile owned by Owner, a resident of City, State B and driven by Driver, a resident of Town, State B. Plaintiff brought a tort action seeking $300,000 in damages against both Owner and Driver in the federal district court for the Southern District of State A. Does venue lie in the chosen forum? (A) Yes, because the plaintiff chose this forum. (B) No, because the plaintiff's residence is irrelevant for venue purposes and because the accident occurred and the defendants reside in State B. (C) Yes, because the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in State A. (D) No, because State A law would govern the resolution of this case.
(B) No, because the plaintiff's residence is irrelevant for venue purposes and because the accident occurred and the defendants reside in State B.
The defendant owns homes in State A, State Z, and State M, where he spends several months in each home at various times of the year. In an action filed in federal district court, the plaintiff served the defendant's spouse at the State M home while the defendant was staying at the home in State Z. The spouse forgot to transfer the process to the defendant. Is this service proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? (A) No, because the defendant was in State Z. (B) Yes, because the State M home is the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode. (C) No, because the defendant did not receive the process. (D) Yes, because the recipient is his spouse.
(B) Yes, because the State M home is the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode.
Plaintiff went on a vacation to State Z with her best friend, Friend. Friend is a resident of State M. Plaintiff had been a lifelong resident of State M but moved to State A, just before leaving for vacation. While they were in State Z, Plaintiff and Friend rented motorcycles and during their ride, Friend's motorcycle ran into Plaintiff's motorcycle while Plaintiff was on it. Plaintiff returned home and filed a civil action in federal court in State A asserting $200,000 tort claims against Friend and Bikes, Inc., the State Z rental company that is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. Friend has never been to State A and never had any contact with the state. Although Bikes, Inc. operates a highly interactive website, no one in State A has ever visited that site or purchased any products from the company. Does venue lie in the chosen forum? (A) Yes, because Plaintiff is a resident of State A. (B) Yes, because Bikes, Inc. is subject to personal jurisdiction in State A. (C) No, neither of the defendants resides there and the accident occurred in State Z. (D) No, because Friend is not subject to personal jurisdiction in State A.
(C) No, neither of the defendants resides there and the accident occurred in State Z.
Plaintiff, a resident of State A, was vacationing in State Z when the taxi she was riding in collided with an automobile owned by Defendant, a resident of City, State Z, and driven by Driver, a resident of Town, State Z. Plaintiff brought a tort action seeking $300,000 in damages against both Defendant and Driver in the federal district court for the Central District of State Z, which is located in Town, State Z. City is located within the Northern District of State Z. Does venue lie in the chosen forum? (A) Yes, because the plaintiff chose this forum. (B) No, because the plaintiff is a resident of State A. (C) Yes, because Driver resides there. (D) No, because Defendant resides in City, which is located in the Northern District of State Z.
(C) Yes, because Driver resides there.
The plaintiff and defendant assert ownership to the same home located in State A. The plaintiff is a State A citizen and the defendant, the plaintiff's former best friend, is a citizen of State Z. The plaintiff files suit in federal court in State A, and the defendant refuses to waive service. The plaintiff obtains a court order seizing the property and serves the defendant by publication in a State A publication. The defendant, who stopped corresponding with the plaintiff one week before suit was brought, files a motion to dismiss for insufficient service. Should the court grant the defense motion? (A) No, because the property was seized. (B) No, because service was effected by publication. (C) Yes, because the plaintiff knew the defendant's location and could have mailed service to the defendant's home address. (D) Yes, because this is an in personam proceeding.
(C) Yes, because the plaintiff knew the defendant's location and could have mailed service to the defendant's home address.
The plaintiff, a State A citizen, brings an action against the defendant, a State Z corporation, in federal district court in State A, asserting two claims. The first claim alleges a violation of the federal antitrust law, which provides for nationwide service of process. The second claim is for breach of contract with respect to an unrelated matter. The trial court has determined that it can constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to the federal claim. It has also determined that the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction under the terms of the State A long-arm statute. Can the court exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to the entire case? (A) No, because there is no personal jurisdiction under the State A long-arm statute. (B) Yes, because of the doctrine of pendent personal jurisdiction (C) Yes, because federal law trumps state law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (D) No, because the federal and state law claims do not arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact.
(D) No, because the federal and state law claims do not arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact.
Traveler, a lifelong resident of State A, went to State B for a convention. One night, he tasted a local Cajun whiskey. Liking what he tasted, he bought a case of the whiskey to take back to State A. Upon his return to State A, Traveler gave a bottle to his boss, Boss, a citizen of State A. After work that evening, Boss decided to try the whiskey and prepared himself a cocktail consisting of the Cajun whiskey and water. After three or four sips of his cocktail, Boss experienced a severe burning sensation in his throat and stomach. He called his doctor, who advised him to come to the hospital and bring the bottle of the whiskey with him. At the hospital it was determined that the bottle contained a high percentage of acid. Boss was treated accordingly. He survived but had to have part of his stomach removed and will talk in a low raspy voice for the rest of his life. Boss comes to you, an attorney in State A, and wants you to represent him in his personal injury action. He wants to sue for $1 million to pay for his medical expenses and be compensated for his pain and suffering and permanent physical impairments. You agree to represent him and immediately begin making certain investigations. You learn that the Cajun whiskey is a product distilled by the Whiskey Company, a State B corporation with its principal place of business in State B. It distributes its products in State B, State C, and State D. You learn that about 45% of all sales of the Cajun whiskey are made to State A tourists who take the product back to their home state and 50% of its sales are made to citizens of State A who purchase the liquor through Whiskey Company's highly interactive web site. Sales to citizens of State A account for in excess of $3 million annually. In addition, you learn that Whiskey Company has $500,000 on deposit in a State A bank. Assume that the legislature in every state in the country has passed the following statute: The courts of this state shall have personal jurisdiction over an individual, corporation, or other entity who, in person or through an agent: transacts business within the state; or commits a tortious act without the state causing injury within the state; or is personally served within the state; or owns property within the state. If the plaintiff chose to file this action in a federal district court in State A, which long-arm statute would apply? (A) State B because the defendant is a citizen of that state. (B) State A because the plaintiff is a citizen of that state. (C) State B because that is where the tortious act occurred. (D) State A because it is the forum state.
(D) State A because it is the forum state.
Plaintiff owns and operates a retail store in State A. It licenses software from Defendant, a State B company that specializes in security technology. Despite the software, hackers broke into Plaintiff's financial system. Plaintiff sued Defendant in a state court in State D for breach of contract, choosing the forum because of its unusually long statute of limitations. Defendant did not object to personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff lost on the merits; the state court holds that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent for its injuries because it did not properly install the software. Plaintiff then filed a second lawsuit against Defendant, largely repeating the breach-of-contract claim that was dismissed in the first lawsuit, but this time filing the lawsuit in federal district court in State D. Defendant answers the complaint raising the affirmative defense of claim preclusion and asserts a counterclaim that the filing of multiple lawsuits has caused Defendant to suffer wrongful injury to reputation, and alleges special damages of lost business in excess of $75,000. Other than filing the pair of lawsuits, Plaintiff has no contacts with State D. Plaintiff moves to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that no summons was served with the counterclaim. How should the court rule on the motion? (A) The court should deny the motion, because a compulsory counterclaim does not require an independent basis for jurisdiction. (B) The court should grant the motion, because a permissive counterclaim requires an independent basis of jurisdiction. (C) The court should grant the motion for lack of service of process. (D) The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff has effectively consented to suit in the forum state.
(D) The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff has effectively consented to suit in the forum state.
Plaintiff files a claim against the defendant, a State A corporation with its headquarters located in State B, in federal district court in State C, alleging a violation of the federal antitrust statute. The federal statute contains a provision for nationwide service of process. The defendant is a major retailer with retail shops in all 50 states and a highly interactive web page that generates hundreds of thousands of dollars of business annually from citizens of all 50 states. Which jurisdictional statute governs whether or not the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction? (A) State C law, because State C is the forum state. (B) State A law, because the defendant is a State A citizen. (C) State B law, because the defendant's headquarters are in State B. (D) The federal antitrust statute.
(D) The federal antitrust statute.
Plaintiff, a lifelong resident of State A, went to State B for a convention. One night, he tasted a local Cajun whiskey. Liking what he tasted, he bought a case of the whiskey to take back to State A. Upon his return to State A, Plaintiff gave a bottle to his boss, Boss, a citizen of State A. After work that evening, Boss decided to try the whiskey and prepared himself a cocktail consisting of the Cajun whiskey and water. After three or four sips of his cocktail, Boss experienced a severe burning sensation in his throat and stomach. He called his doctor, who advised him to come to the hospital and bring the bottle of the whiskey with him. At the hospital it was determined that the bottle contained a high percentage of acid. Boss was treated accordingly. He survived, but had to have part of his stomach removed and will talk in a low raspy voice for the rest of his life. Boss comes to you, an attorney in State A, and wants you to represent him in his personal injury action. He wants to sue for $1 million to pay for his medical expenses and be compensated for his pain and suffering and permanent physical impairments. You agree to represent him and immediately begin making certain investigations. You learn that the Cajun whiskey is a product distilled by the Whiskey Company, a Stae B corporation with its principal place of business in State B. It distributes its products in State B, State C, and State D. Assume that the legislature in every state in the country has passed the following statute: The courts of this state shall have personal jurisdiction over an individual, corporation, or other entity who, in person or through an agent: transacts business within the state; or commits a tortious act without the state causing injury within the state; or is personally served within the state; or owns property within the state. Can a state court in State B exercise general jurisdiction over Whiskey Company? (A) No, because it does not have a bank account in State B. (B) Yes, because it transacts business in State B. (C) No, because it did not commit a tortious act in State B. (D) Yes, because it is a citizen of State B.
(D) Yes, because it is a citizen of State B.
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, Driver, is a citizen of State B and the owner of the truck, Mac Truck, is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in State C. Plaintiff files 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 Mac Truck. In the same suit, Driver files a claim against Mac Truck seeking over $75,000 in damages for the damage to her car. Mac Truck files a tort claim against Plaintiff seeking over $70,000 in damages for the damages to its truck. Mac Truck also files 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. Does venue lie over Plaintiff's claim against Driver? (A) Yes, because the parties are diverse. (B) Yes, because Plaintiff resides in State A. (C) No, because none of the defendants reside in State A. (D) Yes, because the accident occurred in State A.
(D) Yes, because the accident occurred in State A.
Kane Corp., a U.S. company headquartered in State A and incorporated in State D, manufactures and markets a variety of products made from high-tech fibers. Among these products is a surgical gown for doctors that Kane advertises as providing the "highest level of protection from infectious diseases." For many years, Kane has sold large quantities of these gowns directly to four different states' bio-containment centers, which treat patients with infectious diseases. State B is one of those states. Kane sources all of its fabric for these gowns from a supplier in Foreign Country called Foreign-tel. Foreign-tel supplies many other companies with its fabric in other products and does not keep track of where all of its materials end up. A group of State B bio-containment center doctors who wear Kane's gowns as a result of Kane's direct sales to the state became infected with a dangerous virus. They brought a product liability suit against Kane and Foreign-tel in State B state court. Which choice below states most accurately how personal jurisdiction would be analyzed for both defendants? (A) Kane would be subject to personal jurisdiction in State B because of its direct sales there, and Foreign-tel would be subject to personal jurisdiction in State B because it profits from those sales. (B) Kane would not be subject to personal jurisdiction in State B because it sells gowns to three other states besides State B, but Foreign-tel would be subject to personal jurisdiction in State B because it blankets the world with its fabric products. (C) Neither Kane nor Foreign-tel would be subject to personal jurisdiction in State B, because their gowns and fabric are not related to the doctors' injuries in State B. (D) Kane would be subject to personal jurisdiction in State B, because of its direct sales there, but State B's personal jurisdiction over Foreign-tel would be uncertain.
(D) Kane would be subject to personal jurisdiction in State B, because of its direct sales there, but State B's personal jurisdiction over Foreign-tel would be uncertain.
A plaintiff from State A brought a $250,000 breach of contract action against a State B citizen in federal court in State B. The complaint alleges that the defendant agreed to purchase $250,000 of merchandise from the defendant's store, shipped the merchandise to his home in State B, and then refused to pay the invoice. The defendant moved to have the case transferred to the federal district court in State C. In his motion to transfer, the defendant declared that although he had no contacts with the state of State C, he would waive any objections to personal jurisdiction and venue in that state. Should the court grant the motion to transfer? A. Yes, because the D has waived his objections to PJ and venue B. No, because the P would be subject to PJ in state C C. No, because State C is not a district where this action might have been brought by the P D. Yes, because the plaintiff has no objection to the transfer
A. Yes, because the D has waived his objections to PJ and venue
A State Z citizen was given a two-year contract by a Foreign Country company to work in one of its plants in that country. After six months, the plaintiff was fired. She returned to the United States and filed a claim in federal court in State Z, against the company alleging that she was terminated on the basis of her sex in violation of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that although it admitted that it was subject to personal jurisdiction in State Z because of its past business dealings there (including recruiting the plaintiff from State Z), maintaining the suit there would result in extreme inconvenience to it since all the alleged acts of discrimination occurred in the Foreign Country, all the witnesses to the events in question were there, and defending in the United States would be extremely inconvenient. The plaintiff opposed the defense motion on the ground that the foreign court would apply foreign law to this dispute and that under that law, she would have to establish malicious conduct beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas under Title VII, she would only have to prove negligent conduct by a preponderance of the evidence. Should the court dismiss the case? A. Yes, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. B. No, because the foreign law is so hostile to the plaintiff's claim. C. Yes, because the defendant is a foreign company. D. No, because the plaintiff is an American citizen.
A. Yes, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens
In a breach of contract action filed in federal district court by a State A plaintiff against a State Z defendant, the plaintiff served the attorney who had represented the defendant in his previous divorce, at her law office. Is this service proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? A. Yes, because she is the D's attorney B. No, because she was not authorized to receive service C. No, because she was served at her office and not at the D's home D. No, because she does not live in the D's home
B. No, because she was not authorized to receive service.
A State Z citizen was given a two-year contract by a Foreign Country company to work in one of its plants in that country. After six months, the plaintiff was fired. She returned to the United States and filed a claim in federal court in State Z alleging that she was terminated on the basis of her sex in violation of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that although it was subject to personal jurisdiction in State Z because of its past business dealings there (including recruiting the plaintiff from State Z), maintaining the suit there would result in extreme inconvenience to it since all the alleged acts of discrimination occurred in Foreign Country, all the witnesses to the events in question were there, and defending in the United States would be extremely inconvenient. The plaintiff opposed the defense motion on the ground that a Foreign Country court would apply foreign law to this dispute and that law does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Should the court dismiss the case? A. Yes, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. B. No, because under these circumstances, dismissal would not further the interests of justice. C. Yes, because the defendant is a foreign company. D. No, because the plaintiff is an American citizen.
B. No, because under these circumstances, dismissal would not further the interests of justice.
Hardware Company (HC) is a high-tech home product retailer. HC's operations are in State M and it is incorporated there. HC also maintains a retail sales website with national reach. One of HC's best-selling products is a snow-melting stair mat. As a result of aggressive marketing aimed at State M and State N, HC sells an unusually high number of mats in those two states. State M resident bought an HC mat at one of HC's State M retail outlets. After deciding to move to warmer climates, State M resident resold the mat to a hardware store in State Z on the drive to his new home. The store sold the mat to State Z resident Plaintiff. Plaintiff was severely burned at his State Z home when the mat's electrical components malfunctioned. Plaintiff sued HC for product liability in a State N state court, hoping to take advantage of favorable product liability laws there. What is the most likely reason a State N court would refuse specific personal jurisdiction over HC? A. HC did not target the forum of State N. B. There is an insufficient relationship between the forum, the injury, and HC's activities. C. HC's operations are entirely based in State M. D. HC did not sell enough mats in State N.
B. There is an insufficient relationship between the forum, the injury, and HC's activities.
A citizen of State A brought a $200,000 action in State A state court against a restaurant located in State B alleging that the plaintiff had developed food poisoning after eating in the restaurant due to the Kitchen's unhygienic conditions. The defendant removed the case to federal court. Thereafter, the restaurant filed a motion to dismiss with the federal court based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff acknowledged that the applicable long-arm statute does not provide jurisdiction over this defendant. Should the court grant this motion? A. No, because by removing the case the defendant consented to that court's exercise of PJ over it B. Yes, because the D is not subject to personal jursidction C. No, because the claim meets all the requirements of diversity jurisdiction under U.S.C. § 1332 D. Yes, because the defendant is not a citizen of the forum state
B. Yes, because the D is not subject to personal jursidction
A State A plaintiff files a federal question claim against a State B defendant in federal district court in State A. The events that gave rise to that action occurred exclusively in State B. The defendant has no contacts of any kind with State A and so he moves to transfer the case under §1404 to the federal district court in State B. State B has one federal judicial district. Should the court grant the motion? A. No, because the State A court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. B. Yes, because the action could have been brought in State B and transfer there is in the interests of justice. C. No, because venue does not lie in State A. D. Yes, because the State A court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.
B. Yes, because the action could have been brought in State B and transfer there is in the interests of justice.
A State A-incorporated and -based company brought a tort claim seeking $1 million in damages against a rival company based in State M, and incorporated under the laws of Delaware. After being advised by its attorney that State Z law would be most hospitable to this claim, the plaintiff filed this action in a federal court in State Z. None of the events that gave rise to this action were connected to State Z. Assume the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in State Z. The plaintiff subsequently moved to transfer the case to the district court in State M. Should the court grant this motion? A. No, because Ps cannot transfer cases under §1404 B. Yes, because the action could have been brought in State M C. No, because this would allow the P to go forum shopping for the most advantageous law D. Yes, because the federal judges in state M can determine the content of State Z law
B. Yes, because the action could have been brought in State M
In a tort action filed in a federal district court in State A, the plaintiff from State A filed the suit against the defendant from State C. The car accident that gave rise to the lawsuit occurred in State Z. The plaintiff wants to serve the defendant while the defendant is on vacation in State B. Which statute governs the sufficiency of service in this case? A. State C law, because the defendant is a citizen of that state. B. Federal statute, because suit was brought in a federal court. C. State B law, because the defendant is being served there. D.State Z law, because the accident occurred in State Z.
C. State B law, because the defendant is being served there.
Defendant, a lifetime resident of State A, made his first ever venture out of State A when he flew to State C. He was unable to get a nonstop flight and so had to change planes at International Airport in State B. While sitting at the airport, he was served with process in connection with a lawsuit filed against him by his former next-door neighbor. His neighbor, now a citizen of State B, brought suit in State B claiming that Defendant had sold him his car that turned out to be a "lemon." Defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. How should the court rule? A. The court should grant the motion because the car sale was consummated entirely in State A. B. The court should grant the motion because Defendant is a citizen of State A. C. The court should deny the motion because the plaintiff is a citizen of State B D. The court should deny the motion because Defendant was served in State B.
D. The court should deny the motion because Defendant was served in State B.
Apex Corp. sued Bemis Corp. for breach of contract under federal diversity jurisdiction in the Southern District of State A. In response to the complaint, Bemis filed a timely Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue. The court denied the motion. Bemis then filed its answer, raising two defenses: (1) lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2); and (2) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Apex filed a Rule 12(f) motion to strike both defenses. How should the court rule on Apex's motion? A. The court should deny Apex's motion to strike both defenses. B. The court should deny Apex's motion to strike the personal jurisdiction defense but grant Apex's motion to strike the failure to state a claim defense. C. The court should grant Apex's motion to strike both defenses. D. The court should grant Apex's motion to strike the personal jurisdiction defense but deny Apex's motion to strike the failure to state a claim defense.
D. The court should grant Apex's motion to strike the personal jurisdiction defense but deny Apex's motion to strike the failure to state a claim defense.
In an action filed in federal district court, the plaintiff served the defendant by placing a copy of the summons and complaint in the hands of the defendant's housekeeper while she was working in the defendant's home. She forgot to transfer it to the defendant. Is this service proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? A. Yes, because the housekeeper is in the defendant's home. B. No, because the defendant was not personally served. C. Yes, because the housekeeper is a person of suitable age and discretion. D.No, because the housekeeper does not reside in the defendant's home.
D.No, because the housekeeper does not reside in the defendant's home.
