Civ Pro MC

Jayden is a landscape designer. She lives in Oklahoma, and most of her clients are in Oklahoma. Adio, a citizen of Kansas, visits a friend in Oklahoma and is impressed with Jayden's work. Adio calls Jayden from his home in Kansas, and Adio and Jayden discuss some landscaping work that Adio wants done at his home. Jayden agrees to do the work. When Jayden damages Adio's property, Adio seeks to file a lawsuit against Jayden. Adio will have to sue Jayden in Oklahoma since Adio reached out to Jayden by calling her in Oklahoma. A. True B. False

False. This claim arises out of work that Jayden did in Kansas. Although Adio initiated the work by calling Jayden in Oklahoma, Jayden subsequently agreed to perform the requested work in Kansas. The landscaping work is a deliberate contact with Kansas that gave rise to Adio's claim.

Every defendant is subject to general in personam jurisdiction in at least one U.S. state. A. True B. False

Foreign defendants are not necessarily subject to general in personam jurisdiction in the United States. Foreign individuals and corporations may have their "homes" abroad and may not have any place in the United States where they are subject to general in personam jurisdiction.

Diversity jdx

1. citizens of different states or citizen of a state and citizen of a foreign state 2. exceeds $75,000

Compania is a Spanish corporation that is incorporated in Spain and has its principal place of business in Madrid, Spain. Compania sells a defective cell phone case to Leena in Oklahoma at a store that Compania operates there. Leena's cell phone is destroyed as a result of the defect. Assume that Compania's only stores in the U.S. are in Oklahoma and that the company's U.S. offices are located there. Is personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible in Oklahoma? A. Yes because there is specific jurisdiction there. B. Yes because there is general in personam jurisdiction there. C. Yes because there is both specific and general in personam jurisdiction there. D. No because Compania is not a U.S. company and is not "at home" in the U.S.

A is the best answer. Compania is subject to specific jurisdiction in Oklahoma because this claim arises out of Compania's contact there. B and C are incorrect because Compania is not "at home" in the U.S.; its place of incorporation and principal place of business are both in Spain. Even though Compania's U.S. offices are in Oklahoma, Compania is not "at home" there and cannot be subject to general in personam jurisdiction there. D is incorrect because foreign defendants can be subject to specific jurisdiction in the U.S., even if they are not subject to general in personam jurisdiction.

Ace Kayak Co. makes inflatable kayaks in Michigan. It markets the kayaks as "unsinkable" and sells them to Cedar River Kayak, a wholesaler in Iowa, with no restrictions or requirements regarding where Cedar River Kayak may resell the kayaks. Cedar River resells to stores in Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota. Cade buys an Ace inflatable kayak from a store in Minnesota, he brings it to Iowa where it sinks after hitting a rock. Cade files suit against Ace in Iowa to recover for his injuries. A. Ace has purposefully availed itself of Iowa, and this lawsuit arises out of the contact. B. Ace has purposefully availed itself of Iowa, but this lawsuit does not arise out of the contact. C. Ace has purposefully availed itself of Iowa, but the nexus requirement is not satisfied because Cade purchased the kayak that is the subject of this litigation in Minnesota, not Iowa. D. Ace did not purposefully avail itself of Iowa because the negligent act that caused the product defect must have occurred in Michigan where it was manufactured.

A is the correct answer because Ace sold its kayaks, including the one that Cade purchased in Minnesota, to Cedar River in Iowa and this lawsuit arises out of the sale of one of those kayaks. B is wrong because the lawsuit does arise out of Ace's sale of kayaks in Iowa. C is wrong because the nexus requirement is satisfied when Ace sells its kayaks to Cedar River in Iowa regardless of whether Cedar River later sends the kayak to Minnesota where Cade purchases it. Finally D is wrong because Ace did purposefully avail itself of Iowa by selling its kayaks into the state.

Xerxes is the president of Spano Corporation, a corporation incorporated in Delaware. Xerxes lives in Idaho and works (a lot, like eighty hours a week) at the central offices of Spano, in Washington State. Spano makes toasters at a factory in Oregon that employs 200 employees. Weaver, a disgruntled former employee of Spano domiciled in Oregon, sues Xerxes and Spano in federal court in California based on diversity, claiming that they breached his contract by firing him. The federal court A. has jurisdiction based on diversity. B. lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action, because Xerxes and Spano are both citizens of Washington. C. lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action, because no party is a citizen of California. D. lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action, because Spano and Weaver are both citizens of Oregon.

A is the proper answer. Xerxes is a citizen of Idaho, where he lives. A person's citizenship for diversity purposes turns on the center of his domestic life, not his work life. (Even if Xerxes were a citizen of Washington, that would not defeat diversity, since parties on the same side of the "v" may be from the same state without defeating diversity.) Spano is a citizen of Delaware, where it is incorporated, and Washington, where it has its central offices. Even though it makes all of its toasters in Oregon, under the Hertz analysis the court would almost certainly choose Washington as the state in which the corporate activities are directed and controlled, and therefore its principal place of business. B is wrong, because Xerxes is not a citizen of Washington, even though he probably spends more of his waking hours per week in Washington than he does in Idaho. C is a real space shot: diversity does not require that any party be from the state in which the suit is brought, just that the plaintiffs be citizens of different states than the defendants.

Atkins retired from his job in Louisiana. He had always wanted to live on a boat, so he bought one and took up residence at a marina in Texas. However, his boat sank in a storm and he has returned to Louisiana (he had kept an apartment there to use when he visits his children). He plans to get the boat raised and repaired, and return to live on it, but isn't sure when he will have sufficient funds to do so. Udall is a consultant for a fancy New York consulting firm. He lived in New York, but was sent on assignment to a company in Texas to consult on their computer operations. It isn't clear how long the job will take; when it is finished Udall will return to New York. Raskin is a student at Louisiana State University. She came to Louisiana from New York to go to school. She is a senior now. She has no definite post-graduate plans, except to look for work either in Louisiana or anywhere else where she may find an appropriate job. Atkins, Udall and Raskin have a boating accident and Atkins sues Udall and Raskin in federal court for his injuries. The federal court will A. have diversity jurisdiction because Atkins is a citizen of Texas, Udall is a citizen of New York, and Raskin is a citizen of Louisiana. B. not have diversity jurisdiction, because both Udall and Atkins are citizens of Texas. C. have diversity jurisdiction, because Atkins is a citizen of Louisiana, Udall is a citizen of Texas, and Raskin is a citizen of New York. D. not have diversity jurisdiction, because both Atkins and Raskin are citizens of Louisiana.

A is the right answer. Atkins is living in Louisiana, even has an apartment there, but it is clear that his intention is to return to live on his boat once it is repaired. The fact that he is isn't sure when he will be able get his boat repaired doesn't change the fact that his intent is to do so and go back to live at the marina in Texas, where he was domiciled before the storm. So he has a plan to leave on the occurrence of a specific event - the repair of his boat - and does not acquire domicile in Louisiana. Udall is a visitor in Texas. He doesn't know how long he will be there, but he plans to leave on the occurrence of a definite event, the completion of his assignment. And Raskin is domiciled in Louisiana, because she is living there without any definite plan to leave. She probably will leave since chances are good that she will find a job in one of the other forty-nine. But she is open to a job in Louisiana and could get one there. Since she is not definitely leaving, her stay in Louisiana is "indefinite," so there is complete diversity.

Muggeo, from Texas, sues Nguyen, from Oklahoma, for negligence in an accident that took place in Kansas. Muggeo seeks $150,000 in damages, a reasonable sum for his injuries. Muggeo brings the action in state court in Kansas. Nguyen files a notice of removal in the federal court for the District of Kansas thirty-five days after Muggeo files the complaint in the state court and twenty days after the complaint was served on Nguyen. Muggeo receives the notice of removal five days later, and moves to remand twenty-nine days after receiving the notice of removal, claiming that removal was not timely. A. The motion should be granted because Nguyen has filed the notice of removal in the wrong federal court. It should have been filed in federal court in Oklahoma. B. The motion should be granted because the notice of removal was filed in federal court more than thirty days after the case was filed in state court. C. The motion should be denied because Muggeo's motion to remand comes too late. D. The motion should be granted because there is not proper federal subject matter jurisdiction.

A is wrong. The notice of removal should be filed in the federal district that encompasses the place where the case was pending in state court. The case was filed in Kansas, so the District of Kansas is the only proper district for removal. B is wrong, because the time for removal runs from the date the complaint is served on Nguyen, not from the day it was filed. 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1). And D is wrong; there is proper diversity jurisdiction over this case. So Cmust be right... why? Because 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) requires a motion to remand on the basis of any procedural defect in the removal to be filed within thirty days after the filing of the notice of removal. This is troubling ... Nguyen may not receive the notice for some days after filing, but the clock is running even though Nguyen isn't aware of the removal

Katz (a Wisconsin citizen) sues Robinson Corporation (incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Wisconsin) in federal court under the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. He seeks $30,000 in compensatory damages from Robinson. In the same suit Katz sues Desaney, a Robinson employee who allegedly induced the corporation to fire Katz, for tortious interference with contract. He seeks the same $30,000 in compensatory damages from Desaney. He also seeks $60,000 in punitive damages from Desaney as well, for this deliberate interference with his contract. Desaney is from Minnesota. Under relevant law, a jury would be entitled to award punitive damages only for "egregious violations" of the plaintiff's rights in a tort case. The federal court A. has subject matter jurisdiction over the entire action. B. does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim against Robinson Corporation, because the amount in controversy is not met. C. lacks subject matter jurisdiction over either claim, because Robinson is a citizen of Wisconsin. D. lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim against Desaney, because a jury would not be required to award punitive damages, even if they find that Desaney tortiously interfered with the contract.

A prevails here. B fails because there is no amount-in-controversy requirement in federal question cases. Katz could sue Robinson for $1 in nominal damages and the federal court would have subject matter jurisdiction based on the claim for relief under federal law. C fails, because Robinson is sued based on a federal claim, so its state citizenship is irrelevant. Only Desaney is sued based on state law, so in assessing diversity we look only at her state citizenship and compare it to Katz's. To make that clear, assume that Katz had sued Robinson in one federal suit and Desaney in another. There would be federal subject matter jurisdiction over the suit against Robinson based on the federal claim and diversity jurisdiction over the suit against Desaney based on diversity. Since Katz could do that, he can sue them together even though he bases federal jurisdiction over the two claims on different categories of federal jurisdiction. D is wrong, because a jury might award punitive damages. The court will ask whether it is possible that a jury would award more than $75,000 to the plaintiff. If it is, the amount-in-controversy requirement is met, even if they also might not. Where the jury has the option of awarding more than the required amount, it does not "appear to a legal certainty" that the claim is for less. (As an aside, note that the federal court would also have supplemental jurisdiction over Katz's claim against Desaney, even if the amount requirement was not met, under 28 U.S.C. §1367.)

Jessup has an apartment in Michigan. He spends about nine months of the year leading pack trips in the Black Hills of South Dakota. During the winter, and between trips, he lives in his Michigan apartment. Bolden grew up in Ohio and went to college there. Now he is at the University of Michigan getting a master's degree, which will take one to two years. After that, he plans to go to California to work in a high tech company, though he does not yet have a job offer. Zakian lives in Ohio, and has a summer house on Lake Michigan in Michigan. Jessup, Bolden and Zakian are involved in a three-car collision and Jessup sues Bolden and Zakian in federal court based on diversity. The federal court A. does not have diversity jurisdiction, because Jessup and Bolden are both citizens of Michigan. B. does not have diversity jurisdiction, because Zakian and Bolden are both citizens of Ohio. C. does have diversity jurisdiction, because Jessup is from Michigan, Bolden is from California, and Zakian is from Ohio. D. does have diversity jurisdiction because Jessup is from Michigan and Bolden and Zakian are from Ohio.

Although Jessup spends more time in South Dakota than he does in Michigan, Michigan is his domicile. He has an apartment there, where presumably his worldly goods are kept, and where he spends his time when he is not traveling for his work. It is the center of his domestic life, to which he returns after each trip, even though he spends more days per year in South Dakota. Bolden is domiciled in Ohio. Although he is getting his degree in Michigan, he is not domiciled there because he plans to leave when he finishes his degree. He doesn't know exactly when he will finish, but he plans to leave upon a definite event - getting his degree. And Zakian is domiciled in Ohio, because he lives there. He has a residence in Michigan, but it is a vacation home, which he visits from time to time. When he is in Michigan, he is on vacation, not living his regular life, which he does in Ohio. The best answer is D. Note that B is wrong because having two defendants from the same state does not defeat diversity, as long at the plaintiff is from a different state.

Giesel is domiciled in Alabama and is in a car accident while visiting Louisiana. She sues the driver of the other car, Hank, who is also domiciled in Alabama and happens to have been visiting Louisiana at the same time as Giesel. Which of the following statements is most accurate? A. Because this claim arose of Hank's contacts in Louisiana, Giesel must file her claim there. B. Because general in personam jurisdiction is available in Alabama, she must file here claim there. C. Personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible in either Alabama or Louisiana, so Giesel can choose either state as a matter of personal jurisdiction.

C is the best answer. There is general in personam jurisdiction over Hank in Alabama because he is domiciled there. There is also specific jurisdiction in Louisiana over Hank because Giesel's claim arose out of Hank's contact in Louisiana. There is no requirement that plaintiffs choose one form of personal jurisdiction over the other, so A and B are both inaccurate.

Stemmel files a complaint in state court, asserting that Stemmel's employer, Renown Corp., failed to pay Stemmel for the work that Stemmel regularly performed on weekends and that Renown had thus violated the state's overtime law. Renown files a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which is interpreted the same way as the federal rule, on the grounds that the jurisdiction's state supreme court had interpreted the state's overtime law in such a way that a person in Stemmel's position is exempt from overtime pay and is not entitled to additional compensation. Assuming the state supreme court's decision is indistinguishable from the facts of this case, which of the following statements is most accurate? A. The complaint is legally insufficient and should be dismissed. B. The complaint is factually insufficient and should be dismissed. C. The complaint is both legally and factually insufficient and should be dismissed. D. The complaint is both legally and factually sufficient and should not be dismissed.

B is incorrect. The complaint is factually sufficient in that it alleges facts that are more than a simple recitation of the cause of action (i.e., Stemmel alleges that Stemmel worked on the weekends and failed to get paid for that work). For the same reason, Cis also incorrect. The problem here is that the complaint is legally insufficient. Specifically, the complaint does not allege a legally cognizable cause of action because the state supreme court has ruled out a claim under these precise circumstances. For this reason, the trial court must dismiss the complaint. Of course, the plaintiff can appeal that dismissal all the way to the state supreme court and argue that the supreme court's earlier case was wrongly decided and should be overruled. In the meantime, however, the lower courts do not have the authority to ignore the prior decision and must dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds of legal insufficiency.

Gomez, a real estate broker from Colorado, sues Solow, from Utah, and Tetro, from Nevada, in state court in Utah. Gomez claims that Solow and Tetro, co-owners of a large building, failed to pay her a $100,000 commission on the sale of the building that Gomez arranged for Solow. Twenty days after being served with the complaint, Solow removes to federal court, without the consent of Tetro. A. The claim against Solow is now pending in the federal court, and the claim against Tetro is pending in state court. B. Tetro will waive the objection to removal unless he moves to remand the case to state court within thirty days. C. Tetro may move at any time to remand the case to state court based on his refusal to join in the removal. D. Tetro should move in the state court to remand the case to state court because all defendants did not agree to removal.

B is right. A is gravely wrong: the federal court will not divide the case up and take jurisdiction of only one of the two claims. If it is properly removed the entire case will be pending in federal court. C is wrong, because Tetro must move to remand within thirty days after removal or he will waive the objection based on his refusal to join in the removal. D is also wrong. Once the case is removed to federal court, the state court loses authority to enter any order in the case; it is now no longer pending in the state court. See 28 U.S.C. §1446(d) ("the State court shall proceed no further" unless the case is remanded).

Johan sues Leila in federal court, alleging that Leila violated a federal statute. Which of the following statements is the most accurate? A. A state court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case because Johan's claim is based on a federal statute. B. A state court probably does have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. C. A state court may have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, but only if Congress has expressly stated that the state court may hear the case.

B is the answer. State courts and federal district courts have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction (i.e., either court can hear the case), except when Congress has expressly provided that only the federal district courts can hear the case (i.e., exclusive subject matter jurisdiction). Because there is no indication that Congress has made such a statement here, A is incorrect. C incorrectly suggests that Congress must explicitly provide for concurrent jurisdiction. In fact, the opposite is true; concurrent jurisdiction exists unless Congress expressly states that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

Bama, a citizen of North Dakota, repairs antique cars for a living. He placed an advertisement to attract new clients in a car trader's magazine that circulates in North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. Bama gets a call from Althea in Wyoming asking him to repair her 1910 Ford Model T (she was referred to Bama by one of her friends who hired Bama to repair his antique car). Althea brings the car to North Dakota and Bama completes the repair at his garage there. Althea is dissatisfied with the work and decides to file suit. A. Althea will likely be able to acquire specific personal jurisdiction over Bama in Wyoming because the advertisement in the car trader's magazine is a purposeful minimum contact with Wyoming. B. Althea will not be able to acquire specific personal jurisdiction over Bama in Wyoming. Although Bama placed an advertisement in a magazine that circulates in Wyoming, this lawsuit does not arise out of or relate to the advertisement. C. Althea will likely be able to acquire specific personal jurisdiction over Bama in Wyoming because Bama has minimum contacts with Wyoming and the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. D. Althea will not be able to acquire specific personal jurisdiction over Bama in Wyoming because he performed the repair work that is the subject of the litigation in North Dakota, not Wyoming.

B is the correct answer. Although Bama has purposefully availed himself of Wyoming by soliciting new clients in the car trader's magazine that circulates there, the nexus requirement is not satisfied because this lawsuit does not arise out of or relate to the advertisement. Althea called Bama because of a recommendation from her friend, not because she saw the advertisement in the car trader's magazine. Even if Althea attempted to argue that her claim "relates to" the advertisement by relying upon the reasoning in Ford v. Bandemer, the facts here are very different than the facts presented in Ford. Bama's contacts with Wyoming are not substantial or systematic, like Ford's contacts were, and the repair work that allegedly caused the plaintiff's injury did not take place in the forum state, like the accident that was the subject of the litigation in Ford. These distinctions suggest that a court is unlikely to uphold jurisdiction by finding that Bama's advertisement in Wyoming is sufficiently related to Althea's claim to satisfy the nexus requirement. A and C are incorrect because specific personal jurisdiction will only exist if the nexus requirement is satisfied, meaning that litigation that is the subject of the lawsuit arises out of or relates to the defendant's purposeful contact with the forum state, and both of these answers ignore the nexus requirement. D is incorrect because it ignores the fact that if Althea had contacted him because she saw the advertisement in the car trader's magazine, Bama would be subject to specific personal jurisdiction, even if he performed the repair work in North Dakota.

Brady, a citizen of Massachusetts, sells his car to Romeo, a fellow citizen of Massachusetts. The sale takes place in Massachusetts, but shortly thereafter, Brady moves to Oregon. Six months later, the engine explodes while Romeo is driving the car on a rural road in New Hampshire. If Romeo sues Brady in Massachusetts state court, the court will likely A. not have personal jurisdiction because Brady no longer lives in Massachusetts. B. not have personal jurisdiction because the events that gave rise to this suit occurred in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts. C. have personal jurisdiction because Romeo bought the car from Brady in Massachusetts and this litigation arises out of the sale. D. have personal jurisdiction because Brady lived in Massachusetts at the time he sold the car to Romeo and therefore is subject to general jurisdiction.

C is the correct answer. Brady has minimum contacts with Massachusetts because the claim arises out of his purposeful conduct in Massachusetts - selling the car to Romeo. The existence of minimum contacts creates a presumption that jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. It does not matter that Brady no long lives in Massachusetts for specific jurisdiction to exist (A is wrong). It also does not matter that the alleged defect caused an injury in New Hampshire. The defendant's purposeful conduct occurred in Massachusetts, not New Hampshire (B is wrong). D is wrong because general jurisdiction is determined on the date the complaint is filed (when Brady is living in Oregon), not on the date that the suit arose.

Marcus, a citizen of Montana, repairs the hard drive on Mackenzie's computer in Montana. Shortly thereafter, Marcus moves to Oregon. Three months later, Mackenzie's computer explodes, injuring Mackenzie. If Mackenzie sues Marcus in Montana state court, that court will A. not have personal jurisdiction over Marcus for this claim because Marcus no longer lives in Montana. B. not have personal jurisdiction over Marcus for this claim because Marcus cannot be served with process in Montana. C. will have personal jurisdiction over Marcus even though Montana is no longer Marcus's domicile. D. will have personal jurisdiction over Marcus because he was a citizen of Montana and therefore subject to general jurisdiction there at the time the suit arose.

C is the correct answer. Marcus had purposeful contact with Montana because he repaired Mackenzie's computer there, and this claim arose out of that repair. Marcus does not need to continue living in Montana at the time suit is filed for specific jurisdiction to exist, and he doesn't need to be served with process in Montana to be subject to personal jurisdiction there. It is sufficient for Marcus's conduct in the state to give rise to the lawsuit. D is wrong because general jurisdiction is determined on the date of filing, not the date that the incident arose. (The review on general jurisdiction may be helpful here.)

Dellinger, from Maine, sues Warner, from Vermont, and Munoz, from New York, for breach of contract, a state law claim. The suit is brought in Vermont state court. Thirty-five days after receiving service of the complaint Munoz removes the case to federal court. Although Warner had been served with the complaint, she refuses to join in the notice of removal. Dellinger's claim against each defendant is for $60,000. Three months after removal, Warner moves to remand to state court. The motion should be A. granted, because the case was not removed within thirty days after service of the complaint. B. granted, because Warner did not join in the notice of removal. C. granted, because the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met. D. All of the above are correct.

C is correct. Dellinger has sued each defendant for less than the jurisdictional amount. Dillinger cannot add the two claims together to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement; she must meet it separately against each defendant. So this case could not have been filed originally in federal court and therefore cannot be removed under 28 U.S. C. § 1441(a). A is wrong. Warner's motion to remand based on late removal will be denied, because she did not move to remand on this basis within thirty days after removal. Section 1447(c) provides that a motion to remand based on any defect in the removal other than a lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within thirty days after removal. Warner waited three months to raise the late-removal objection, so Warner has waived it. For the same reason B is wrong as well. Warner waived the objection based on failure to consent to removal by failing to move to remand within thirty days.

Mattison, from New York, sues Riggins, from Pennsylvania, and Puzo, from Virginia, in a state court in Virginia, seeking $200,000 damages for discharging her in violation of her contract. The defendants are served with the complaint five days later, but do not remove to federal court. Five months later Mattison amends her complaint with leave of court to add a claim against them under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. A. The defendants may not remove the case after the federal claim is added to the complaint, because the case could have been removed as originally filed. Thus, the case did not "become removable" when the federal claim was added by the amendment. B. The defendants may not remove to federal court, because there is an in-state defendant. C. The defendants may remove to federal court. D. The defendants may not remove because a case must be removed to federal court within thirty days after the original complaint is served on the defendant.

C is right, the case is properly removable within thirty days after the defendants receive service of the amended pleading that adds the federal claim to the case. See 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(3). A is wrong because the case was not originally removable; Puzo is an in-state defendant, and a diversity case cannot be removed when there is an in-state defendant. B is wrong because, when the basis of removal is a federal claim, the in-state defendant bar in §1441(b)(2) does not apply. D is wrong because §1446(b)(3) creates an exception to the usual rule that removal must be within thirty days after receiving the complaint.

Terra Corp. has its principal place of business in Arizona and is incorporated in Delaware. Terra has a store in Nebraska, where it sells skateboards. Angel, domiciled in Nebraska, buys a Terra Skateboard there and is subsequently injured when the skateboard's wheel disconnects from the skateboard. Where is personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible? A. Arizona and Delaware only B. Nebraska only. C. Arizona, Delaware, and Nebraska. D. None of the above.

C is the best answer. Terra is subject to general in personam jurisdiction in Arizona and Delaware because Terra is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Arizona. Personal jurisdiction is also constitutionally permissible in Nebraska because this claim arises out of Terra's contact there (i.e., Terra is subject to specific jurisdiction there).

Petrovo, a lawyer domiciled in New York, is fired from his law firm, Able, Baker, Charlene and Denisa, a partnership with four partners. Able, one partner, is domiciled in Ohio. Baker, a second partner, is domiciled in West Virginia, Charlene, a third partner, is domiciled in Connecticut. Denisa, the fourth partner, lives in New York but is a citizen of Portugal who is in the US on a temporary visa. The law firm's principal place of business is in New York. If Petrovo sues the partnership in federal court in New York, the court will A. have diversity jurisdiction, because Petrovo is diverse from the partnership. B. lack diversity jurisdiction because Petrovo and Denisa are both domiciled in New York C. lack diversity jurisdiction, because the partnership has its principal place of business in Petrovo's state. D. lack diversity jurisdiction, because Petrovo, a citizen of New York, has sued in a court in New York.

Choose A. In applying diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of a partnership is that of each of the partners. Able is an Ohio citizen, Baker is a West Virginia citizen, Charlene is a Connecticut citizen, and Denisa is a Portuguese citizen. She is not a citizen of New York, even though she is domiciled there, because she is not a U.S. citizen. She is a foreign citizen, and therefor diverse from Petrovo. The principal place of business of a partnership is irrelevant to determining diversity. The partnership is a citizen of the states of domicile of the four partners. A corporation is a citizen of the state of its principal place of business, but a partnership is not. D is badly wrong; there is no bar on a citizen of a state bringing a diversity action in a federal court in his home state. (Compare the bar on removal of diversity cases in 28 U.S.C. §1441(b)(2) if there is an in-state defendant.)

Chen, from China, came to Pennsylvania to attend the University of Pennsylvania. He has not been admitted to the United States for permanent residence, but hopes that he might be in the future and could stay in Pennsylvania. While at Penn, he married Schwartz, a citizen of Delaware. During Chen's second year, and after his marriage, Morris (a Pennsylvania citizen) told the newspapers that Chen had only married Schwartz so that he could strengthen his argument for getting permanent residence status. Chen and Schwartz sue Morris in federal court for $150,000 for defamation, a state law claim. The federal court A. has diversity jurisdiction, because Schwartz and Chen are now both treated as citizens of Delaware. B. has diversity jurisdiction, because Schwartz and Morris are diverse and Chen is a foreign citizen. C. lacks diversity jurisdiction, because Chen is treated as a citizen of Pennsylvania and so is Morris. D. lacks diversity jurisdiction, because Chen is domiciled in Pennsylvania.

Choose B. Chen is a citizen of China, a "citizen of a foreign state" in the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) and (3). He does not acquire his wife's state citizenship just by marrying her. He does not acquire Pennsylvania citizenship by living there, even if it is his domicile: A person must be a citizen of the United States to be a citizen of a state, and Chen is not a US citizen. Nor does the "except" clause in § 1332(a)(2) apply, because Chen is not admitted for permanent residence. If it did, Chen would not be authorized to sue a citizen of Pennsylvania based on diversity - that's what the "except" clause says. So the case is one between citizens of different states (Morris from Pennsylvania and Schwartz from Delaware) in which a foreign citizen is an additional party. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3). Diversity jurisdiction is proper.

Jane graduated from high school in Tennessee. She had been accepted to college, but wanted to take a year off first. She took a job as a groom for a racing stable near her home in Tennessee. She worked at the stable for two months, and then they took the horses on the racing circuit - a month in Delaware, a month in Pennsylvania, then to Saratoga, in upstate New York. At each place, she slept in a small room behind the stable. The day the horse vans pulled into Saratoga, Jane realized that this was the life she loved and the place she loved, and she decided to stay in Saratoga, get a job working with horses and hopefully become a trainer. A week later she got hurt at the track, and is now hospitalized in Saratoga, where she will remain for a six-month rehabilitation program. She now has permanent disabilities that will make a career as a trainer impossible, so she plans to go back to Tennessee when she is discharged from the hospital. If Jane brings a diversity case against the Saratoga Raceway while still in the hospital, the court will likely conclude that she is domiciled in A. New York, because she currently resides there and will be there for at least six more months. B. New York, because while she was there, she decided to continue working with horses and live in Saratoga. C. Tennessee, because she plans to leave for Tennessee at the end of her rehabilitation program. D. Tennessee, because she no longer has the intent to become a trainer in Saratoga.

Choose B. Jane acquired a New York domicile when she decided to stay in Saratoga and work there. She won't lose it until she leaves New York. She now has the intent to do so, but hasn't established a residence in another state yet. She must meet both requirements in order to establish a new domicile.

Congress cannot limit the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts in cases involving federal questions. A. True B. False

Congress does not have to authorize any of the nine categories of federal subject matter jurisdiction in Article III, Section 2. When Congress does authorize one of those nine categories, Congress can impose a variety of limitations on that authority. For this reason, the statement is false.

Donnelly, a Texas citizen, is injured in a boating accident involving three boats, being piloted by Ace, Deuce and Queen. The accident takes place on Lake Charles, in Louisiana. Ace is from Louisiana, Deuce is from Oklahoma, and Queen is from Louisiana. Donnelly claims $95,000 in damages. Donnelly sues all three as codefendants in a state court in Louisiana, seeking recovery on a negligence claim and a claim under a federal statute. A. The defendants may remove, because there is complete diversity and the amount-in-controversy requirement is met. B. The defendants may not remove, because Ace and Queen are citizens of Louisiana. C. The defendants may remove, because the case arises under federal law. D. The defendants may remove, but the court will have to remand the case against Ace and Queen, because they are in-state defendants.

Donnelly could have brought this case in federal court, because it arises under federal law - he is seeking relief under a federal statute. If he had, the federal court would also have had diversity jurisdiction over the negligence claim, since there is complete diversity and the amount-in-controversy requirement is met. (The court would also have supplemental jurisdiction over that claim, if it needed it, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.) So, since the case could have been brought initially in federal court, it may be removed to federal court. But what about § 1441(b)(1), which bars removal of a diversity case if there is an in-state defendant. Well, that section bars removal of a case in which federal jurisdiction is based "solely" on diversity. This one is based on federal question jurisdiction as well, so B fails. A fails, because satisfying diversity alone would not allow removal if there is an in-state defendant. D is wrong, because the bar on removal by in-state citizens only applies to cases based "solely on diversity." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). C takes the prize; it is the presence of a claim under federal law that makes the case removable.

Assume that Congress passes a statute that says that "federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs arising under federal law, but only when the plaintiffs have alleged damages in excess of $100 million." This statute would be: A. unconstitutional, because Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution does not give Congress the authority to restrict subject matter jurisdiction according to the amount of damages alleged. B. unconstitutional, because this is not one of the nine types of cases specified in Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution over which the federal district courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction. C. unconstitutional, if a court finds that the amount-in-controversy requirement is so high that it would effectively undermine a plaintiff's access to federal district court. D. constitutional.

D is the answer. Federal question jurisdiction is one of the nine categories in Article III, Section 2, so B is incorrect. A is incorrect because Article III, Section 2 simply tells us how much subject matter jurisdiction authority the federal courts can have, assuming Congress decides to authorize it. Congress can decide not to authorize the federal district courts to hear all nine categories of subject matter jurisdiction or can authorize the federal district courts to hear certain categories of cases in ways that are more restrictive than what Article III would otherwise permit. For this reason, C is also incorrect; Congress can make subject matter jurisdiction more restrictive than what is permitted under Article III, such as by using an amount in controversy requirement, and there is no reason to believe that there is an upper limit to the amount that Congress can set.

Article III, Section 2 grants subject matter jurisdiction to federal courts in "[c]ontroversies between a state and citizens of another state." Assume that Congress has not passed a law authorizing federal district courts to hear such cases. Yolanda, a citizen of Oklahoma, sues the State of Texas in federal district court for breach of contract (a state law claim). Which of the following statements is the most accurate? A. There is subject matter jurisdiction in the federal district court because the claim is between a state (Texas) and a citizen of another state (Yolanda, from Oklahoma). B. There is no subject matter jurisdiction in the federal district court because Yolanda is alleging a state law claim. C. There is no subject matter jurisdiction in the federal district court because there is no constitutional authority for the federal district court to hear the case. D. There is no subject matter jurisdiction in the federal district court because Congress has not authorized subject matter jurisdiction in this type of case.

D is the answer. The federal district courts have constitutional authority to hear a case of this sort because the case involves a lawsuit (a "controversy") between a State (here, Texas) and a citizen of another state (here, Yolanda, from Oklahoma). Thus, C is incorrect. But that does not mean that the federal district courts can hear this case. Remember that there must also be statutory authority for the federal district courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a case, and there is not any such authority here. For this reason, A is incorrect and D is correct. Finally, B is incorrect because it incorrectly states that federal courts are not permitted to hear state law claims. In fact, federal district courts are permitted to hear state law claims as long as there is a basis for doing so under Article III, Section 2 and Congress has authorized it.

In which of the following cases would federal question jurisdiction exist? A. Victor alleges that Ursula violated federal law and asserts damages in excess of $75,000. B. Victor alleges that Ursula violated federal law and asserts damages in excess of $25,000. C. Victor alleges that Ursula violated state law, and Ursula defends the claim on the grounds that a federal statute entitled her to engage in the alleged wrongful conduct. D. A and B, but not C, are true. E. A, B, and C are all true.

D is the answer. There is no requirement that a plaintiff allege more than a certain amount in damages in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction (i.e., federal question jurisdiction has no amount in controversy requirement). Thus, there is federal question jurisdiction in A and B. C, however, is not correct because the Supreme Court in Mottley held that, to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the plaintiff's statement of the plaintiff's own cause of action must show that the action is based upon federal law. Here, the plaintiff's statement of the plaintiff's cause of action arises under state law; the federal issue is going to be raised merely as a defense to the state law claim.

Roshini sues Rascal Corp. for manufacturing a defective product that injured Roshini. Rascal is incorporated in Florida and has its principal place of business in Ohio. Roshini purchased the product at a Rascal store in New Jersey, where Roshini is domiciled and was injured. Where is personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible in this case? A. Florida and Ohio only. B. Florida and Ohio, and perhaps New Jersey if Rascal has numerous stores there. C. Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio; there is general in personam jurisdiction over Rascal in all three states. D. Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio; there is general in personam jurisdiction over Rascal in Florida and Ohio, and there is specific jurisdiction over Rascal in New Jersey. E. C and D are both accurate.

D is the best answer. Personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible in any state where there is specific or general in personam jurisdiction over Rascal. We know that there is general in personam jurisdiction over Rascal where it is incorporated (Florida) and has its principal place of business (Ohio). Rascal is not subject to general in personam jurisdiction in New Jersey simply because it has many stores there. Rascal is, however, subject to specific jurisdiction in New Jersey because Rascal sold the allegedly defective product to Roshini there. Personal jurisdiction, therefore, is constitutionally permissible in all three states (Florida and Ohio based on general in personam jurisdiction and New Jersey based on specific jurisdiction).

Rojas loses his job as a stockbroker in New York. He looks for work, and is offered a one-year contract to work in California as a financial analyst for a large mutual fund company. He takes the job, planning to return to New York when the job ends. He starts work, likes California and decides to look for work in California after the contract ends. But two months later his company offers him a promotion to a job in Illinois, and he decides to take it when the year is up. After deciding to go to Illinois A. Rojas is not domiciled in California, because when he arrived there he planned to leave on the occurrence of a definite event. B. Rojas is still domiciled in New York, because his job will end at the end of one year. C. Rojas acquired domicile in California upon his arrival, since he intended to stay for a year. D. Rojas is domiciled in California, even though he plans to leave at the end of the year. E. Rojas acquired domicile in California, but has lost it after deciding to leave at the end of the year.

D. When Rojas moved to California he intended to leave at the end of the year, so he expected to be there for a definite period of time and did not acquire a new domicile in California. However, when he decided to look for a job in California instead of going back to New York, the two requirements to form a domicile -- residence and intent to remain on an open-ended basis -- coincided, and (presto!) Rojas acquired a California domicile. Although he later decides to leave, he has not yet done so, so he retains his California domicile. D takes the cake here. Note that A is wrong; it suggests that you must arrive in the new state with intent to remain indefinitely. Not so; if you arrive planning to leave and later change your mind about leaving, as Rojas did, you will magically switch domiciles when that happens.

Sherrie has a claim against Bradbury Press, a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York, for breach of contract because Sherrie wrote a manuscript for Bradbury but did not get paid. Sherrie wrote the manuscript at her beach house in Malibu, California, and negotiated the deal with Bradbury Press representatives at corporate headquarters located in New York. The contract called for New York law to apply to any disputes that arise. If Sherrie files suit against Bradbury Press in a Delaware court, the court will dismiss the case on personal jurisdiction grounds. A. True B. False

False. A Delaware state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any claim filed against Bradbury Press, regardless of whether the events that gave rise to the claim occurred in Delaware, because Bradbury Press is subject to general personal jurisdiction in the state of its incorporation.

Bama, a citizen of North Dakota, repairs antique cars for a living. Most of his clients are from North Dakota, but one day Bama gets a call from Althea in Wyoming asking Bama to repair Althea's 1910 Ford Model T. Bama travels to Wyoming and does the repair there. Althea is dissatisfied with the work and decides to file suit. Althea will have to sue Bama in North Dakota since he is domiciled in North Dakota and the large majority of his work takes place there. A. True B. False

False. Bama has purposefully availed himself of Wyoming by repairing Althea's car in Wyoming. The other elements of the minimum contacts test for specific jurisdiction (the nexus requirement and the reasonableness factors which are discussed in other reviews) are also satisfied, so Althea may bring suit in Wyoming under International Shoe

Campbell was boating on Lake Superior. The border between Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan runs right down the middle of the lake. Campbell entered the lake on the Michigan side and collided with Abner, who was driving another boat. Unknown to Campbell, he unwittingly crossed the invisible border, and the collision took place in Minnesota. If Abner sues for his injury in a Minnesota court, the court will find that Campbell has not purposefully availed himself of Minnesota. A. True B. False

False. Campbell drove his boat into Minnesota, whether he knew it or not. He intended to go where he went on the lake (even if he didn't know that he crossed a state border), and imposed a risk in Minnesota that resulted in injury there. The argument that "I didn't know I was in Minnesota" will not work. Campbell has purposefully availed himself of Minnesota.

While backcountry skiing in Utah, Chichi unknowingly crosses the border into Colorado where he collides with Baxter, another skier. Baxter sues for his injury in a Colorado court. A Colorado court will not have personal jurisdiction over Chichi because Chichi did not realize that he had crossed the border into Colorado. A. True B. False

False. Even if Chichi did not specifically intend to cross the border into Colorado, Chichi did intend to ski into the area where the accident occurred, and that area happened to be in Colorado. The argument that "I didn't know I was in Colorado" will be an ineffective defense.

Ramada buys a boat from Intrepid Boating Company, in Virginia Beach. Ramada specifically tells the salesperson that he plans to use the boat for charter fishing trips in Virginia in the summer and in Florida in the winter. Ramada buys the boat, but on the first trip to Florida, the engine explodes and sinks near Miami. Ramada wants to sue Intrepid Boating Co. (incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Virginia Beach, Virginia) in Florida. The Florida courts would have specific jurisdiction over the defendant. A. True B. False

False. Intrepid Boating Co. has no contact with Florida. Although Ramada told the salesperson that he planned to use the boat in Florida, Intrepid had no control over Ramada's decision to take the boat to Florida. Just like in World-Wide Volkswagen where the Court held that the New York car dealership could not be hailed into Oklahoma because the Robinsons chose to drive their car in Oklahoma, the boating company will not be subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida simply because Ramada chose to bring his boat to Florida, even if Ramada told the salesperson that he intended to do so.

Adele buys a 25-foot Pursuit motor boat from Snug Harbor Yacht Co. in Massachusetts. Adele tells the salesperson that she plans to take the boat to visit her son in Newport, Rhode Island. On route to Newport, the motor on the boat fails while she is in Rhode Island waters and Adele has to be rescued at sea. Adele sues Snug Harbor Yacht Co. in Rhode Island state court. (Snug Harbor Yacht Co. is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Massachusetts.) The court will find that the company purposefully availed itself of Rhode Island when it sold the boat to Adele because the salesperson knew that Adele planned to take the boat to Rhode Island. A. True B. False

False. It is true that Adele told the salesperson that she planned to take the boat to Rhode Island, but her trip to Rhode Island is her contact, not the defendant's. The defendant has not purposefully availed itself of Rhode Island.

Jack grows up in Maryland. At eighteen he goes to a one-year program at a culinary school in Connecticut. When he arrives there, he has no idea what he will do or where he will go after he finishes. Halfway through, he is offered a job in Ohio when he finishes the program, and decides to take it. After he makes this decision, but before he moves to Ohio, Jack is domiciled in Maryland. A. True B. False

False. Jack is domiciled in Connecticut. He arrived there and "resided" there with no definite plans as to what he would do next. His stay was thus open-ended, or "indefinite." Even though he now plans to leave, he will not lose his Connecticut domicile until he moves to Ohio and resides there.

Jack grows up in Maryland. At eighteen he goes to a one-year program at a culinary school in Connecticut. He does not know exactly where he will live after he completes the program, but he is sure of two things: he will never return to the state of Maryland and he will not stay in Connecticut. While he is in the program, Jack is domiciled in Connecticut. A. True B. False

False. Jack is domiciled in Maryland. He was domiciled there before he moved to Connecticut. When he moved to Connecticut, he did not acquire a new domicile, because he knew that he was there for a limited time - the one year it will take to get his certificate. He is in Connecticut for a definite time, does not acquire a new domicile there, so we look back to his previous domicile. Even though he swears he will never set foot in Maryland again, he is still domiciled there under the test.

Perrone, from Michigan, sues Ruiz, from Texas, in federal court based on diversity. Two weeks after filing suit, Ruiz moves to Michigan to take a teaching job there - miraculously, with tenure! The federal district court will now dismiss Perrone's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, since the parties are now citizens of the same state. A. True B. False

False. The clear rule is that diversity is determined by the state citizenship of the parties on the date of filing of the complaint.

Cedric, a citizen of Michigan, was boating on Lake Michigan on July 4th. The border between Michigan and Wisconsin runs down the middle of the lake and Cedric entered the lake on the Michigan side. Unknown to Cedric, he unwittingly crossed the invisible border and entered Wisconsin as he was touring close to shore around the lake. As Cedric drove past a small cottage in Wisconsin, Darby lit a firework that accidentally hit Cedric's boat. If Cedric sues Darby in Michigan state court for the damage to Cedric's boat, the court is likely to find that the purposeful availment requirement is satisfied. A. True B. False

False. This is a reminder that purposeful availment depends upon the defendant's contacts with the forum state, not the plaintiff's contacts. Here the plaintiff is from Michigan and he enters the lake in Michigan. But Darby is the defendant, so we must consider Darby's contacts with Michigan. The question mentions no contact by Darby with Michigan, so the court is likely to find that Darby did not purposefully avail herself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Michigan.

A defendant may only be subject to personal jurisdiction for a lawsuit that arises out of, or relates to, the defendant's conduct aimed at the forum state. A. True B. False

False. This question would be true if it said "A defendant may only be subject to specific personal jurisdiction for a lawsuit that arises out of, or relates to, the defendant's conduct aimed at the forum state." It is false as written because specific jurisdiction is only one type of personal jurisdiction. Remember that a defendant may be subject to general personal jurisdiction for any cause of action, whether it is related to the defendant's forum conduct or not, in a forum where the defendant has such substantial ties that the defendant is considered "at home" or in a forum where the defendant is served with process, if the defendant is an individual, as opposed to a corporation.

Futura Corporation is a new internet start-up corporation incorporated in Delaware by three creative software engineers, Lincoln, Blinken and Nod. Lincoln lives in California, Blinken in Georgia, and Nod in Minnesota. They are the officers of the corporation. There is a board of directors scattered across the country who meet once a year by Skype. The three officers interact mostly by e-mail and text message, and meet twice a year at any convenient resort with a good golf course. The corporation has yet to market a product. It files yearly tax returns in California, keeps corporate records at Blinken's home in Georgia, and has accountants in New York City. Because its corporate activities are so widespread and changeable, Futura will be a citizen only of Delaware for diversity purposes. A. True B. False

False. Under 28 U.S.C. s. 1332(c)(1), Futura is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and its principal place of business for diversity purposes. If it is sued in federal court based on diversity, the court will have to look at their corporate interactions and choose a state as Futura's principal place of business. This may be hard to do - perhaps almost arbitrary - but the statute mandates that Futura be treated as a citizen of the state of its principal place of business, so the court will have to select one. Justice Breyer recognized in Hertz Co. v. Friend that this might lead to "occasional counterintuitive results." 557 U.S. 77, 96 (2010). However, in most cases the state in which the officers direct and control the activities of the corporation will be clear enough.

Magnifico Corporation is incorporated in Kansas and has its principal place of business in Nebraska. It sues Robbins, a citizen of Nebraska, in federal court. The federal court has diversity jurisdiction over the suit, (assuming that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met) because Magnifico is a citizen of Kansas and Robbins is a citizen of Nebraska. A. True B. False

False. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), Magnifico is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business. The corporation can't pick and choose, arguing that it is from Kansas when it wants to sue a Nebraskan in federal court and that it is a citizen of Nebraska when it wants to sue a Kansan. It is not diverse from a citizen of either state.

Zack has a breach of contract claim against Acme Corporation because Acme failed to pay Zack his commission on pharmaceuticals that he sold. Acme is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Hampshire. Zack was the exclusive sales representative for western Massachusetts and earned substantial commissions on sales to corporations located in Massachusetts. The courts of New Hampshire will have specific personal jurisdiction over Acme for Zack's claim. A. False B. True

False. Zack's claim has nothing to do with conduct in New Hampshire, so the nexus requirement is not satisfied. But don't forget that specific personal jurisdiction is not the only option. You also need to check for general jurisdiction. Here, Acme has its principal place of business in New Hampshire, and a corporation is subject to general personal jurisdiction, that is, jurisdiction for all claims, in the state of its principal place of business. So even though the claim arose in Massachusetts, Acme is subject to personal jurisdiction in New Hampshire under general jurisdiction. If you have not covered general jurisdiction yet, take a look at the review on general jurisdiction.

Guerrero, from California, is seriously injured in a forklift accident while working in Arizona. She sues the forklift manufacturer, General Products Company, in an Arizona state court for negligence, seeking $1,000,000 in damages. General Products is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in California. General Products removes the case to federal court. Guerrero decides that she is willing to litigate the case in federal court and makes no motion to remand. The federal court now has jurisdiction to proceed with the case. A. True B. False

Guerrero could not have brought this case in federal court because it is a state law negligence case and there is not complete diversity. General Products removed it improperly - perhaps its lawyers thought naively that just satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement sufficed to support removal. But, after the case is removed, Guerrero does not move to remand. May the federal court proceed with the case? No; this is false. Even if Guerrero is content to litigate in federal court, and does not move to remand, the court itself will very likely note the lack of jurisdiction and remand. If the court does not realize that jurisdiction is improper, someone almost certainly will as the case proceeds, and will then move to remand ... perhaps the party who sees the case going down the tubes in federal court! A lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived; if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction it will have to remand if the issue is raised at any time through appeal of the action.

If a corporation is not incorporated in a state and does not have its principal place of business there, it cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in the state. A. True B. False

If a corporation is not incorporated in a state and does not have its principal place of business there, there is no general in personam jurisdiction in the state. But that does not mean that the corporation cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in that state. For example, it may still be subject to specific jurisdiction in the forum.

Jack sues Morello for injuries suffered in an accident. His injuries would support a recovery of up to $60,000. His wife Rachel was also injured in the accident. Her injuries would support a recovery of up to $35,000. If they sue Morello as coplaintiffs the amount-in-controversy requirement A. is met, because both claims arise from the same accident. B. is met, because Jack and Rachel may add their claims together to meet the amount requirement. C. is met because Jack and Rachel are members of the same family. D. is not met, because neither plaintiff seeks more than $75,000 in damages.

In this example, neither party independently meets the amount-in-controversy requirement. D is the correct answer here. The two plaintiffs may not add their damages together to meet the $75,000+ requirement, even if their claims arise from the same accident, and even if they are members of the same family. It is true that a plaintiff whose claim does not exceed $75,000 may sue along with another plaintiff whose claim does meet the required amount. But here neither claim does.

As long as a complaint's allegations are factually plausible, a complaint should survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). A. True B. False

It is not enough for a complaint to contain factually plausible allegations. The complaint must contain allegations that are legally sufficient as well. For example, a plaintiff might allege that a defendant hurt the plaintiff's feelings during an argument. That allegation may be plausible, but the complaint does not allege a legally viable cause of action.

In any particular case, specific jurisdiction and general in personam jurisdiction cannot be available in the same state. A. True B. False

It is possible (and fairly common) for specific jurisdiction and general in personam jurisdiction to be available in the same state in the same case. For example, imagine a car accident, where the accident occurred in North Dakota and the defendant is domiciled in North Dakota. Personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible in North Dakota under either specific or general in personam jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction is permissible because the claim arose there, and general in personam jurisdiction is permissible because the defendant is domiciled there.

Malzone, a citizen of Texas, sues Vastmart Corporation, incorporated in Arkansas with its corporate offices in Florida. Vastmart is huge; it has at least thirty big box stores in each of the fifty states. The largest number of stores is in California. The most income comes from its stores in Texas. Malzone also sues Gonzalez, manager of the Dallas, Texas Vastmart store in which Malzone was injured, as a codefendant in the action. Gonzalez is an Arkansas citizen. Malzone brings the action in federal district court in Texas, seeking $200,000 for serious injuries he suffered in the accident. The federal court A. lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, because both Malzone and Vastmart are citizens of Texas. B. lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, because Vastmart and Gonzalez are both from Arkansas. C. has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, because Vastmart is a citizen of Arkansas and California, and Malzone is a citizen of Texas. D. has subject matter jurisdiction over the action based on diversity.

Like any other corporation, Vastmart is a citizen for diversity purposes of the state in which it is incorporated and the state of its principal place of business. So it is a citizen here of Arkansas and Florida, where the home offices are. Even though it is huge, and does a ton of business in each state, that is not the test for corporate citizenship for diversity purposes. The test is the test! Believe it and apply it as stated in § 1332(c)(1) and Hertz. B is wrong. The fact that Gonzalez and Vastmart are both citizens of Arkansas does not undermine complete diversity, because they are both defendants. As long as there is no plaintiff from the same state as any defendant, complete diversity exists.

Romano, from Virginia, sues the Charleston and Savannah Railroad for injuries he suffered in a train accident. The Railroad is incorporated in Virginia and has its principal place of business in South Carolina. Romano sues in state court in Virginia, seeking $250,000 in damages for negligence under state law. The Railroad A. may remove to federal court, because it has been sued in Romano's home state and is sued for more than $75,000. B. may remove, because Romano is a citizen of Virginia, the Railroad is a citizen of South Carolina, and the amount-in-controversy is met. C. may not remove, because Romano is a citizen of the state in which suit is brought. D. may not remove, because there is not complete diversity.

Once again, the key to the question is whether the case is one which the plaintiff could have brought initially in federal court. It is not, because Romano and the Railroad are both citizens of Virginia. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) a corporation is a citizen of the state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business. So the Railroad is a citizen of two states. If Romano is a citizen of either of those states (as he is here) then there is no diversity jurisdiction. Choose D. Don't be fooled by A. True, the defendant has been sued in the plaintiff's home state. Perhaps it would like to bump the case into federal court (even though it too is a Virginia citizen based on its incorporation). But federal court is not a cure-all for all possible sources of prejudice; to get there the case must meet one of the categories of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Romano's does not, because there is not complete diversity (so B fails as well). C is wrong as well; the bar on removal if there is an in-state citizen applies to defendants, not to plaintiffs.

Amazonia Corporation is incorporated in Delaware and Oregon, and has its central offices in California, from which the directors and officers control the activities of the corporation. The directors vote at a meeting of the board of directors to establish a second headquarters, in addition to the California offices, in West Virginia. The new West Virginia headquarters directs and controls Amazonia's corporate activities east of the Mississippi, and the California headquarters directs and controls its activities west of the Mississippi. Filipone, from West Virginia, wants to bring a diversity action against Amazonia in Colorado federal court for injuries suffered in Colorado. The court will treat Amazonia as a citizen of A. Oregon and California, since the claim arises from Amazonia's activities west of the Mississippi. B. only Delaware and Oregon, based on its incorporation in those states. C. Delaware, Oregon, California and West Virginia. D. only Delaware and either California or West Virginia. E. None of the above.

Rationale: Analyzing this question requires a close reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). (Reading the relevant statute or rule so often answers civil procedure questions!) That section provides that a corporation is a citizen of "every state" by which it has been incorporated. So Amazonia is a citizen of Delaware and Oregon based on incorporation. So A is wrong, because it leaves out Delaware, and D is wrong, because it leaves out Oregon. The statute goes on to provide that a corporation is a citizen of "the state" (italics added) where it has its principal place of business. B is wrong, because it leaves out Amazonia's principal place of business. Thus, there must be only one, because the statute says so. C is wrong, because Amazonia cannot have two principal places of business under the statute. The court will have to decide whether its principal place of business is West Virginia or California. That may be a very close question, perhaps a toss-up, but the court has to do it because the statute so provides. So E is right, because none of the other answers is.

Patel, from New Mexico, sues Omni Corporation (incorporated in California with its principal place of business in New Mexico) in state court in New Mexico under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Patel claims that Omni fired him based on his age, in violation of the Act. Patel asserts a second claim in the complaint for breach of contract, based also on the dismissal. Omni Corporation is served with the complaint seven days after it is filed. It files an answer to the complaint ten days later, and files a notice of removal in the federal court for the District of New Mexico twenty-six days after service of the complaint upon it. Removal is A. proper. B. improper, because there is an in-state defendant. C. improper, because Omni had already filed an answer to the complaint. D. improper, because there is not complete diversity. E. improper, because the removal was beyond the time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

Removal is proper here; choose A. The fact that Omni is an in-state defendant does not bar removal. The bar on removal if there is an in-state defendant applies only to diversity cases. See 28 U.S.C. §1441(b)(2). There is also no bar on a defendant filing an answer and then removing. If it answers first and then removes the answer will simply be in place in the federal court. D is wrong, because this case arises under federal law, the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The state contract claim is proper under supplemental jurisdiction (see 28 U.S.C. §1367(a)) so it does not need an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. And E fails, because the thirty-day time period for removal runs from service of the complaint on Omni, not from filing. The notice was filed twenty-six days after service, so it was timely.

Dipping Donuts, Corp. is a company with a chain of donut shops around the country. It is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Manhattan (in the Southern District of New York). Dipping Donuts has 50 donut shops in New York State, but they are all in Manhattan. Assume that a New York State citizen, Martha, visits Massachusetts and while visiting a Dipping Donuts location there, falls on the floor and suffers injuries. Martha returns to her home in Albany (in the Northern District of New York) and files a claim against Dipping Donuts in the federal district court for the Northern District of New York. She alleges damages in excess of $75,000. Dipping Donuts files a timely motion to dismiss, claiming that the Northern District of New York lacks personal jurisdiction over Dipping Donuts. Which of the following statements is most accurate? The motion should be: A. Denied. Because Dipping Donuts has its principal place of business in New York State, the federal court in the Northern District of New York has general in personam jurisdiction over Dipping Donuts. B. Denied. Because Dipping Donuts has 50 stores in New York, the company is at home there and is therefore subject to general in personam jurisdiction in New York. C. Granted because, although Dipping Donuts is subject to general in personam jurisdiction in New York State, it has no presence in the Northern District of New York. D. Granted because Martha's claim does not arise out of or relate to Dipping Donuts's contacts with New York.

The answer here is A. Dipping Donuts is subject to general in personam jurisdiction in New York State because it has its principal place of business in the state. Although the principal place of business happens to be in a different federal district in New York, that distinction is irrelevant for purposes of determining where Dipping Donuts is subject to personal jurisdiction. Thus, C is incorrect. (The distinction does matter in the context of venue, but this question is not asking about venue.) B is incorrect because a corporation is not "at home"in a state for purposes of general in personam jurisdiction simply because it has a lot of stores in the state. D is incorrect because it does not matter whether Martha's claim arises out of or relates to Dipping Donuts contacts with New York. Dipping Donuts is subject to general in personam jurisdiction in New York and specific jurisdiction is not necessary.

Pretha wants to assert a breach of contract claim (a state law claim) against Devers, Corp. for Devers's failure to deliver a chemical in a timely way under the contract. Pretha anticipates that Devers is going to defend the case on the grounds that a newly adopted federal regulation prohibits the manufacture of the chemical. Assuming Pretha and Devers are citizens of the same state, which of the following statements is most accurate? A. Congress could authorize the federal courts to hear this case, but the federal question jurisdiction statute has been interpreted to prohibit subject matter jurisdiction in this type of case. B. Congress has authorized the federal courts to hear this type of case, but subject matter jurisdiction would be unconstitutional. C. The exercise of subject matter jurisdiction in this case would be unconstitutional, so the United States Supreme Court has declined to interpret the federal question jurisdiction statute to apply to cases like this one. D. Congress has authorized federal courts to hear cases like this one, and the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction would be constitutional.

The answer is A. Subject matter jurisdiction would be constitutional in this case. In Osborn, the United States Supreme Court held that federal question jurisdiction is permissible under Article III, Section 2 as long as there is a federal ingredient in the case. There is a federal ingredient here (the anticipation of a federal statutory defense), so B and C are wrong. D is wrong because the Court in Mottleyinterpreted the general federal question jurisdiction statute - 28 U.S.C. § 1331 - more narrowly than the Constitution otherwise permits, holding that federal question jurisdiction exists only if "[the plaintiff's] own cause of action shows that [the action] is based upon federal law." Here, that's not the case; the federal law issue is being raised only as a defense to the plaintiff's state law claim.

Gertha files a complaint in federal district court against Cantine, Corp. Assume that Gertha's complaint asserts a claim that falls within one of the nine types specified in Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Also assume that Congress has passed a law expressly authorizing the federal district courts to hear this type of case but has not specified whether the state courts can hear the case as well. Which of the following statements is most accurate? A. A state court would not have subject matter jurisdiction because Congress has not authorized it. B. A state court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case, even if Congress were to expressly authorize it. C. A state court would have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

The answer is C. State courts generally have subject matter jurisdiction over just about any type of case, unless Congress has expressly given the federal courts exclusive subject matter jurisdiction. Because Congress has not done so here, a state court can hear this case.

Rana sues Gandolf in federal court. In paragraph 4 of her complaint, Rana alleges: 4. Gandolf and I had a written agreement that required Gandolf to pay me after I manufactured 500 widgets for Gandolf's factory. I manufactured the widgets, and Gandolf has failed to pay me. Assuming that the complaint contains no other factual allegations and no additional allegations regarding the cause of action, the complaint likely: A. Satisfies Rule 8(a)(2). B. Fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) because it does not specifically state the cause of action and thus fails to put Gandolf on notice about the nature of the claim. C. Fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) because it is factually insufficient; without more detail, the claim does not seem plausible. D. Fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) because it is legally insufficient; even if the allegations are true, Rana has not alleged a legally recognized claim against Gandolf.

The answer is A. This allegation is sufficient to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2). B is inaccurate because these allegations are sufficient to put Gandolf on notice that Rana is asserting a breach of contract claim. Although it is true that Rana has not used the phrase "breach of contract," the rules do not require a plaintiff to specifically identify the cause of action as long as the allegations are sufficient to make the defendant aware of what the cause of action is. The allegations here are sufficiently clear. D is incorrect because breach of contract is a legally recognized claim. Finally, C is incorrect because the factual allegations, if true, plausibly support the conclusion that Gandolf breached the contract.

Ralph (domiciled in Virginia) sues Greta (domiciled in North Carolina) after Greta injures Ralph in a car accident in Virginia while Greta is visiting there. Is personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible in North Carolina in this case? A. No, because this case arose out of events that occurred in Virginia, not North Carolina. B. Yes, because Greta is domiciled in North Carolina. C. Yes, because Greta reached into Virginia from North Carolina and is therefore subject to specific jurisdiction in North Carolina. D. Both B and C are true.

The answer is B. Although it is true that this case did not arise out of events that occurred in North Carolina (answer A), that only means that there is no basis for specific jurisdiction. It is still possible to have personal jurisdiction over Greta via general in personam jurisdiction. Here, the court would have general in personam jurisdiction over Greta based on her domicile in North Carolina. C is incorrect because Greta did not engage in any conduct in North Carolina that gave rise to this lawsuit; the relevant conduct occurred entirely in Virginia.

Pretha wants to assert a breach of contract claim (a state law claim) against Devers, Corp. for Devers's failure to deliver a chemical in a timely way under the contract. Pretha anticipates that Devers is going to defend the case on the grounds that a newly adopted federal regulation prohibits the manufacture of the chemical. Assuming Pretha and Devers are citizens of the same state, which of the following statements is most accurate? A. Both state and federal courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction in this case. B. A state court, but not a federal court, can exercise subject matter jurisdiction in this case. C. A federal court, but not a state court, can exercise subject matter jurisdiction in this case. D. Neither federal courts nor state courts can exercise subject matter in this case.

The answer is B. Subject matter jurisdiction is not proper in federal court. Federal question jurisdiction exists in the district courts "when the plaintiff's statement of [the plaintiff's] own cause of action shows that [the action] is based upon" federal law. Here, the plaintiff's cause of action arises under state law; the federal issue is going to be raised merely as a defense to the state law claim. According to Mottley, that's insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. There is also no basis for any other kind of federal subject matter jurisdiction. In contrast, a state court would have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this kind of case, making B the best answer.

Which of the following statements most accurately describes the subject matter jurisdiction of federal and state courts? A. Cases that can be heard in federal court cannot be heard in state court. B. All cases that can be heard in federal court can also be heard in state court. C. Most cases that can be heard in federal court can also be heard in state court. D. Most cases that can be heard in state court can also be heard in federal court. E. All cases that can be heard in state court can also be heard in federal court.

The answer is C. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a relatively small number of cases - only those cases specified in Article III, Section 2. The vast majority of those cases can also be heard in state court. That is, there is concurrent subject matter jurisdiction -subject matter jurisdiction in both the federal and state courts - over the vast majority of federal cases. The reverse is not true. The vast majority of cases that are heard in state court cannot be heard in federal court. Recall this diagram: A Venn diagram showing Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Federal and State Courts. The diagram shows two circles. The larger circle is labeled State Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The smaller circle is labeled Federal Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction. An arrow points to the space in the smaller circle that does not overlap the larger circle and is labeled Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction (narrow). A second arrow points to where the two circles overlap and is labeled Concurrent Jurisdiction.

Robinson wants to bring a state law claim against Ortiz. Which of the following statements is the most accurate? A. The claim cannot be filed in federal court. B. The claim can be filed in federal court. C. It is possible that the claim can be filed in federal court, but we do not have enough information to know for sure.

The answer is C. Some, but not all, state law claims can be filed in federal court. For example, it is possible that this state law claim could be brought in federal court if it meets the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. In order to determine whether the federal district court does in fact have subject matter jurisdiction over Robinson's state law claim, we need to know whether it falls within one of the nine categories of Article III, Section 2 and whether Congress has authorized that form of subject matter jurisdiction. Without that information, C is the best answer.

Federal question jurisdiction exists as long as the plaintiff's complaint refers to a matter of federal law. A. True B. False

This is false. The plaintiff's complaint must do more than simply refer to federal law. The plaintiff's statement of the plaintiff's own cause of action must show that the action is based upon federal law. A mere reference to some federal issue is insufficient; the claim itself must be based on federal law.

Lila files a complaint in federal district court against Valliant, Corp. Assume that Lila's complaint asserts a claim that falls within one of the nine types specified in Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Also assume, however, that Congress has not passed a law expressly authorizing the federal district courts to hear this type of claim. Which of the following statements is most accurate? A. The federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because Congress has not expressly prohibited subject matter jurisdiction over a claim like this one. B. Even if Congress expressly prohibits subject matter jurisdiction over a claim like this one, the federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction here because the Constitution expressly authorizes it. C. The federal district courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. D. None of the above statements are accurate.

The answer is C. Subject matter jurisdiction exists in the federal district courts only if: (1) the Constitution authorizes it and (2) Congress authorizes it. Here, Congress has not authorized the particular type of subject matter jurisdiction in question, so C is the correct answer.

Trina sues Oscar for breach of contract (a state law claim) and alleges damages of $1 million. The contract relates to work that Oscar performs for the federal government and for which Trina is a sub-contractor. Which of the following statements is the most accurate? A. There would be federal question jurisdiction because the case relates to work on a federal construction project. B. There would be federal question jurisdiction in this case, but only if Trina and Oscar are citizens of different states. C. There is no federal question jurisdiction in this case. D. A and B are both true.

The answer is C. The claim in this case arises under state law (the breach of contract claim). The federal issue - the impact on the federal government - is not the basis for the claim, so it is insufficient to give rise to federal question jurisdiction. That makes A incorrect. Federal question jurisdiction does not require the parties to be citizens of different states, so B is inaccurate.

Congress passes a law stating that "the federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over any case arising under federal law, but only when there are multiple plaintiffs." Luisa wants to file a claim against Franco, alleging that Franco violated a federal statute. Luisa is the only plaintiff. Which of the following statements is most accurate? A. Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in federal district court and state court. B. Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in federal court, but not state court. C. Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in state court, but not in federal court. D. Subject matter jurisdiction would not exist in either federal or state court.

The answer is C. The federal courts would not have subject matter jurisdiction over Luisa's claim because Congress has not authorized it. Congress has specified that federal law claims must have multiple plaintiffs, and there is only one here. That makes A and B incorrect. Subject matter jurisdiction would exist in a state court, however, because state courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims as long as Congress has not given the federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. Congress has not done so here, making C the best answer.

Ivana sues Donald for defamation (a state law claim) after Donald made an allegedly false statement about Ivana on Twitter. Donald's defense is that he had a First Amendment right to make the statement. Which of the following statement is the most accurate? A. There is federal question jurisdiction in this case because Donald is asserting a federal law issue. B. There is federal question jurisdiction in this case because there is constitutional authority for the case to be heard in federal court (i.e., the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). C. There is no federal question jurisdiction in this case. D. Both A and B are true.

The answer is C. The federal issue in this case is raised only in defense to the plaintiff's claim. According to the Supreme Court's interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this is insufficient to give rise to federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff's complaint must arise out of federal law; here the plaintiff's claim arises out of state law.

Verna refuses to deliver goods under a contract with Rinaldo, because Verna believes that a new federal statute bars the transaction. Rinaldo sues Verna for breach of contract (a state law claim) and alleges in the complaint that the contract was not invalidated by a recently adopted federal statute, so Verna must honor the contract. Which of the following statements is the most accurate? A. There is federal question jurisdiction in this case because Rinaldo has raised a federal issue in his complaint. B. There is federal question jurisdiction in this case because a federal issue exists in the case (i.e., whether the contract is valid under federal law). C. There is no federal question jurisdiction in this case. D. Both A and B are true.

The answer is C. This question is nearly identical to the question presented in Mottley. To establish federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's claim must arise out of federal law. Here, the plaintiff's claim arises out of state law. The plaintiff's mere reference to a federal law issue that may (or may not be) raised by the defendant is insufficient to give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

George asserts a claim against his employer, Eliza Corp., for violating a federal statute. Assuming the statute is silent on the question of exclusive subject matter jurisdiction, which statement is the most accurate? A. Only the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. B. Only the state courts have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. C. The federal and state courts both have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

The answer is C. Unless Congress specifies otherwise, any claim over which the federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction can also be filed in state court (i.e., there is concurrent jurisdiction). Because the statute here is silent on the question of exclusive subject matter jurisdiction, state and federal courts both have subject matter jurisdiction over George's claim.

Federal Question Jdx

question or claim arising under federal law - US constitution, federal statute or treaties

Samuel, who lives in Texas has a claim against Addison, an Oklahoma jeweler, for breach of a contract they made in Oklahoma that called for Addison to make a diamond engagement ring at Addison's store in Oklahoma. Samuel discovers that Addison has another store in Houston, Texas where she crafts custom made engagement rings similar to the one Samuel contracted for her to make for him. Addison engages in no regular advertising in either Oklahoma or Texas. Samuel sues Addison in Texas state court for breach of contract. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Texas state court is constitutional. A. True B. False C. Unclear

The answer to this one is unclear in light of Ford v. Bandemer, but we lean toward a conclusion that the exercise of jurisdiction is likely unconstitutional. Although Addison purposefully avails herself of the opportunity to conduct activities in Texas by conducting business there, it is not clear that the claim satisfies the nexus requirement. There are two possible ways to establish the nexus requirement. One is to show that the claim "arises out of" Addison's in-state contacts. Here, that's clearly not the case, so we need to look at the second option: demonstrating that the claim strongly relates to Addison's Texas contacts. In Ford, the Supreme Court upheld personal jurisdiction because the defendant's extensive forum contacts included the sale, marketing and repair of the very same vehicle model that was at issue in the underlying claims. Here, Addison's contacts in Texas are arguably less substantial and less related to the underlying claim than was the case in Ford. While Ford's forum conduct involved the regular sale, marketing and repair of the same model vehicle at issue in the litigation, the jeweler's sales in Texas involve the sale of "similar" rings, with no description of the extent of similarity, no mention of the regularity (or quantity) of sales, and no additional forum conduct, such as advertising. Moreover, unlike in Ford, where the state had a strong interest in regulating the safety of vehicles used on its roads, Texas arguably has less interest in regulating a contract that was intended to be performed out of state. Thus, we think the likely answer here is that the exercise of jurisdiction is unconstitutional, but we acknowledge that the answer is debatable given that we are not sure how strong the relationship needs to be between the claim and the in-state contacts.

Yellen is a financial advisor who works out of her Vermont home. She advises clients about how to invest their money and charges them a fee for her services. Mostly, she conducts her business by phone, but sometimes her clients come to her house and occasionally she visits them at theirs. Since she has just started her business, she has only fifteen clients, mostly from the New England states. Four of her clients are from Maine. Over the past year, she has twice visited clients in Maine to meet with them about investments. Rockefeller, a New Yorker, calls Yellen from Rockefeller's office in New York, asking about some investments. Rockefeller later sues Yellen, claiming that, during the call, Yellen advised Rockefeller to make a large investment in a company without checking its latest earnings report, which showed drastic losses. Rockefeller, who has a second home in Maine, sues Yellen there. Assuming Yellen makes a timely motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds, which of the following statements is the most accurate? A. The Maine court will not have personal jurisdiction over Yellen in this action. B. The Maine court will have general in personam jurisdiction over Yellen, since a significant percentage of her clients are from Maine. C. The Maine court will have personal jurisdiction over Yellen if Yellen knew that Rockefeller had a home in Maine. D. The Maine court will have personal jurisdiction over Yellen because she has minimum contacts with Maine.

The best answer here is A. There is no specific jurisdiction in Maine because Rockefeller's claim does not arise out of anything that Yellen did there. The communications between Yellen and Rockefeller were in Vermont and New York. Just because Yellen knew that Rockefeller had a home in Maine does not mean that Yellen purposefully directed any contacts there for purposes of this claim. Although Yellen does have contacts in Maine via her other clients, this claim does not arise out of those contacts. As a result, C and D are incorrect. There is also no general in personam jurisdiction in Maine because Yellen's home (domicile) is in Vermont. That makes B incorrect.

Gwen files a claim in federal court against Largesse Corp., making the following allegations in paragraphs 4-6 of her complaint: 4. Gwen was an employee of Largesse. 5. During a recent corporate restructuring, 75% of the 100 fired employees were women. Gwen was one of them. 6. Largesse fired Gwen on account of her gender. Assuming there are no other factual allegations in the complaint, which of the following statements is most accurate if Largesse files a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)? A. The complaint would survive the motion to dismiss because all Gwen needs to do is allege a legally sufficient cause of action, and she has done so here (i.e., she alleges the legally cognizable cause of action of workplace discrimination based on gender). B. The complaint would survive the motion to dismiss because Gwen's allegations are legally sufficient (i.e., she alleges a legally recognized cause of action) and are factually sufficient (i.e., it is plausible to imagine based on the facts alleged that she was fired because of her gender). C. The complaint would not survive the motion to dismiss because Gwen has not offered sufficient factual allegations from which we can plausibly conclude that her firing was due to her gender. D. A and B are both true.

The best answer here is B. Although Gwen's allegations are legally sufficient, legal sufficiency is not enough to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The allegations must be factually sufficient as well. For this reason, A and D are both incorrect. C is incorrect because the allegations here are factually sufficient; that is, they give rise to a plausible inference that the company's layoffs were based on gender. Of course, the company may have a lawful reason for the disparity in the firings and may ultimately win the case, but the allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6.)

Gwen files a claim in federal court against Largesse Corp., alleging that "Largesse fired Gwen on account of her gender during a corporate restructuring." Assuming there are no other factual allegations in the complaint, which of the following statements is most accurate if Largesse files a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)? A. The complaint would survive the motion to dismiss because the court must accept Gwen's allegations as true, and here, she alleges a legally sufficient cause of action. B. The complaint would survive the motion to dismiss because Gwen's allegations are legally sufficient (i.e., she alleges a legally recognized cause of action) and are factually sufficient (i.e., it is plausible to imagine that she was fired because of her gender). C. The complaint would not survive the motion to dismiss because Gwen has not offered sufficient allegations from which we can plausibly conclude that her firing was due to her gender. D. A and B are both true.

The best answer here is C. Although Gwen's allegations are legally sufficient (she has alleged a legally recognized cause of action), Gwen has not alleged sufficient facts from which one could plausibly conclude that she was fired because of her gender. People can be fired for any number of reasons, so simply alleging a discriminatory firing is not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Gwen must allege facts from which someone could plausibly conclude a discriminatory intent. She has not done so here.

Rana sues Gandolf in federal court. In paragraph 4 of her complaint, Rana alleges: 4. Gandolf breached a contract that Gandolf had with me and thus owes me $300,000. Assuming that the complaint contains no other factual allegations and no additional allegations regarding the cause of action, the complaint: A. Satisfies Rule 8(a)(2). B. Fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) because it does not put Gandolf on notice about the nature of the claim. C. Fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) because it is factually insufficient; without more detail, the claim is not plausible. D. Fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) because it is legally insufficient.

The best answer here is C. The allegation is legally sufficient because it asserts a legally cognizable cause of action - breach of contract - making D incorrect. B is wrong because Gandolf is most certainly on notice that Rana is alleging a claim for breach of contract. The allegations, however, are not factually sufficient. When considering the factual sufficiency of a claim, a plaintiff must do more than simply restate the cause of action or restate elements of the cause of action. This means that, for purposes of determining factual sufficiency, we require more than the phrase "Gandolf breached a contract." To be factually sufficient, we need to see allegations from which we could plausibly conclude that Gandolf did, in fact, breach the contract. No such allegations exist here, so C is the best answer.

Angelos, a passenger in Budd's car, is injured when Budd and Franklin collide on Main Street. Angelos is not sure whether Budd's negligence caused the accident or Franklin's, or both. He sues Budd and Franklin together in federal court as codefendants. Under governing law, whichever defendant was negligent in causing the accident would owe Angelos his full damages, which are $125,000. If both were negligent, they would each be liable for the full damages (but Angelos could only collect the amount of his damages once, not twice). If neither was negligent, Angelos will of course lose. A. Angelos meets the amount-in-controversy requirement against both defendants, because either may be liable for more than $75,000. B. Angelos does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement against either, because the total damages are $125,000 and there are two defendants. C. Angelos does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement against either defendant, because either may end up owing him nothing. D. Angelos does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement against either defendant, because it does not appear to a legal certainty that either of them will be liable for more than $75,000.

The best answer is A. Because Angelos might recover a judgment for more than $75,000 from either defendant (or from both, if both were found at fault), he meets the amount-in-controversy requirement against each. B is wrong, because, while Angelos suffered $125,000 in damages, either might be liable for it. As the question states, if either or both are found liable for the injury, they will be liable for the full damages. C is very wrong! A plaintiff meets the amount requirement against a defendant as long as she might recover more than the required amount from that defendant. The fact that he might not recover that amount does not mean the requirement is unmet. For the same reason, D falls by the wayside. One need not prove to a legal certainty that a defendant will be liable for more than $75,000 to meet the amount requirement; it must only appear that the plaintiff might recover more than that amount. Don't reverse the presumption, which is in the plaintiff's favor under the St. Paul Mercury rule.

Lucy buys a burrito in a Chipotle restaurant in Massachusetts and brings it to her home in New Hampshire where she eats it and suffers from food poisoning. Chipotle is incorporated in Delaware, has its principal place of business in California, and operates more than 20 restaurants in New Hampshire. She sues Chipotle in a New Hampshire state court. The New Hampshire court will A. have personal jurisdiction over Chipotle because it has extensive facilities and business in New Hampshire; it sells the type of burritos at issue in this case in New Hampshire; and Lucy allegedly suffered from food poisoning caused by the burrito in New Hampshire. B. not have personal jurisdiction over Chipotle unless Lucy brings the action in a New Hampshire federal district court. C. have personal jurisdiction over Chipotle because Lucy got sick in New Hampshire. D. not have personal jurisdiction over Chipotle in either the state or federal courts in New Hampshire.

The best answer is A. Chipotle operates more than 20 stores in New Hampshire, and the burritos that it sells at these stores are the same in all relevant respects as the burrito that caused Lucy's food poisoning. The Supreme Court upheld the exercise of personal jurisdiction in Ford v. Bandemer under similar facts, holding that the plaintiff's claim was sufficiently related to Ford's extensive forum conduct (selling, marketing and repairing the same model vehicle that was the subject of the litigation), even though Ford did not sell the particular vehicle at issue in the forum state. C is wrong because the fact that Lucy got sick in New Hampshire is not sufficient to subject Chipotle to personal jurisdiction if it did not do anything in New Hampshire (i.e. operate stores in the forum). B is wrong because Rule 4(k)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a federal court will have personal jurisdiction over a defendant if that defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the federal court is located. In other words, personal jurisdiction is the same in a federal court located in New Hampshire as it would be in a state court in New Hampshire. Finally, D is wrong because Ford v. Bandemer suggests that Chipotle is subject to personal jurisdiction in state or federal court in New Hampshire.

Penelope sues David in federal court, alleging as follows: "On April 30, 2019, David negligently ran a red light at the corner of Main and Spring Streets in Cincinnati, Ohio, resulting in a car accident that injured Penelope and caused her to incur $150,000 in medical bills and lost wages." David makes a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Which of the following statements is the most accurate? A. The motion should be denied because the complaint complies with the requisite pleading requirements. B. The motion should be granted because this complaint fails to offer sufficient details about the cause of the accident. C. The motion should be granted because the complaint contains only conclusory allegations. D. The motion should be granted because the allegations do not plausibly support the conclusion that David is liable to Penelope for her injuries.

The best answer is A. The complaint is both legally and factually sufficient. B is wrong, because the complaint offers sufficient factual details beyond simply reciting the cause of action. The complaint explains what David did (ran a red light), where it happened, and how the plaintiff was injured. C is wrong for the same reason - the complaint does more than simply offer a conclusory assertion that David was negligent (though admittedly not much more). Finally, D is incorrect, because these allegations are certainly plausible. Penelope may ultimately be unable to prove her claim against David, but there is no reason to believe that Penelope's allegations against David are implausible.

Personal Jurisdiction

the power of a court to force a person to appear before it

Jack, from Oklahoma, sues Morello, from Kansas, for injuries suffered in an accident. His injuries from the initial collision with Morello's car would support a recovery of up to $90,000. After the collision between Jack's car and Morello's, Pickens (a Kansas citizen) driving negligently, ran into Jack's stalled car. This second impact caused $20,000 in additional damages to Jack. If Jack sues Morello and Pickens together, A. the federal court will have diversity jurisdiction over both claims, since Jack claims more than $75,000 from Morello. B. the federal court will have diversity jurisdiction over the case, because Jack would not have suffered the damages caused by Pickens but for the negligence of Morello. C. the federal court will have diversity jurisdiction over the claim against Morello, but Pickens must be dismissed from the case. D. the federal court will have diversity jurisdiction over both claims, since the parties' claims together exceed $75,000.

The best answer is C. A is wrong because the relevant rule is that a plaintiff must meet the amount requirement separately against each defendant. Unlike the case of multiple plaintiffs, where one may tag along if another sues for more than $75,000, each defendant must be sued for more than $75,000.That is not the case here; Pickens is not liable for the injuries Jack suffered from the initial crash, only for the extra damages from the collision that he caused. B is also wrong, because a plaintiff cannot aggregate claims against different defendants to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. If Morello's negligence led to the second collision, Morello would be liable for the additional damages caused by Pickens. But Pickens would only be liable for the injury he caused, which does not meet the required amount. If Jack is willing to drop Pickens as a defendant, the court would have jurisdiction over the claim against Morillo. D is just plain wrong. A plaintiff cannot add together her claims against different defendants to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.

Which of the following cases filed in state court cannot be removed to federal court? A. Parsons, from Vermont, sues Tremain, from Maine, and Puzo, from Michigan, for injuries that she alleges they caused in an accident that happened in Vermont. Parsons seeks $250,000 in damages. Suit is brought in state court in Maine. B. Parsons, from Vermont, sues Tremain, from Maine, for injuries that she alleges Tremain caused in an accident that happened in Vermont. Parsons seeks $250,000 in damages. Suit is brought in state court in Vermont. C. Parsons, from Vermont, sues Tremain, from Maine, for violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Suit is brought in a state court in Maine, seeking $12,000. Tremain answers the complaint, denying that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to him because he has only four employees. D. Nolan, from New Hampshire, sues Ryan, an individual defendant, who lives in New York, in Vermont state court for $200,000 for negligence. He claims that Ryan exposed him to dangerous chemicals while Nolan was working for Ryan on a small construction job in Vermont. Ryan removes to federal court. Nolan moves to remand, arguing that the case cannot be removed because the claim arose out of conduct in Vermont.

The case described in D is removable. It's a diversity case between a citizen of New Hampshire and a citizen of New York. The removal statute bars removal of a diversity case if there is an in-state defendant, but not if the events giving rise to the claim took place in the forum state. C is a case arising under federal law, so could have been brought in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and is therefore removable. There is no amount-in-controversy requirement for federal question cases, so the fact that he is only seeking $12,000 doesn't matter. The fact that Tremain has answered before removal and denies that the federal statute applies to the case does not prevent removal. Parsons has brought suit under a federal statute. If it turns out that the federal statute doesn't apply, she will lose, but she has still brought a claim seeking recovery under federal law, which supports removal. B is also removable; it's a good diversity case and there is no in-state defendant. So the answer is A. That case is not removable because it is based on diversity and there is an in-state defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)(2).

Ace Kayak Co. makes inflatable kayaks in Michigan. It markets the kayaks as "unsinkable" and sells them to Cedar River Kayak, a wholesaler in Iowa, with no restrictions or requirements regarding where Cedar River Kayak may resell the kayaks. Cedar River resells to stores in Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota. Cade buys an Ace inflatable kayak from a store in Minnesota, and it sinks after hitting a rock in Minnesota, injuring Cade. If Cade files suit against Ace in Iowa, a court will find that: A. Ace has purposefully availed itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Iowa. B. Ace did not purposefully avail itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Iowa because Cedar River sold the kayaks in Iowa, not Ace. C. Ace did not purposefully avail itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Iowa because Cade purchased the kayak in Minnesota, not Iowa. D. Ace did not purposefully avail itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Iowa because the alleged negligence by Ace occurred in Michigan where Ace manufactured the kayak, not Iowa.

The correct answer is A. Ace purposefully sold its kayaks in Iowa to Cedar River. B is wrong because Ace purposefully availed itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Iowa when it sent its kayaks there; it does not matter whether Cedar River resold them in Iowa or elsewhere. Even though Cade purchased the kayak in Minnesota, this does not change the fact that Ace purposefully availed itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Iowa when it sold the kayaks to Cedar River. Thus, C is wrong. D is wrong because a defendant may purposefully avail itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in the forum even if the alleged wrongful conduct, here negligence, occurred elsewhere. Of course, just because Ace purposefully directed contacts to Iowa does not necessarily mean that it will be subject to personal jurisdiction there in this particular case. For reasons that will be discussed in a separate review (concerning the nexus test), there may not be personal jurisdiction in Iowa in this case. It is clear, however, that the purposeful availment part of the specific jurisdiction test is satisfied.

Daria repairs the brakes on Perry's car in Mississippi. Shortly thereafter, Daria moves to Florida. Six months later, Perry's brakes fail while Perry is driving in Mississippi. If Perry sues Daria in Mississippi state court, the court will A. find that Daria had purposeful contacts with Mississippi for purposes of this case, even though Daria lives in Florida at the time of the lawsuit. B. find that Daria has no purposeful contact with Mississippi because Daria no longer lives in Mississippi. C. find that Daria had purposeful contact with Mississippi because she previously lived in Mississippi. D. find that Daria had no purposeful contact with Mississippi because Daria had no control over where Perry chose to drive the car.

The correct answer is A. Daria repaired Perry's brakes in Mississippi -- this is a purposeful contact for purposes of the minimum contacts test. The fact that Daria lives in Florida at the time the suit is filed does not prevent a Mississippi court from exercising personal jurisdiction over Daria. B is wrong because Daria's current state of residence is irrelevant. All that matters is that Daria had purposeful contacts in the forum state that gave rise to the lawsuit. C is wrong because personal jurisdiction does not exist simply because the defendant previously lived in a state. Finally, D is wrong because Daria repaired the brakes in Mississippi. This act created a purposeful contact with the forum state (Mississippi). Since Daria has a purposeful contact with the forum state, it doesn't matter that Daria did not have control over where Perry drove the car.

Acme Company, a company incorporated in Arizona with its principal place of business in the state, has a claim against Terrence, a citizen of Nevada. Terrence wrote a computer program for Acme, but after Acme sold the program to clients in Arizona, Acme learned that the program was infected with a virus. Terrence negotiated the contract with an Acme representative located in Nevada, wrote the program at his home and personally delivered it to Acme's Nevada office. The contract provided that Nevada law would apply to any disputes. Acme files suit against Terrence in Arizona alleging that Terrence negligently planted the virus in the program that caused harm in Arizona. Terrence denies the allegation that he planted the virus, objects to personal jurisdiction and files a motion to dismiss. The Arizona court: A. should grant the motion. Terrence lacks minimum contacts with Arizona. B. should deny the motion. Terrence is subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona because he entered a contract with Acme, an Arizona company, and this lawsuit arises out of the contract. C. should deny the motion. Terrence is subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona because the program was sold to clients in Arizona and caused injury there. D. should grant the motion. Terrence denies that he planted the virus and therefore he is not responsible for any injury caused in Arizona.

The correct answer is A. In Burger King v. Rudziewicz, the Supreme Court held that in order to determine if a contract is a minimum contact, one must consider the negotiations that preceded the contract, the consequences that flow from the contract, and the terms of the contract. This contract was negotiated in Nevada, the work was performed in Nevada, the finished product was delivered in Nevada, and the contract itself identified Nevada law as the applicable law. None of these factors suggest that by entering the contract Terrence was creating a purposeful contact with Arizona. B is wrong because the mere fact that Terrence contracted with an Arizona company is insufficient to meet the purposeful availment requirement of minimum contacts. C is wrong because the place of injury does not create a minimum contact (remember World-Wide Volkswagen). D is a red herring because a defendant cannot avoid personal jurisdiction by merely denying the conduct that underlies the dispute. This would allow a defendant to avoid personal jurisdiction by simply denying the underlying allegations.

Zena, domiciled in Louisiana, sues Walmart Corporation (incorporated in Arkansas with its principal place of business in Little Rock, Arkansas) after the handlebars fell off the Trek bicycle she bought in a Walmart store in Texas. At the time of the accident she was riding on a coastal trail in Louisiana. She sues in a Louisiana state court. Walmart has 15 stores in Louisiana and Zena regularly shops in a store that is located about 10 minutes from her home in Louisiana. All Walmart stores sell the same model Trek bicycle that Zena purchased in Texas. The Louisiana court will: A. have personal jurisdiction over Walmart, because its Louisiana stores regularly sell the same model Trek bicycle that allegedly caused the accident and because the accident that is the subject of the litigation occurred in Louisiana. B. have personal jurisdiction over Walmart because Zena regularly shops in the Walmart store that is 10 minutes from her home in Louisiana. C. have personal jurisdiction over Walmart because the accident that is the subject of the lawsuit occurred in Louisiana. D. not have personal jurisdiction over Walmart.

The correct answer is A. This case is similar to Ford v. Bandemer. Walmart has purposefully availed itself of Louisiana by operating 15 stores there, and Zena's claim is strongly related to Walmart's Louisiana conduct because the forum stores sell a significant number of the same brand/model bicycle that is the subject of this suit. B is wrong because the bicycle accident that is at the center of the litigation does not arise out of Zena's purchases at the local Walmart store in Louisiana, and whether she regularly purchases other products in Louisiana is not relevant to personal jurisdiction over Walmart in this case. Although the accident that is the subject of the lawsuit occurred in Louisiana, C is wrong because this would not justify personal jurisdiction over Walmart if it had no stores in there. D is wrong because Ford v. Bandemer suggests that Louisiana does have personal jurisdiction over Walmart in this situation.

Dave drives his motorcycle from his home in Florida to a concert in Georgia. While in Georgia, Dave has a serious accident and is hospitalized in Atlanta. Dave wants to bring a products liability action against the dealership where he purchased the motorcycle, Harley Cycles. Harley Cycles is incorporated in Florida and has its principal place of business there; Dave also purchased the motorcycle there. Dave wants to file the suit in federal court in Georgia, claiming that a defect in the brakes caused the crash. The Atlanta Police responded to the accident, took photos and filed a report on the accident. The police report names several witnesses to the accident, all of whom live in Georgia. The motorcycle was towed to a garage in Georgia and has remained there. Dave is in an Atlanta hospital; his doctors and medical records are there. The federal court is likely to find A. purposeful availment satisfied because Dave purposefully drove his motorcycle on Georgia roads and is being treated at a Georgia hospital. B. purposeful availment satisfied if Dave told Harley Cycle that he planned to drive the motorcycle into Georgia. C. purposeful availment satisfied because a defendant need only avail itself of the opportunity to engage in conduct in any state to meet the requirements for personal jurisdiction in federal court. D. purposeful availment not satisfied.

The correct answer is D. The point of this question is to emphasize that personal jurisdiction in federal court mirrors personal jurisdiction in state court, at least in most cases. Although the U.S. Constitution would permit a federal court to exercise nationwide personal jurisdiction as a result of minimum contacts with any part of the country, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 specifies that federal courts typically can exercise personal jurisdiction only to the same extent as the state courts where the federal court is located. Thus, a federal court located in Georgia will typically have the same scope of personal jurisdiction as a Georgia state court. While there are a few exceptions to this rule where Congress has expressly conferred nationwide personal jurisdiction, you will find that the analysis for personal jurisdiction in state and federal court is usually identical. A is wrong because it incorrectly looks at whether the plaintiff, rather than the defendant, had contacts in Georgia. Bis wrong because it doesn't matter if Dave told the defendant that Dave planned to drive the motorcycle in Georgia. Dave's decision to drive to Georgia is Dave's contact with the forum state, not the defendant's contact with the forum state. C is wrong because it ignores the need for purposeful availment and instead focuses on the facts that make the assertion of jurisdiction fair and reasonable. The Court made it clear in World-Wide Volkswagen that, even if personal jurisdiction would otherwise be perfectly fair and reasonable in a state, specific jurisdiction does not exist unless the defendant has had minimum contacts in the state. Here, the defendant had no such contacts.

Bishop purchases a motorcycle from Honda Cycles (incorporated in Rhode Island with its principal place of business in the same state) and drives it from his home in Rhode Island to a concert in Massachusetts. While in Massachusetts, he has a serious accident with Bria when she cuts him off at an intersection. The Boston Police respond to the accident, take photos and file a report on the accident. The police report names several witnesses to the accident, all of whom live in Massachusetts. The motorcycle is towed to a garage in Massachusetts. Bishop is in a Boston hospital; his doctors and medical records are there. Bishop files a lawsuit in Massachusetts against Bria alleging that her negligence caused the accident and against Honda alleging that a defect in the brakes caused the accident. The Massachusetts court is likely to find A. purposeful availment satisfied as to both defendants because Bishop and Bria purposefully drove on Massachusetts roads. B. purposeful availment satisfied as to both defendants if Bishop told Honda Cycle that he planned to drive the motorcycle into Massachusetts. C. purposeful availment satisfied as to both defendants because Bishop is hospitalized in Massachusetts, the witnesses to the accident are located in Massachusetts and the motorcycle is being repaired at a garage in Massachusetts making Massachusetts a fair and reasonable forum to adjudicate the dispute. D. purposeful availment satisfied for Bria but not Honda.

The correct answer is D. This is a case in which one defendant has purposefully availed herself of the state by driving on the roads but the other defendant has not. Honda has not purposefully availed itself of Massachusetts because Honda Cycles did not do anything in Massachusetts or aimed at Massachusetts. A is wrong because Bishop's decision to drive in Massachusetts does not support a conclusion that Honda purposefully engaged in conduct in Massachusetts. B is wrong because it doesn't matter if Bishop told the defendant that he planned to drive the motorcycle in Massachusetts because this would be Bishop's contact with the forum state, not the defendant's contact with the forum state. C is wrong because it ignores the need for purposeful availment and instead focuses on the facts that make the assertion of jurisdiction fair and reasonable. The Court made it clear in World-Wide Volkswagen that we need to start with a deliberate contact by the defendant — the key fact that is missing in this case.

Jerry, a citizen of France, wrote a manuscript for an original Netflix TV series. Shortly after the series aired, Netflix discovered that substantial portions of the work were plagiarized. Jerry wrote the manuscript at his home in Paris and negotiated the contract with an agent for Netflix located in Paris. If Netflix files suit in New York and serves Jerry with process while he is vacationing in New York, the New York court will: A. have to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction because Jerry lacks minimum contacts with New York. B. have to dismiss the suit because the lawsuit is unrelated to Jerry's conduct in New York. C. have to dismiss the suit because Jerry is not subject to general or specific personal jurisdiction in New York since he is not "at home" in the state and his conduct in the state has nothing to do with the lawsuit. D. exercise personal jurisdiction over Jerry to adjudicate this suit.

The correct answer is D. When an individual is served with process in a state, the courts of that state may exercise personal jurisdiction over the individual to adjudicate any cause of action, regardless of where the events that give rise to the claim occurred. In this sense, it operates like general jurisdiction. A and B would be correct if Jerry had not been served with process in New York. C is wrong because it is possible to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant through service of process in the form state.

Service of Process

The delivery of the complaint and summons to a defendant.

A complaint is legally and factually sufficient if the defendant is on notice of the nature of the claim alleged. A. True B. False

The statement is false. Putting a defendant on notice of the nature of the claim does not mean that a complaint is factually sufficient. For example, a plaintiff might allege that the defendant ''engaged in negligence.'' If that is the only allegation related to the claim, the defendant would be on notice of the nature of the claim alleged (negligence). But without any alleged facts to support the claim, the complaint would be factually insufficient and would be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

Gibbs, the manager of a new mine opening in Tennessee, decides to sue the United Mine Workers, a national miners' union, for interference with his contract to run the mine. Gibbs is from Tennessee. The headquarters of the United Mine Workers is in Kentucky. The case will likely not be proper in federal court based on diversity. A. True B. False

The statement is true. The state citizenship of a union is based on the domicile of each of its members. A national miners' union will undoubtedly have many members from Tennessee, a state with lots of mines. There's about zero chance that there will be complete diversity. Of course, Gibbs could still sue in federal court if he asserts a claim under federal law.

Mattison, from New York, sues Riggins, from Pennsylvania, and Puzo, from Virginia, in a state court in New York, seeking $200,000 damages for discharging Mattison in violation of her contract. The defendants do not remove to federal court. Five months later Mattison amends her complaint with leave of court to add a claim against Riggins and Puzo under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, based on the same discharge. The defendants may A. remove the case after the federal claim is added to the complaint B. not remove, because the case was removable as originally filed and the defendants failed to do so. C. not remove, because a case can only be removed within thirty days of service of the original complaint. D. not remove, because there is an in-state plaintiff.

This case could have been removed as originally filed. There was complete diversity, the amount requirement was met, and there was no in-state defendant. Thus, the case did not "become removable" later when Mattison added the federal claim to the case. Thus, even though the amendment added a claim arising under federal law, the defendants do not get a second chance to remove. B is right. A is not, because the case was removable before the amendment. C is wrong because § 1446(b)(3) does allow later removal in some circumstances. And D fails, because the bar on removal of cases with an in-state party applies only to cases "based solely" on diversity - and only bars removal if there is an in-state defendant. After the amendment, this case is founded in part on federal question jurisdiction.

Gomez, a real estate broker from Colorado, sues Solow, from Utah, and Tetro, from Nevada, in state court in Utah. Gomez claims that Solow and Tetro, co-owners of a large building, failed to pay her a $100,000 commission on the sale of the building that Gomez arranged for Solow. Solow answers the complaint and the parties begin discovery in the case. Five months after the case is filed, Gomez files a motion to amend the complaint to add a claim under a federal fraud statute, based on the same sale. The judge grants the motion and Gomez serves the amended complaint on Solow and Tetro. Ten days later, Solow and Tetro each file answers to the amended complaint and serve them on Gomez. Twenty-five days thereafter, Solow removes the case to federal court. Six weeks after removal, Gomez moves to remand the case to state court. The federal judge should A. remand the case to state court. It was not removable, because Solow is an in-state defendant. B. remand the case to state court, because it was removed too late. C. remand the case to state court, because the case did not become removable when Gomez amended to add the federal fraud claim. D. not remand the case to state court.

This case takes some serious thought. A is not right. It is true that Solow is an in-state defendant. As originally filed, the case was not removable, because 28 U.S.C. §1441(b)(2) bars removal of a diversity case if there is an in-state defendant. However, when Gomez adds a claim under federal law, the case "becomes removable;" if a case is based on federal law the in-state defendant bar does not apply. B is also wrong. It is true that Solow removed too late. The thirty-day period for removal in §1446(b)(1) runs from the receipt by the defendants of the amended complaint asserting the claim under federal law, not from the time of their answer. However, late removal is a procedural mistake; it is not a problem with the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Section1447(c) provides that any objection to removal "other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction" must be raised within thirty days after removal. Gomez moved to remand six weeks after removal, so missed that deadline. Scratch C as well. Gomez's case was not removable as originally filed, because there is an in-state defendant. So it did "become removable" (§1446(b)(3)) when Gomez amended to add the federal claim. Choose D.

A complaint that alleges facts that are difficult to prove should be dismissed because the allegations are, by definition, implausible. A. True B. False

This is false. A complaint should not be dismissed simply because the allegations are difficult to prove. For example, imagine a plaintiff sues a defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Such a claim is difficult to prove because it typically requires a showing that the defendant intended to cause someone's emotional distress. That does not mean, however, that the allegation against the defendant is implausible. There is a distinction between allegations that are, on their face, implausible, and allegations that are plausible but simply difficult to prove.

If a plaintiff brings a state law claim in Minnesota, any state court in Minnesota has subject matter jurisdiction. A. True B. False

This is false. A state law claim can certainly be filed in a state court, but that doesn't mean that a state law claim can be filed in any state court. State courts are not one-size-fits-all. There are many different kinds of state courts, and each type has its own subject matter jurisdiction as defined by the state constitution and state statutes. Before filing a state law claim in state court, a lawyer must determine which state court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is a citizen of both the state of its nerve center and the state where its daily activities are centered. A. True B. False

This is false. Before the Supreme Court decided Hertz Corp. v. Friend, some courts determined a corporation's principal place of business based on a "daily operations" test, which looked to the state where the productive activities of the corporation were centered. Others, using the "nerve center" test, held that the principal place of business is the state where the corporate home office was. However, in Hertz Corp. the Supreme Court adopted the latter test for the principal place of business under § 1332(c)(1). Although in some ways the "daily operations" test seems a better choice, because large operations in a state would lead local citizens to think of the corporation as local, the Supreme Court has decreed otherwise.

Congress can authorize federal courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in any category of case as long as the Constitution does not prohibit it. A. True B. False

This is false. Congress can only authorize federal courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a particular category of cases if that category is within one of the nine categories found in Article III, Section 2. Congress cannot authorize the federal courts to hear cases that are not within Article III.

A federal law claim can be filed only in a federal court. A. True B. False

This is false. In most cases over which the federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction, including in cases involving federal law claims, state courts also have subject matter jurisdiction. The only exception is where Congress has expressly stated that the claim must be heard only in federal court.

Jenks sues Norman in federal court for three claims. Her first claim for relief is for fraud in a sale of real estate, claiming $40,000 in damages. Her second is for $30,000 for defamation, based on remarks Norman made to a newspaper about Jenks's alleged drug use. Her third claim is for assault, based on a threat Norman made to "sock her into next week" on a public street. This claim is for $5,000 in compensatory damages, and for $20,000 in punitive damages, which are allowed for intentional torts only if the jury finds the defendant's conduct particularly egregious. Jenks does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. A. True B. False

This is false. The basic rule is that a plaintiff, suing a single defendant, may add together the damages from any claims she asserts against that defendant. The claims need not be related in any way. Here, Jenks can add together the $35,000 for fraud, the $30,000 for defamation, and the $5,000 in compensatory damages, which puts her at $70,000. Since punitive damages might be awarded, if the jury finds Norman's conduct sufficiently egregious, this possible additional recovery puts her over $75,000. Of course, the jury might not award punitives, but there is no legal certainty that they won't.

Caudillo, from Wisconsin, sues Nance, from Illinois, in state court in Minnesota. Caudillo asserts two claims against Nance, one for libel, based on an article Nance wrote about her in a Minnesota newspaper, the other for breach of contract, claiming that Nance failed to pay Caudillo for a series of articles she wrote for the same newspaper. She seeks $60,000 in damages on the libel claim and $30,000 on the contract claim. Nance removes the case to federal court. After removal, Nance moves for summary judgment on the libel, with supporting documents. Nance argues that the documents establish that Nance did not act recklessly in researching the article before publishing it. The federal court grants summary judgment and dismisses the libel claim against Nance. The court should now remand the case to the state court because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it, since the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met. A. True B. False

This is false. The federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case will be assessed based on the claims in the case upon removal. At that time Caudillo's claims together sought more than $75,000, so met the amount requirement. Even though one of them has been dismissed from the case, the federal court will still have subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claim.

Trent sues Jiminez in federal court for breach of contract for refusing to deliver 20,000 widgets that Jiminez had agreed to sell to him. In his suit, basing jurisdiction on diversity, Trent alleges that as a result of the default he suffered $55,000 in lost profits on a pending resale of the widgets to another buyer. In the same action he sues Weston, a competitor who convinced Jiminez to sell the widgets to her instead of to Trent. He seeks the same lost profit damages from Weston, alleging intentional interference with his contract with Jiminez. Trent meets the amount-in-controversy requirement against both defendants because he might prove both his $55,000 breach of contract claim against Jiminez and also prove his $55,000 interference with contract claim against Weston. A. True B. False

This is false. Trent has suffered a single $55,000 loss, the profits he would have made from reselling the widgets. He may recover this loss from Jiminez if Jiminez breached the contract. He may recover it from Weston if she interfered with the contract. Indeed, he might prove his claims against both Weston and Jiminez. However, even if he does, he will not recover twice the amount of his damages just because the loss might give rise to claims against two defendants. Trent has a claim against Jiminez and a claim against Weston for the same $55,000 loss. He does not meet the amount requirement against either.

Wiggins, from Michigan, sues Schuman, from Ohio, for $50,000 for breach of contract, in a state court in Michigan. Schuman may not remove the case to federal court based on diversity. A. True B. False

This is true. A defendant may remove a case from state to federal court if it could have been filed initially in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Wiggins' case could not have been filed in federal court, because his claim does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.

Argento arrested Dupree, and there was a scuffle, during which both were injured. Argento sues Dupree in state court for battery, a state law tort claim. (Both are citizens of Delaware.) Dupree asserts a counterclaim against Argento under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the federal statute that authorizes damages for violations of federal constitutional rights. Dupree claims that he was subjected to an unreasonable seizure by Argento, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Dupree may not remove to federal court. A. True B. False

This is true. Argento sued in state court. Dupree asserts a counterclaim (a claim for relief by the defendant back against the plaintiff) that arises under federal law. But the right to remove belongs to defendants; they may remove a case that could have been filed initially in federal court. This one could not have been filed in federal court, because Argento asserted a state law claim against a defendant from the same state. Even though in some sense Dupree is now a plaintiff (because he is asserting a claim for relief), removal may not be based on a counterclaim.

Farquhar sues Rezendez in federal court for compensatory damages, for selling him a piece of property for $100,000 and misrepresenting the zoning status of the property. Farquhar alleges that, under the true zoning regulation, the property is only worth $50,000. In a second claim, Farquhar alleges that Rezendez was negligent in checking on the zoning, so he was mistaken about it, and is liable for the $50,000 difference in value on a negligence theory. Farquhar's suit does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. A. True B. False

This is true. Farquhar has sued Rezendez for the difference in value of the land on two different theories. If he proves that Rezendez committed fraud, he will recover the difference in value.... $50,000. If he proves that Rezendez was negligent in stating the value of the land (but did not do it deliberately) he will recover the difference in value... $50,000. But we don't double the damages because Farquhar asserts two legal theories as the basis the same recovery! We still ask, "if Farquhar recovers from Rezendez, how much will he get?" Here, the answer is "$50,000'' whether he proves both of his legal theories or either one. So the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met.

Guerrero, from California, is seriously injured in a forklift accident while working in Arizona. She sues the forklift manufacturer, General Products Company, in an Arizona state court for negligence, seeking $1,000,000 in damages. General Products is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York. General Products removes the case to federal court. Unfortunately, the federal district to which the case is removed has a heavy docket. The court is unlikely to be able to try Guerrero's case for at least two years. Guerrero is seriously debilitated by her injury and heavily in debt; she really needs a speedy recovery. Her counsel therefore moves to remand to state court, which could reach the case for trial much more quickly. The federal court will deny the motion. A. True B. False

This is true. If a case is properly removed to federal court, it will be heard there, even if a plaintiff has strong practical reasons for preferring the state court, as Guerrero does here. The defendant has a right to the federal forum if the case is removable. The federal court has no authority to accommodate a plaintiff who prefers state court. Similarly, if Guerrero had filed in federal court, the court would not dismiss if General Products argued various persuasive reasons why it preferred state court. The federal court does not have authority to decline jurisdiction for such reasons.

Jack sues Morello for injuries suffered in an accident. His injuries would support a recovery of up to $90,000. His wife Rachel was also injured in the accident. Her injuries would support a recovery of up to $35,000. The amount-in-controversy requirement is met for both claims. A. True B. False

This is true. In this example, one plaintiff sues for more than the required amount: Jack's damages would support a recovery over $75,000. So, there is a claim that gives the court "original jurisdiction." Where this is true, the Supreme Court held in Exxon-Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, 545 U.S. 546 (2005), that the federal court will have supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs who sue for less than $75,000.01. Exxon-Mobil held that, once one party has a claim sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction, there is supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs who sue for less than that amount, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) does not exclude those claims. Rachel may tag along in this example. However, remember that, if neither party meets the amount-in-controversy requirement, there is no "federal hook" from which to hang other claims for less.

Petrovski, from Russia, sues Mehti, a citizen of India, in federal court in New York, seeking $200,000 damages on a negligence claim. The court will not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. A. True B. False

This is true. Nothing in Article III, s. 2 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) grants the federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over cases between citizens of foreign states. (Read those provisions carefully and you will agree!) Why should it? There is no unique federal interest in providing a forum for litigation between foreigners. (A Russian citizen might still sue an Indian citizen in federal court on a case arising under federal law, however.)

Profita Corporation is incorporated in Illinois. It has its central offices in Ohio, where the officers and directors meet and have their offices. The business of the corporation is to produce shirts, which it does at a large factory in Kentucky. Two hundred and fifty employees work at the factory, and three of the four vice presidents spend three days a week there, returning to the Ohio offices for meetings the other two days. Profita has a website, which announces that "the company's principal place of business is in Frankfort, Kentucky, where our sole factory is located, and manufactures a fine line of shirts for both men and women." Profita is a citizen for diversity purposes of Illinois and Ohio. A. True B. False

This is true. Profita is a citizen of Illinois based on incorporation and of Ohio, its corporate headquarters. Although the vast amount of the productive activity of the company takes place in Kentucky, the Hertzcase tells us that the "principal place of business," as that phrase is used in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), is the home office, the central location where the high-level officers work and corporate policy is determined. Even though three vice presidents spend more time in Kentucky than Ohio, the court would likely choose Ohio under Hertz, because that is where the central offices are located and very likely where the high-level decisions about corporate activities are made. Kentucky may be Profita's principal place of doing-what-we-do, but it is not its principal place of business under Hertz. Ohio is. Nor can Profita vary the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) by anything it might choose to post on its website. Hertz Corp. v. Friend held that the term "principal place of business" in that statute means the state that includes the place where the officers and directors control and direct the affairs of the corporation. In Profita's case, that is the headquarters in Ohio, not the shirt factory in Kentucky. Profita cannot rewrite the statute, or make its principal place of business in Kentucky by a unilateral declaration!

The Mottleys, from Kentucky, sue the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, incorporated in Kentucky with its principal place of business in Kentucky, for breach of contract for refusing to renew the Mottleys' free passes on the railroad. The Railroad answers the complaint, raising the defense that a new federal statute bars giving free passes. It then removes to federal court. The case will be remanded to state court. A. True B. False

This is true. The Mottleys could not have started in federal court, because their claim does not arise under federal law and there is no diversity. Since the Mottleys could not have started in federal court, the Railroad cannot remove to federal court, even though they have raised a federal defense. Thus, the case is not properly removed, and the court will remand it to state court.

Valdez, a Georgia citizen, sues Quik-Loan Corporation for violation of the federal Truth-in-Lending statute. Quik-Loan is incorporated in Delaware with its central offices in Georgia. It contracted with Valdez for the loan in a Florida regional office. Valdez brings the action in federal court in Florida. The federal court A. lacks jurisdiction over the action, because Valdez and Quik-Loan are both citizens of Georgia. B. has jurisdiction over the action, because the loan was negotiated in Florida, which supports minimum contacts jurisdiction. C. has jurisdiction over the action, as long as the suit is for more than $75,000. D. has jurisdiction over the action, regardless of how much is in controversy in the suit.

This question is provided just to remind you that there is more than one way to get into federal court. This case arises under federal law. It is properly brought in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, regardless of where the parties are from and regardless of the amount in controversy. Choose D with confidence! And don't be befuddled by B, which confuses personal jurisdiction with subject matter jurisdiction. Even if there would be personal jurisdiction over Quik-Loan in Florida, subject matter jurisdiction requires a different, additional analysis.

Senator Frugal, concerned about the volume and expense of litigation in the federal courts, wants to introduce a bill in Congress to impose a $2,000,000 amount-in-controversy requirement in federal question cases. A. The bill would be unconstitutional, because there is no amount-in-controversy requirement in Article III, § 2, which grants federal question jurisdiction to federal courts. B. The bill would be unconstitutional, because it would keep many cases out of the federal courts that raise important issues of federal law and satisfy the Mottley test. C. The bill would be constitutional, as long as the amount required in diversity cases was raised to the same amount. D. The bill would be constitutional, since Congress may grant to the federal district courts as little or as much of the Article III, § 2 jurisdiction as it wishes.

This question tests an important point ... the power of Congress to grant to the federal district courts less than the full reach of jurisdiction in Article III, § 2. It is established that Congress can give as much of the Art. III, §2 jurisdiction as it sees fit to the federal district courts ... or as little. It could authorize the federal district courts to hear all cases within the Article III, § 2 power. Or it could eliminate the federal district courts, allowing none of those cases to be heard in a federal trial court. Or Congress can pick and choose. It could authorize jurisdiction in diversity cases only, or in federal question cases only. Or only in federal question cases that arise under the federal tax laws. Or only in cases between a state and a citizen of another state. Whatever, as long as they don't grant more jurisdiction than is authorized in Article III. So, the answer is D. A is wrong, because Congress doesn't have to grant all the federal question jurisdiction to the district courts. It could grant some, by imposing an amount-in-controversy requirement. B is wrong, because Congress need not provide a federal trial court for any cases arising under federal law, so it could restrict jurisdiction to big bucks federal question cases if it chooses. At one time there was an amount-in-controversy requirement in federal question cases.

Alex brings a civil rights lawsuit in federal court against the federal government, asserting that several government policies (which Alex identifies in the complaint) discriminate against people who are transgender. Because Alex's claims rely upon a novel theory of law that has never been asserted before, they do not satisfy Rule 8(a)(2). A. True B. False

This statement is false. Plaintiffs must be permitted to assert novel or new legal theories; otherwise, the law would never evolve. Of course, that does not mean that Alex's claim will be successful. The court will still need to determine whether the new claim has merit. The point here is simply that the claim should not be dismissed automatically simply because there has never previously been a claim like it.

Allen is arrested by Chicago police officers and is punched during the arrest by one of them, breaking his jaw. He isn't sure whether it was Officer O'Brien or Officer Morrell who hit him; they were both present at the time. He sues both O'Brien and Morrell for battery, seeking $120,000 in damages, a fair award for his substantial injuries. Allen meets the amount-in-controversy requirement against both defendants. A. True B. False

This statement is true. If Allen has sufficient grounds to sue both officers - because he has plausible evidence that it was O'Brien who hit him and, alternatively that it was Morrell -- he may sue them both and let the jury decide which officer is liable to him. So either officer might be liable for Allen's damages, which exceed $75,000.Thus it does not appear to a legal certainty that he will recover less that the required amount from O'Brien: if he proves that O'Brien hit him, he could recover more than $75,000 from him. And it does not appear to a legal certainty that he will recover less from Morrell. If he proves that Morrell hit him, he will recover his damage from Morrell. So either might be liable to him for more than $75,000; he meets the amount-in-controversy requirement against both.

A person can be domiciled in a state even if she has a definite intent to leave that state at a particular time. A. True B. False

True

Whirlpool Corporation makes toasters in Maryland and sells them to ABC Distributors, Inc., an Illinois company with its principal place of business in Illinois. ABC resells a batch of the toasters to DIY Hardware stores in Virginia. Jenkins buys a toaster at a DIY Hardware Store in Charlottesville, Virginia and brings it to his home in West Virginia. The toaster malfunctions and burns his house down. The courts of Virginia would have personal jurisdiction over ABC Distributors. A. True B. False

True. ABC Company sold a batch of toasters to stores in Virginia, and one of those toasters caused the injury that is the subject of this lawsuit. ABC is subject to specific jurisdiction in Virginia because the lawsuit arises out of ABC's contacts with Virginia (i.e., the claim arises out of a product that ABC sold in Virginia.). It is important to note that this is not a so-called "stream of commerce" problem. If the lawsuit named Whirlpool Corporation as a defendant, we would need to consider a stream of commerce analysis because Whirlpool placed its product into the stream of commerce when it sold the toasters to an intermediary, ABC Distributors, knowing that ABC would sell the toasters in other forums. Since Whirlpool did not directly aim any conduct at Virginia, a stream of commerce analysis would be necessary to determine if Whirlpool could be sued in Virginia. Since Whirlpool is not a defendant, this question is much simpler than a typical stream of commerce question.

Bama, a citizen of North Dakota, repairs antique cars for a living. Most of his clients are from North Dakota, but one day Althea from Wyoming stops at Bama's garage in North Dakota and asks Bama to repair Althea's 1910 Ford Model T. (Althea was referred to Bama by one of Althea's friends.) Bama travels to Althea's home in Wyoming where he does the repair. Althea is dissatisfied with the work and refuses to pay him. Bama sues Althea in North Dakota state court. Althea has purposefully availed herself of North Dakota. A. True B. False

True. Althea purposefully availed herself of North Dakota when she reached out to Bama and asked him to repair her vehicle. Even though Bama performed the service in Wyoming, Althea solicited his services in North Dakota.

Deutsche Co. makes industrial size snow blowers in Germany. The company sells 50 snow blowers to its distributor in Illinois with no restrictions on where they may be resold. Goodrich Elementary School in Sanford, Maine contacts the distributor in Illinois and purchases a Deutsche snow blower. This is the only Deutsche snow blower sold into Maine. The school custodian, Cedric, is seriously injured when the engine explodes during a heavy snow storm. The injury occurred in Maine; the witnesses to the accident are in Maine; the medical providers who have treated Cedric, and continue to do so, are in Maine; and Maine tort law will apply to the claim because the accident occurred there. Notwithstanding the weight of all of these factors, Deutsche Co. has not purposefully availed itself of Maine. A. True B. False

True. Although the Court's decision in a similar case, J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011), was splintered, a majority of the Justices would likely find that Deutsche did not sell directly into Maine, or do anything to cultivate the Maine market. The defendant sold a product to a dealer in Illinois, which resold the product to a buyer in Maine. Even if it is reasonable and convenient to litigate the action in Maine, the defendant will not be subject to personal jurisdiction in Maine because the defendant did not purposefully avail itself of Maine.

Campbell, a citizen of Wisconsin, was boating on Lake Superior. The border between Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan runs right down the middle of the lake. Campbell entered the lake on the Michigan side and while driving around the lake, he unknowingly crossed the invisible border in and out of Minnesota all day. As he was heading back to the dock, he collided with Abner who was driving another boat while Abner and Campbell were both in Michigan. If Abner sues for his injury in a Minnesota court, the court will likely find that Campbell is not subject to personal jurisdiction. A. True B. False

True. Campbell has purposefully availed himself of Minnesota because he drove his boat into Minnesota, whether he knew it or not. He intended to go where he went on the lake (even if he didn't know that he crossed a state border), but Abner's lawsuit does not arise out of Campbell's conduct in Minnesota. It arises out of Abner's conduct in Michigan, where the collision occurred. It is unlikely that a court would find the nexus requirement satisfied merely because Campbell drove his boat into Minnesota on the same day that the accident occurred

Snapper Corporation manufactures lawnmowers in Wisconsin and sells them to Lawns-R-Us Distributors, Inc., a company incorporated in Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois. Lawns-R-Us resells the mowers to hardware stores located in every state, including Texas. Reynolds buys a Snapper lawnmower at a hardware store in Texas and takes it to his home in Oklahoma. The lawnmower malfunctions in Oklahoma and cuts his toe off. If Reynolds files a lawsuit against Lawns-R-Us in Texas court, the court would have specific jurisdiction over Lawns-R-Us unless it can show that the exercise of jurisdiction is unreasonable. A. True B. False

True. Lawns-R-Us sold a batch of lawnmowers in Texas, and one of those lawnmowers caused the injury that is the subject of this lawsuit. The court will presume that the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable because the lawsuit arises out of the defendant's conduct aimed at Texas. In this situation, the defendant must carry a heavy burden to rebut the presumption to prove that jurisdiction would be unfair to the defendant. Note that this is not a stream of commerce problem because the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum state by selling mowers to stores located in Texas.

Adele buys a motor boat from Snug Harbor Yacht Co. in Massachusetts. Adele tells the salesperson that she plans to take the boat to visit her son in Newport, Rhode Island. On her way to visit her son, the motor on the boat explodes while she is in Rhode Island waters, and Adele has to be rescued at sea. She sues Snug Harbor Yacht Co. for breach of warranty of merchantability in Rhode Island state court. (Snug Harbor Yacht Co. is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Massachusetts.) Although the injury occurred in Rhode Island, the court will not be able to exercise specific personal jurisdiction in this case. A. True B. False

True. This one requires a clear understanding of what the nexus requirement means. A mere showing that the litigation arose in the forum state does not satisfy the nexus requirement. Instead, it is necessary to show that the litigation arises out of, or relates to, the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum state. If the defendant has done nothing to purposefully avail itself of Rhode Island, it does not matter that the plaintiff suffered an injury there. Here, the defendant did not do anything aimed at Rhode Island; Adele did. Adele told the salesperson that she planned to take the boat to Rhode Island, but her trip to Rhode Island is her contact, not the defendant's. The defendant has not purposefully availed itself of Rhode Island, so there is no specific jurisdiction over the defendant there.

Thomas, a citizen of New Jersey, was a scientist for a large pharmaceutical company, Tridelta, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York. Tridelta has laboratories in every state and Thomas worked at a laboratory in Parsippany, New Jersey. Thomas's manager, Betty, fired Thomas when she heard through the grapevine that Thomas was planning to share company trade secrets with a German pharmaceutical company. Thomas's lawyer strategically decided to file suit in Delaware because the lawyer thought the courts there would be more favorable to Thomas's case. The courts of Delaware will have personal jurisdiction over Tridelta for Thomas's claim even though the plaintiff is forum shopping for favorable law. A. True B. False

True. Tridelta is incorporated in Delaware and a corporation is subject to general personal jurisdiction, that is, jurisdiction for all claims, in the state of incorporation. So, even though the plaintiff has not filed in his home forum and very little (if any) evidence is located in Delaware, the defendant is subject to general jurisdiction in the state where it is incorporated.

Domicile

a defendant's fixed place of abode coupled with an intention to remain indefinitely

Subject Matter Jdx

measure of the court's authority to hear this type of case