Civil Procedure Chapter 3 - MBE Quiz

Following a car accident, Plaintiff/driver and Passenger of a car brought a negligence action against Defendant driver in state court in State T. Plaintiff/driver is a citizen of State T and Passenger is a citizen of State L. Defendant/driver is a citizen of State T. Each of the plaintiffs sought $100,000 in damages against Defendant. Passenger also filed a $100,000 claim against Plaintiff/driver for damages resulting from the injury. Can Plaintiff/driver properly remove the case? (A) No, because plaintiffs cannot remove a case from state court to federal court. (B) Yes, because the Passenger's cross-claim meets all the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. (C) No, because Plaintiff/driver is a citizen of the forum state. (D) Yes, because Passenger is not a citizen of the forum state.

(A) No, because plaintiffs cannot remove a case from state court to federal court.

Plaintiff, a citizen of State A, filed a lawsuit in A State court asserting a $100,000 negligence claim against a citizen of State B and a $40,000 breach of contract claim against a citizen of State A. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim against the State A defendant the day after filing the suit. The next day, the defendant from State B removed the case to federal court in State A. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court. How should the court rule? (A) The court should deny the motion because it now falls within the court's original jurisdiction. (B) The court should grant the motion because diversity of citizenship is lacking. (C) The court should deny the motion because the plaintiff is a citizen of State A. (D) The court should grant the motion because the claim does not meet the diversity jurisdiction amount-in-controversy.

(A) The court should deny the motion because it now falls within the court's original jurisdiction.

Plaintiff, a citizen of State A, brought a patent infringement claim against Avant Co., a Delaware corporation, in federal court in State A. Plaintiff alleged that Avant Co. had infringed her patent in violation of the federal patent statute and sought damages in the amount of $50,000. Plaintiff also asserted a $150,000 intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the president of Avant Co., J. Avant, a citizen of State A. In this claim, Plaintiff alleged that J. Avant, acting on behalf of Avant Co., engaged in the infringing conduct and that this caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. The defendant J. Avant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the emotional distress claim. How should the court rule? (A) The court should deny the motion, as the federal court has jurisdiction over the emotional distress claim. (B) The court should grant the motion, because courts do not permit pendent party jurisdiction. (C) The court should deny the motion, because the damages alleged in the two claims can be aggregated. (D) The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff sought less than $75,000 in the patent infringement claim.

(A) The court should deny the motion, as the federal court has jurisdiction over the emotional distress claim.

Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court against the Defendant for breach of contract. The contract was for the sale of real estate worth $75,000. In fact, not only did the Defendant refuse but the day after signing the contract with Plaintiff, the Defendant sold the land to a bona fide purchaser. Plaintiff is a citizen of State M and Defendant is a citizen of State C. After suit was filed, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule? (A) The district court should grant the motion, because the court lacks subject matter over the controversy. (B) The district court should grant the motion, because the federal court does not have jurisdiction over state law contract claims. (C) The district court should deny the motion, because the court has jurisdiction over the claim based on diversity jurisdiction. (D) The district court should deny the motion, because the parties stipulated in the signed contract that the federal district court will resolve all disputes arising from performance or non-performance of the contract.

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

A citizen of State A was injured in an accident by a citizen of State B. Before filing suit in state court, the State A citizen assigned his claim to a citizen of State B on the understanding that the State B citizen would transfer all proceeds recovered at trial back to the injured party in exchange for a fee for expenses and services provided. This individual then filed the suit seeking $100,000 in damages in State A state court. The defendant sought to remove the case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction?? (A) Yes, because the parties are diverse and the claim is for $100,000. (B) Yes, because §1359 is inapplicable. (C) No, because the claim arises under state law. (D) No, because the parties are not diverse.

(A) Yes, because the parties are diverse and the claim is for $100,000.

Passenger, a citizen of State L, was riding in a car driven by his friend Driver, a citizen of State T. They crashed into a car driven by Plaintiff, a State T citizen. Plaintiff and Passenger filed an action in federal court in State T in which each of the plaintiffs asserted a $100,000 tort action against Driver. Driver filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which the court granted. Did the court err in granting the motion? (A) Yes, because jurisdiction is proper under diversity and supplemental jurisdiction. (B) No, because Driver and Plaintiff are both citizens of State T. (C) Yes, because each claim is for more than $75,000. (D) No, because the action was filed in State T.

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

Plaintiff, a citizen of State X, filed suit in federal district court against Defendant Car Co., incorporated in State Y with its principal place of business in State X. Plaintiff alleges a defect in the manufacturing of her car by Defendant caused her accident where she incurred property damage and severe bodily injuries. Due to the severity of her injuries, Plaintiff alleges her medical expenses alone exceed $1,000,000. After filing suit in federal district court in State Z, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion and Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff's complaint, denying any liability for Plaintiff's losses. A month thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that Defendant waived its right to object to the court's power when it failed to assert it with its previous motion. How should the court rule on Defendant's second motion to dismiss? (A) The district court should deny Defendant's motion because Defendant waived its right to object to the court's power when it unreasonably delayed in asserting this defense. (B) The district court should grant Defendant's motion, because the court lacks jurisdiction over the parties because Plaintiff and Defendant are both from State X. (C) The district court should deny Defendant's motion, because Plaintiff and Defendant are from different states, State X and State Y, respectively. (D) The district court should grant Defendant's motion, because the court erred in its decision to deny Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

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

A citizen of State A brought a $70,000 action in State A state court against a restaurant located in State B alleging that the plaintiff had developed food poisoning after eating in the restaurant due to the Kitchen's unhygienic conditions. The defendant removed the case to federal court. Thereafter, the restaurant filed a motion to dismiss with the federal trial judge court based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff acknowledged that the applicable long-arm statute does not provide jurisdiction over this defendant. Should the court grant this motion? (A) No, because by removing the case the defendant consented to that court's exercise of personal jurisdictional over it. (B) Yes, because the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction. (C) No, because the claim is for $70,000. (D) Yes, because the defendant is not a citizen of the forum state.

(B) Yes, because the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, filed a claim in state court alleging that the defendant, a Delaware corporation, violated her rights under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and sought damages in the amount of $50,000. Does the state court have subject matter jurisdiction? (A) Yes, because the parties are diverse. (B) Yes, because the federal Civil Rights Act does not provide for exclusive federal court jurisdiction. (C) No, because this claim arises under federal law. (D) No, because the plaintiff is seeking only $50,000.

(B) Yes, because the federal Civil Rights Act does not provide for exclusive federal court jurisdiction.

A citizen of State A is injured in a car accident with another citizen of that same state who was not injured in the crash. The injured party was in desperate need of cash and so he assigned his cause of action to a citizen of State B for $50,000. The State B citizen then filed the claim in federal court in State B, seeking damages in the amount of $100,000 against the other driver. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? (A) No, because the parties are not diverse. (B) Yes, because the parties are diverse and the claim is for $100,000. (C) No, because this is a collusive assignment. (D) Yes, because Plaintiff is a citizen of State B.

(B) Yes, because the parties are diverse and the claim is for $100,000.

A citizen of State A brought an action against her employer, a State A corporation, in federal district court. Count I alleges a violation of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 where the employer discriminated against the employee on the basis of her sex. Count II consists of a tort claim for emotional distress arising out of the same series of acts of sexual harassment that formed the basis of her federal sex discrimination claim. The plaintiff seeks $250,000 in damages in connection with each claim. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over the entire lawsuit? (A) No, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the second claim because it is a non-diverse state law claim. (B) Yes, because the two claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact and there is no reason to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim. (C) No, because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state. (D) Yes, because federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most federal law claims.

(B) Yes, because the two claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact and there is no reason to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.

Plaintiff, a citizen of State A, is a widow whose husband was killed in an accident while working for Defendant, a construction company. Defendant is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State B. Plaintiff brought a diversity action against Defendant in federal district court in State A alleging negligence and seeking $100,000 in damages. Defendant filed a third-party claim against Distributor, seeking $100,000 in damages and alleging that if Defendant is liable to Plaintiff, Distributor is liable to Defendant for having leased the equipment that allegedly caused the accident. Distributor is incorporated in State A. Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to assert a tort claim against Distributor and to seek $100,000 in damages from that party. Defendant and Distributor each move to dismiss the claims against them based on subject-matter jurisdiction objections. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's negligence claim; Distributor moves to dismiss Defendant's third-party claim; and Distributor also moves to dismiss Plaintiff's tort claim. How should the court resolve the motions? (A) Grant all motions. (B) Grant Distributor's motion against Defendant and Plaintiff. (C) Grant Distributor's motion against Plaintiff. (D) Grant Defendant's motion.

(C) Grant Distributor's motion against Plaintiff.

After buying a new television set, Buyer brought an action against the television manufacturer in federal district court in State A containing a claim that the manufacturer participated in a conspiracy to engage in unlawful price-fixing in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff is a citizen of State A and the defendant is a citizen of State A and State D. In his complaint, the plaintiff also asserted a breach of contract claim, alleging that the television was defective and that the manufacturer refused to honor the warranty contained in the purchase agreement. In connection with this second claim, the plaintiff seeks $100,000 in damages. Can the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the entire lawsuit? (A) No, because both parties are citizens of State A. (B) Yes, because the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim and federal question jurisdiction over the federal claim. (C) No, because the claims do not arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact. (D) Yes, because the value of the state claim exceeds $75,000.

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

A citizen of State A is injured in a car accident with another citizen of that same state who was not injured in the crash. The injured party assigned his claim to a State B citizen on the understanding that the State B citizen would transfer all proceeds recovered at trial back to the injured party in exchange for a fee for expenses and services provided. The State B citizen then files the claim in federal court in State A against the other driver, seeking damages in the amount of $100,000. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? (A) Yes, because all §1332(a)(1) requirements are met. (B) Yes, because this is not a collusive assignment. (C) No, because the parties are not diverse. (D) No, because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.

(C) No, because the parties are not diverse.

The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, brought a state breach of contract action in federal district court alleging that the defendant, also a citizen of State A, agreed to purchase his home and subsequently refused to go forward with the deal. The defendant's answer admits that he refused to buy the home but alleged that because the plaintiff had lied in certain representations about the home contained in a federally required disclosure form, the deal was unenforceable under the governing federal disclosure statute. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? (A) Yes, because this case arises under federal law. (B) Yes, because the defendant filed an answer, waiving his jurisdictional objection. (C) No, because this case does not arise under federal law. (D) No, because the parties are citizens of the same state.

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

The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, brings a state breach of contract action in federal district court alleging that the defendant, also a citizen of State A, agreed to purchase his home and subsequently refused to go forward with the deal. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that even if he misrepresented important features of the home in violation of the requirements of federal disclosure law, this statute is unconstitutional. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? (A) Yes, because this case arises under federal law. (B) Yes, because the defendant filed an answer, waiving his jurisdictional objection. (C) No, because this case does not arise under federal law and the parties are citizens of the same state. (D) No, because the parties are citizens of the same state.

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

Student was a student attending State A University. While at school, Student lived in a dormitory on campus. During holidays and breaks, Student returned to his childhood hometown in State B, where his parents still reside. During his senior year in college, Student decided to move to State A permanently, so he began looking for an off-campus apartment. After graduating, Student was recruited by a multi-national firm based in State C. Student was recruited to head up their State D office. While travelling to State D to begin searching for an apartment, Student was in a car accident which required a six month stay at a rehabilitation hospital in State A. Plaintiff wants to file a diversity action against Student. Where is Student domiciled? (A) State A, where Student has been living for over four years for school and rehabilitation. (B) State D, where Student is planning on living and working after his release from the hospital. (C) State B, where he lived prior to attending college and returned to on holidays and breaks. (D) State C, where his current employer is incorporated and has its principal place of business.

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

Plaintiff, from State A, sued Defendant, also from State A, in federal district court. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant caused damages in excess of $100,000 by violating Plaintiff's patent rights on a new electronic device design and software. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the case. How should the court rule? (A) The court should grant the motion because both parties are citizens of State A. (B) The court should grant the motion because the Plaintiff cannot prove violation of her patent rights. (C) The court should deny the motion because the federal court has jurisdiction over the case. (D) The court should deny the motion because the damages are well over $75,000.

(C) The court should deny the motion because the federal court has jurisdiction over the case.

Plaintiff, from State A, sued the Defendant, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in State B. Plaintiff emailed the complaint to Defendant on March 1st. Defendant did not respond to the complaint though they did acknowledge receipt of the email. On June 1st, Plaintiff filed the complaint in State A state court, seeking $100,000 in damages. Plaintiff properly served Defendant on July 2nd. On July 20th, Defendant removed the case to federal court. Plaintiff filed a motion for remand arguing the time for removal had lapsed. How should the court rule? (A) The court should grant the motion, as the defendant had until May 31st to remove the case. (B) The court should deny the motion, as the defendant has until July 1st to remove the case. (C) The court should deny the motion, as the defendant has until August 2nd to remove the case. (D) The court should deny the motion, because the defendant can, as of right, remove the case before the start of trial.

(C) The court should deny the motion, as the defendant has until August 2nd to remove the case.

Plaintiff, a citizen of State A, filed suit in federal district court against Defendant, citizen of State B alleging one count of negligence resulting from a car accident and one count for breach of contract resulting from an unrelated agreement the parties entered into a year prior to their accident. Plaintiff alleged total damages from the car accident in the amount of $50,000. The contract called for liquidated damages in the amount of $45,000. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the entire suit. How should the court rule? (A) The court should grant Defendant's motion, because Defendant lacks sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to be bound by the court's judgment. (B) The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff cannot aggregate their damages from two unrelated claims against the Defendant in order to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. (C) The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff can aggregate their damages from two unrelated claims against the Defendant in order to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. (D) The court should deny the motion, because Plaintiff and Defendant are from different states, thereby satisfying the complete diversity of citizenship required for diversity jurisdiction.

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

Plaintiff, from a State A, worked for a Delaware corporation for many years. Plaintiff filed suit against the corporation under federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Plaintiff also filed a claim against her district manager, a State A resident, alleging that the discrimination was a breach of her employment contract and sought $50,000 in damages. Plaintiff filed her action in State A federal court. The district manager moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule on the motion? (A) The court should deny the motion, because the federal law claims confer subject matter jurisdiction over the entire case. (B) The court should deny the motion, because there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and the district manager. (C) The court should deny the motion, because the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claim against the district manager. (D) The court should grant the motion, because it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claim against the district manager.

(C) The court should deny the motion, because the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claim against the district manager.

Plaintiff was injured during an arrest. Plaintiff alleges that a police officer used excessive force while arresting her. As a result of the excessive force and arrest, Plaintiff incurred $8,000 in damages for medical expenses. Plaintiff filed suit in state court against the police officer for violation of her federal constitutional rights. The police officer filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule? (A) The court should grant the police officer's motion to dismiss, as federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over federal law violations. (B) The court should grant the police officer's motion to dismiss, as federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over federal questions based on constitutional rights. (C) The court should deny the police officer's motion to dismiss, as state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most federal questions, including this one. (D) The court should deny the police officer's motion to dismiss, but only if Plaintiff

(C) The court should deny the police officer's motion to dismiss, as state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over most federal questions, including this one.

Plaintiff believes that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her sex in violation of both federal and state law. However, she wants to avoid being in federal court and so she files a complaint in state court asserting only a claim under the state anti-discrimination statute. Assuming the parties are not of diverse citizenship, will she be successful in staying out of federal court? (A) No, because she could state a claim arising under federal law. (B) No, because of the "artful pleading" doctrine. (C) Yes, because of the "master of the complaint" doctrine. (D) Yes, because the parties are not diverse.

(C) Yes, because of the "master of the complaint" doctrine.

Plaintiff is injured in a crash between his car, a second car, and a truck on a narrow road in State A. Plaintiff is a citizen of State A. Driver, the driver of the second car, is a citizen of State B, and the owner of the truck, Trucks, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in State C. Plaintiff filed an action in the federal court for the District of State A seeking damages of $250,000 against each of the two named defendants, Driver and Trucks, Inc. In the same suit, Driver filed a claim against Trucks, Inc. seeking $75,000 in damages for the damage to her car. Trucks, Inc. filed a tort claim against Plaintiff seeking $70,000 in damages for the damages to its truck. Trucks, Inc. also filed a claim against Trucker, a citizen of State C who was driving its truck at the time of the accident, seeking indemnity from any loss it might suffer in connection with Plaintiff's claim against it. Can the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Trucks, Inc.'s claim against Plaintiff? (A) Yes, because Trucks, Inc. and Plaintiff are citizens of different states. (B) No, because Trucks, Inc. is seeking $70,000. (C) Yes, because this claim arose out of the same car crash. (D) No, because original jurisdiction was based solely on diversity jurisdiction.

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

Plaintiff was injured in a crash between his car and another car and a truck on a narrow country road in State A. Plaintiff is a citizen of State A. Driver, the driver of the other car, is a citizen of State B, and the owner of the truck, Trucks, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of State D and has its principal place of business in State C. Plaintiff filed an action in the federal court for the District of State A seeking damages of $250,000 against each of the two named defendants, Driver and Trucks, Inc. In the same suit, Driver filed a claim against Trucks, Inc. seeking $75,000 in damages for the damage to her car. Trucks, Inc. filed a tort claim against Plaintiff seeking $70,000 in damages for the damages to its truck. Trucks, Inc. also filed a claim against Trucker, a citizen of State C who was driving its truck at the time of the accident, seeking indemnity from any loss it might suffer in connection with Plaintiff's claim against it. Can the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Driver's claim against Trucks, Inc.? (A) Yes, because Driver and Trucks, Inc. are citizens of different states. (B) No, because Driver is seeking $70,000, which does not satisfy diversity jurisdiction. (C) Yes, because this claim arose out of the same car crash. (D) No, because original jurisdiction was based solely on diversity jurisdiction.

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

Plaintiff is injured in a crash between his car and another car and a truck on a narrow country road in State A. Plaintiff is a citizen of State A. The driver of the other car is a citizen of State B, and the owner of the truck, Trucks, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in State C. Plaintiff filed an action in the federal court for the District of State A seeking damages of $250,000 against each of the two named defendants, Driver and Trucks, Inc. In the same suit, Driver filed a claim against Trucks, Inc. seeking $75,000 in damages for the damage to her car. Trucks, Inc. filed a tort claim against Plaintiff seeking $70,000 in damages for the damages to its truck. Trucks, Inc. also filed a claim against Trucker, a citizen of State C who was driving its truck at the time of the accident, seeking indemnity from any loss it might suffer in connection with Plaintiff's claim against it. Can the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Trucks, Inc.'s claim against Trucker? (A) No, because Trucks, Inc. and Trucker are citizens of the same state. (B) Yes, because Trucker is not a citizen of State B. (C) Yes, because this indemnity claim arose out of the same car crash. (D) No, because original jurisdiction was based solely on diversity jurisdiction.

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

Plaintiff, a citizen of State A, brought suit in federal district court in State A against a publisher, Books, Inc., alleging copyright infringement under the federal copyright statute, for which she sought $100,000 in damages. Books, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in State B. Plaintiff also filed a claim against Books, Inc. alleging that it had breached its agreement with her to publish her book upon receipt of a manuscript. She sought $60,000 in damages in connection with that claim. In that same suit, Plaintiff also filed a $100,000 tort claim against the president of Books, Inc., a citizen of State B, alleging that he had intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her by sending emails to dozens of other publishers denouncing her as a horrible writer and a fraud and explaining that those were the reasons for his company's refusal to publish her book. In this same action, Books, Inc. filed a claim against President seeking indemnity for any liability it might accrue in connection with Plaintiff's copyright infringement claim against it. In response, President filed a breach of contract claim against Books, Inc. alleging that Books, Inc. had improperly withheld two weeks of salary from him totaling $65,000. Finally, President asserted a tort claim against his neighbor, claiming that her negligent maintenance of her home significantly depreciated the value of his property, for which he sought an injunction and $45,000 in damages. Can the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over President's claim against neighbor? (A) No, because the claim is for $45,000 only. (B) No, because President is seeking an injunction. (C) No, because neither President nor neighbor are citizens of State A. (D) No, because this claim seeks relief from neighbor's maintenance of her property, not from Plaintiff's copyright claim.

(D) No, because this claim seeks relief from neighbor's maintenance of her property, not from Plaintiff's copyright claim.

A citizen of State A brings an action against her employer, a State A corporation, in federal district court. Claim I alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second claim consists of a tort claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of the same series of acts of sexual harassment that formed the basis of her federal sex discrimination claim. The plaintiff seeks $100,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages under each of these two claims. The availability of punitive damages in negligent infliction of emotional distress cases has not previously been addressed under the governing State A state law. Should the court exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the entire lawsuit? (A) Yes, because the two claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts. (B) No, not over the state law claim because the parties are not diverse. (C) Yes, because the issues raised in the two claims are nearly identical. (D) No, not over the state law claim because it raises a novel issue of state law.

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

Plaintiffs, both citizens of State N, filed an action in federal court in Delaware against Corp. Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in State N, alleging that the prospectus issued by Corp. Inc. in connection with the sale of its stock contained misrepresentations in violation of both federal securities law and Delaware corporate law. In connection with that claim, Plaintiffs each sought $250,000 in damages. Corp. Inc. filed a $3 million counterclaim against Plaintiffs under State N law for malicious prosecution. Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction. How should the court rule? (A) The court should grant the motion, because the parties are not diverse. (B) The court should deny the motion, because Corp. Inc. is seeking damages in excess of $75,000. (C) The court should grant the motion, because Corp. Inc.'s claim is unrelated to the plaintiffs' claims against Corp. Inc. (D) The court should deny the motion, because Corp. Inc.'s claim falls within the court's supplemental jurisdiction.

(D) The court should deny the motion, because Corp. Inc.'s claim falls within the court's supplemental jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs were travelling in their home state of A when Defendant, from State Z, crashed into Plaintiffs' car, causing the car to spin out of control and into oncoming traffic. Both plaintiffs suffered significant personal injuries, requiring long-term hospital stays and rehabilitation. A year after the accident, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant in federal district court in State Z based on diversity jurisdiction, each plaintiff alleging damages exceeding $250,000. The next day, prompted by a lucrative job offer, Plaintiffs decided to permanently move to State Z. Several months later, Defendant learned that Plaintiffs moved to State Z and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule? (A) The court should grant the motion, because diversity was destroyed when Plaintiffs moved to State Z. (B) The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiffs cannot prove with reasonable certainty that their damages are $250,000 each. (C) The court should deny the motion, because the Defendant delayed in asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (D) The court should deny the motion, because the court has proper subject matter jurisdiction over this claim.

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

Plaintiffs, both citizens of State A, filed an action in federal court in Delaware against Corp. Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in State A, alleging that the prospectus issued by Corp. Inc. in connection with the sale of its stock contained misrepresentations in violation of both federal securities law and Delaware corporate law. In connection with that claim, Plaintiffs each sought $250,000 in damages. In the same lawsuit, Plaintiffs also asserted a $300,000 claim against Stock Co., a stock brokerage firm, incorporated in State A, alleging that Stock Co. had distributed these prospectuses in full knowledge of the existence of these material misrepresentations in violation of Delaware law. Stock Co. in turn filed a $500,000 breach of contract claim against Corp. Inc. alleging that Corp. Inc. failed to pay its commission earned by selling shares of Corp. Inc. Corp. Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Stock Co. opposed the motion arguing that the federal court has jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim. How should the court rule on the motion? (A) The court should deny the motion because the claim is reasonably likely to exceed $75,000. (B) The court should grant the motion because the parties are not diverse. (C) The court should deny the motion because it falls within the court's supplemental jurisdiction. (D) The court should grant the motion because the claim is unrelated to the plaintiffs' claims against Corp. Inc.

(D) The court should grant the motion because the claim is unrelated to the plaintiffs' claims against Corp. Inc.

Plaintiff, from State A, filed state law claims against the defendant, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in State B. Plaintiff filed the complaint in State B state court seeking $100,000 in damages. Plaintiff then properly served the Defendant. The next day, Defendant removed the case to federal court. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court. How should the court rule? (A) The court should deny the motion, because the defendant can, as of right, remove the case before the start of trial. (B) The court should deny the motion, because the defendant can remove this case from state court to federal court because it could have originally been filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. (C) The court should grant the motion, as Defendant must first file a removal motion, which the court must grant prior to removal. (D) The court should grant the motion, as Defendant cannot remove this case to federal court.

(D) The court should grant the motion, as Defendant cannot remove this case to federal court.

Plaintiff, a citizen of State X, filed suit against her neighbor, also a citizen of State X, for damages to her new car resulting from an accident on their street. The neighbor had also caused significant damage to Plaintiff's front yard and fencing. Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in State X alleging damages against the neighbor exceeding $75,000. The neighbor filed a motion to dismiss. How should the court rule?? (A) The court should deny the neighbor's motion because the federal district court has exclusive jurisdiction over claims that exceed $75,000. (B) (B) The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff cannot aggregate the damages to the car, front yard, and fence in order to meet the jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction. (C) The court should deny the motion, because the plaintiff is the master of her complaint and can choose which court she wishes to hear her case. (D) The court should grant the motion, because Plaintiff has not met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

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

Plaintiff, a citizen from State A, brought a patent infringement claim against Avant Co., a Delaware corporation, in federal court in State A. Plaintiff alleged that Avant Co. had infringed her patent in violation of the federal patent statute and sought damages in the amount of $50,000. Plaintiff also asserted a $250,000 intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the president of Avant, J. Avant, a citizen of State A. In this claim, Plaintiff alleges that J. Avant had subjected her to repeated series of acts of sexual harassment in violation of state law and that this caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. Defendant J. Avant filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court's exercise of jurisdiction over the supplemental claim. How should the court rule? (A) The court should deny the motion, because the federal court can exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claim. (B) The court should grant the motion, because courts do not permit pendent party jurisdiction. (C) The court should deny the motion, because the value of the two claims can be aggregated. (D) The court should grant the motion, because the two claims do not form part of the same case.

(D) The court should grant the motion, because the two claims do not form part of the same case.

Plaintiff and Defendant were married in State A, where their children were also born. Thereafter, Plaintiff received a promotion and sizeable bonus at work, so he moved to State B, while his spouse and children remained in State A. Plaintiff purchased a home in State B, converted his driver's license to State B, and began paying all applicable taxes in State B. After 17 years of marriage, the couple decided to divorce. Plaintiff filed for divorce in federal district court in State B, seeking joint custody of the children and a court order splitting the marital estate (2 homes and $3 million in marital assets) equally to each spouse. Defendant moved to dismiss the divorce action. How should the court rule on her motion? (A) The district court should deny the motion, because diversity jurisdiction is satisfied where Plaintiff and Defendant are now citizens of different states and the marital estate exceeds $3,000,000. (B) The district court should remand the divorce action to a State B state court, because the federal court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction. (C) The district court should transfer the divorce action to a State B probate and family court. (D) The district court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the action.

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

The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, filed a claim in federal district court alleging that the defendant, a Delaware corporation, violated her rights under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and sought damages in the amount of $50,000. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? (A) No, because the plaintiff is seeking only $50,000. (B) No, because the claim does not arise under federal law. (C) Yes, because the parties are diverse. (D) Yes, because the claim arises under federal law.

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