Civ Pro II

अब Quizwiz के साथ अपने होमवर्क और परीक्षाओं को एस करें!

After being suspended and then fired for working under the influence of alcohol while on the job and for insubordination, P sued his employer for violations of three federal statutes based on discrimination, retaliation, and adverse employment action. P learned during discovery that D had disclosed confidential information after being fired. P sought to amend P's complaint to add a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and a claim for violation of the state Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act based on those disclosures. The state law claims do not meet any of the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. D objected on the ground that the claims in the proposed amendment are not within the supplemental jurisdiction of the court under § 1367(a). Is D is correct? a D is correct if the state law claims are not considered "so related" to the federal claims in the action that are within original jurisdiction that the state claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III. b D is correct if the state law claims are derived from a "common nucleus of operative fact."

Assume that 10,000 Exxon dealers file a class-action suit against the Exxon Corporation in the U.S. District Court in Northern Florida based on diversity of citizenship between the named class members. The dealers claim they were overcharged in the same way for the fuel they purchased. Assume that all of the named class members meet the amount-in-controversy (i.e., more than $75,000 in damages), but most of the class members do not. Based on Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., this action is proper or improper? a Proper because the requirements of § 1367(a) are met since the plaintiffs' claims are factually related (i.e., they have a common nucleus of operative fact) and Rule 23 is not listed in § 1367(b) to eliminate jurisdiction over the action. b Improper because the requirements of § 1367(a) are not met. c Improper because § 1367(b) restricts jurisdiction over the action because it violates diversity policies. d Improper for both of the reasons stated in Answers B and C, above.

Assume that I, an insurer, agreed to insure P against all property damage P might suffer in automobile accidents. The insurance agreement has a typical subrogation provision. Subsequently, P and D are involved in an automobile accident and P's car is damaged. Assume that I has paid P's entire claim. Assume also that I has commenced the action against D in P's name in U.S. District Court. The action seeks to recover the amounts I has paid to P based on I's subrogation rights. D objects that P is not the real party in interest and the court agrees. However, by this time the statute of limitations has run on P's claim. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, can I be substituted as the plaintiff in the action after the statute of limitations has run? a Yes, because I is the real party in interest and Federal Rule 17(a)(3) provides that after substitution, the action proceeds as if it had been originally commenced by the real party in interest; in effect, this is an independent relation back provision for real-party-in-interest cases. b No, because I is not the real party in interest; the court made a mistake in its ruling. c No, because I should have been more careful; there is no relation back under these circumstances.

Assume that P and D are litigating in federal court. P seeks to amend the complaint to add a new legal claim to the complaint shortly before trial. D's best chance to defeat that proposed amendment would be to show which of the following? a The amendment, if allowed, would prejudice D. b The facts in the proposed amend do not directly arise out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading.

Assume that P and D have had an auto accident and that P has commenced a negligence action against D in a U.S. District Court. Assume that D-1 and D-2 want to ask for dismissal because there is a prior pending action between the same parties for the same cause. What is the proper method for D-1 and D-2 to assert this objection? a As an affirmative defense in their respective answers. b By a general denial in their respective answers. c By serving a supplemental pleading, i.e., a supplemental answer. d By serving a motion to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). e By serving a motion to strike because P's complaint is "redundant, immaterial, and impertinent."

Assume that P and D have had an auto accident and that P has commenced a negligence action against D in a U.S. District Court. Unlike former Form 12 that used to be in an Appendix of Forms accompanying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, assume that P fails to allege that P "suffered great pain of body and mind" in P's complaint. P still offer evidence at trial of P's pain and suffering if this element of damage is considered to be what? . a General damages. b Special damages. c Consequential damages. d A condition of the mind.

Assume that P sued D-1 and D-2 in a state court using traditional code pleading. P's claim is based on D-1 and D-2's alleged negligence. Assume further that D-1 and D-2 properly raised the statute-of-limitations issue in their response to P's complaint. Under these circumstances, what, if anything, would P be required to do? a P would be required to serve a reply because the statute-of-limitations defense is "new matter." b P would be required to serve a reply because there must always be a reply to a counterclaim. c P would not be required to do anything; allegations in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted are taken as denied or avoided. d P would not not be required to do anything; however, the statute-of-limitations defense would be taken as admitted unless P sought permission from the court to serve a reply avoiding this defense.

Assume that S, a storage company, is storing some diamonds. C-1 and C-2 both claim to be entitled to the diamonds worth $500,000. Assume that S is a citizen of State X and its principal place of business is also in State X. Assume that C-1 is a citizen of State Y and that C-2 is a citizen of State Z. S wants to commence an interpleader action against C-1 and C-2. S wants to commence the action in S's home state, i.e., State X, where the diamonds are located. What type of interpleader action should S use? a Rule interpleader b Statutory interpleader c Venue is not available under either rule or statutory interpleader under these circumstances.

Assume that a court agrees that a pleader has failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule 9(b) in the complaint because the pleader has failed to state the circumstances of fraud or mistake with particularity. What should happen next? a The court should freely grant the plaintiff leave to amend unless unless an amendment would be futile or would not cure the particularity deficiency. b The court must allow the insufficient pleading to stand when the plaintiff has requested a jury trial and there is a possibility that the plaintiff could develop sufficient particularity during discovery as required by the Seventh Amendment. c The court should simply dismiss the action with prejudice. d Answers A and B, above, are both correct.

Assume that a plaintiff commenced an action in federal district court against a diverse defendant for $100,000 based on the defendant's alleged negligence in a three car-accident. Assume that the defendant wants to take two different actions. First, the defendant wants to assert a negligence counterclaim against the plaintiff to recover for the damage to the defendant's automobile. However, the defendant's claim is only for $42,000. Second, the defendant wants to implead the driver of the third vehicle involved in the accident in order to to assert the third-party driver is liable for all or part of any damages sustained by the plaintiff as well as for the damage to the defendant's automobile. However, the third-party driver is a citizen of the same state as the defendant. If the court allowed the defendant to take these two actions, which of the following doctrines would be the TRADITIONAL BASIS for permitting the defendant to do so? a Ancillary jurisdiction b Pendent jurisdiction c Pendant party jurisdiction

Assume that a plaintiff has filed suit in federal court alleging that the defendant has violated her civil rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq.). Assume further that the claim arises from an incident in which the plaintiff was denied service at a public restaurant based on her perceived national origin. The subject-matter jurisdiction basis for the plaintiff's action is the existence of "arising under" federal question jurisdiction. Assume that the defendant denies violating the plaintiff's civil rights and the defendant wants to assert assault and battery claims arising out the incident against the plaintiff. Prior to the enactment of the supplemental jurisdiction statute, assume that a judicially created doctrine would have allowed a federal court to hear the defendant's claim as a compulsory counterclaim. Under what doctrine would that have been allowed? a Ancillary jurisdiction would give the federal court the authority to hear the assault and battery claims because they arose out of the same incident that gave rise to the federal civil rights claims. b Pendent jurisdiction would give the federal court the authority to hear the assault and battery claims because they arose out of the same incident that gave rise to the federal civil rights claims.

Assume that the defendant believes that the plaintiff has omitted an allegation in stating the plaintiff's claim that is essential under the substantive law for the plaintiff to be able to recover against the defendant and that defendant has not yet responded in any way. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what should the defendant do to raise this objection? a Move to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief (Rule 12(b)(6)). b Move for a more definite statement of the claim (Rule 12(e)). c Deny the plaintiff's allegations (Rule 8(b)(1)). d Move for judgment on the pleadings (Rule 12(c)).

Assume that the defendant moves before answer to dismiss on the ground that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The motion is denied. The defendant then answers, claiming the court lacks personal jurisdiction. Absent an amendment, did a waiver of a defense occur under the Federal Rules? a The personal jurisdiction objection was waived by the failure to include it in the first motion. b The personal jurisdiction objection was not waived because it may be raised at any time and cannot be waived by the parties (pursuant to the "no-waiver-no-consent" rule).

Assume that the defendant moves to strike redundant and impertinent matter from the complaint. The motion is granted. The defendant answers challenging venue and personal jurisdiction. Absent an amendment, did a waiver of a defense occur under the Federal Rules? a The objections on the grounds of improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction have been waived because a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is a motion "under this rule." b The objections based on improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction have not been waived. c Only the lack of personal jurisdiction defense has been waived. d Only the improper venue objection has been waived.

Assume that the defendant omits the statute-of-limitations defense from the answer; at trial, the defendant attempts to show the action is time-barred. Absent an amendment, did a waiver of a defense occur under the Federal Rules? a The statute-of-limitations defense was waived. b The statute-of-limitations defense was not waived because this defense may be raised at any time before judgment.

Assume that the defendant wants to show that the plaintiff is an infant and thus lacks capacity to sue. Under the Federal Rules, what should the defendant do? a The defendant should use a "specific denial" in the defendant's answer (as required by Rule 9(a)(2)). b The defendant should use a general denial. c The defendant should move to dismiss for failure to join a mandatory party in a pre-anwser motion. d The defendant should move to strike the plaintiff's complaint (pursuant to Rule 12(f)).

Assume the defendant moves before serving an answer to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The motion is denied. The defendant then moves to dismiss on the ground that venue is improper. Absent an amendment, did a waiver of a defense occur under the Federal Rules? a The venue objection was waived by the defendant's failure to include it in the first motion. b The venue objection was not waived because the Federal Rules specifically allow a second motion under these circumstances since venue is an important objection--given it affects the convenience of the witnesses and the parties.

Assume the defendant wants to have some scandalous assertions eliminated from the plaintiff's complaint. Which of the following would be the proper method of asking the court to order that the inappropriate content be removed? a A motion to strike pursuant to Federal Rule 12(f). b A motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule 12(e). c A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule 12(c). d A motion to amend the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 15(a).

Assume the plaintiff's complaint appears to show that the statute of limitations has run. The plaintiff believes, however, that the statute of limitations has been tolled by the defendant's fraudulent concealment. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is the plaintiff normally allowed to anticipate defenses in the complaint and allege facts constituting fraudulent concealment? a Yes, but the plaintiff must take care not to make the complaint subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). b No because any alleged facts would be regarded as outside the proper scope of Rule 8(a).

D-1 owned an apartment house. The apartment house tenants included D-2 and P. In addition to being a tenant, D-2 also served as D-1's handyman around the apartment house. D-2's activities included ensuring that all the light bulbs in the stairwells were in working order. One evening P was coming home from dinner with her boyfriend. As she was going up the stairs in the hall on the way to her apartment, she tripped on a wrench. It turns out the light on the landing was broken. When she heard the racket in the hall, D-3, a visitor in the building, came to help. While trying to help, it turned out that D-3 accidentally stepped in P's hurt ankle causing even more of an injury. As a result of tripping on the wrench and being stepped on, P was required to have surgery. After this incident, P filed a lawsuit against D-1 and D-3 in the United States District Court claiming that D-1 was negligent in the maintenance of the apartment house and D-3 was negligent in stepping on P. Assume that D-1 has properly joined D-2 in P's action and has asserted a claim for reimbursement for damages that may have to be paid arising from D-2's negligence. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is D-1 permitted also to join a claim against D-2 for unpaid rent? a Yes because a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party. b No because D-1's claim for unpaid rent is not transactionally related to P's claim.

D-1 owned an apartment house. The apartment house tenants included D-2 and P. In addition to being a tenant, D-2 also served as D-1's handyman around the apartment house. D-2's activities included ensuring that all the light bulbs in the stairwells were in working order. One evening P was coming home from dinner with her boyfriend. As she was going up the stairs in the hall on the way to her apartment, she tripped on a wrench. It turns out the light on the landing was broken. When she heard the racket in the hall, D-3, a visitor in the building, came to help. While trying to help, it turned out that D-3 accidentally stepped on P's hurt ankle causing even more of an injury. As a result of tripping on the wrench and being stepped on, P was required to have surgery. After this incident, P filed a lawsuit against D-1 and D-3 in the United States District Court claiming that D-1 was negligent in the maintenance of the apartment house and D-3 was negligent in stepping on P. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are D-1 and D-3 properly joined? a Yes because all of the requirements of Federal Rule 20 are met. b No because some questions of law or fact will arise in the action that will not be common to all defendants. c No because D-3 will be liable for only part of the injury. d Answers B and C, above, are both correct.

Does an unrepresented party in a civil action in federal district court have to sign every pleading, written motion, or other papers filed or served in the course of litigation? a Yes, an unrepresented party must sign. b No, an unrepresented party does not have to sign because pro se litigants are immune from Rule 11's signing requirement.

Federal Rule 7.1(a) requires filing disclosure statements in certain situations. Although the disclosures required by Rule 7.1(a) may seem limited, the disclosures are calculated to reach a majority of the circumstances that are likely to call for disqualification based on a financial information that a judge may not know or recollect. On whom does Federal Rule 7.1(a) impose a duty of required disclosure? a All non-governmental corporate litigants. b Persons or entities, although not proper parties in the litigation, who may be affected by the outcome of the litigation. c Individuals who are parties that have substantial ownership in stocks and bonds as part of their personal wealth. d All of the above are persons, entities, or litigants who have an obligation of disclosure

Federal Rule 9(f) states that an allegation of time or place is "material" when testing the sufficiency of a pleading. Which of the following does NOT correctly describes the function and effect of Federal Rule 9(f)'s declaration regarding time and place? a Federal Rule 9(f) is designed to require a pleader always to allege time and place in order to give the opposing party fair notice of the claim or defense. b Federal Rule 9(f) confirms that anytime a pleader alleges time or place, the allegation are considered to be "material"; for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of a pleading, averments of time and place are material and shall be considered like all other averments of material matter. [This alters the common-law rule that time and place in most instances are not material.] c The chief importance of Rule 9(f) lies in connection with the statute of limitations. Under prior law the defense of the statute of limitations, even though apparent from the face of the declaration, had to be set up as an affirmative defense, not by demurrer. Because time is material under Rule 9(f), a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) may be utilized whenever the time alleged in the complaint shows that the cause of action has not been brought within the statutory period. d All of the above correctly describe the function and effect of Federal Rule 9(f).

In federal court, assume that there is a counterclaim (designated as such) in the defendant's answer. What must the plaintiff do? a Serve an answer to the counterclaim. b Nothing because the counterclaim is automatically denied or avoided.

P Corp. wants to sue D in U.S. District Court in California. P Corp. is incorporated in Delaware and has its headquarters in Ohio. However, P Corp. does most of its manufacturing in New York. P Corp. is qualified to do business in all fifty states. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the law of which state determines P Corp.'s capacity to sue D? a Delaware b Ohio c New York d The law of the state where the federal court is sitting (California) because P Corp. has qualified to do business in every state.

P sued D-1 and D-2 for breach of a contract made with D-1 and D-2. P wants to join with a breach-of-contract claim based on a wholly separate, factually unrelated contract claim against D-2. Can the claim against D-2 properly be joined under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? a Yes, based on the text of Rule 18 and Rule 20, those rules can be combined, and P can join the separate claim against D-2. b No, P must assert the wholly separate, factually unrelated contract claim in a separate lawsuit.

P sues D in a state court in State Y. P seeks $150,000 in property damage from D arising out of an automobile accident. D then files a federal diversity action against P in State Y, in which D seeks $100,000 in damages for personal injuries suffered in the same accident. Must P plead the claim for property damages as a counterclaim in the federal action? a P need not plead the claim for property damages as a counterclaim in the federal action, but P may do so. b P must plead the claim for property damages as a counterclaim; because P's claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as D's claim, it is a compulsory counterclaim.

P sues D in federal district court for breach of contract for $100,000. D serves an answer admitting the existence of the contract, but denying D breached. During discovery, D learns that P may have induced D to enter into the contract by fraud. How should D raise this defense? a D should seek permission to amend the answer in order to assert the defense. b D should seek permission to serve a supplemental answer asserting the defense.

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2 based on their alleged negligence. Assume that D-1 wants to assert that P signed a release of all claims against D-1 in return for a substantial monetary payment prior to P's commencement of the action against D-1 and D-2; thus, D-1 maintains that D-1 owes P nothing. Assume that P did, in fact, sign the release. However, P believes that the release was procured by fraudulent statements made by D-1 inducing P to sign the release. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what can or must P do? a P may anticipate this defense by alleging in P's complaint that there was a release and asserting that it was procured by fraud. b P must anticipate this defense by alleging in P's complaint that there was a release and asserting that it was procured by fraud. c P may not anticipate this defense in P's complaint; P may assert this "new matter" only in a reply to D-1's answer. d P should raise this issue by serving a motion to strike an "insufficient defense" in D-1's answer.

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2 based on their alleged negligence. Assume that D-1 wants to assert that P signed a release of all claims against D-1 in return for a substantial monetary payment. Assume that the release was signed after P had commenced the action and after D-1 had served an answer to P's complaint. What is the proper method for D-1 to assert the release defense under these circumstances? a D-1 should serve a supplemental pleading, viz., a supplemental answer. b D-1 should amend D-1's answer asserting the release as an affirmative defense. c D-1 should amend D-1's answer asserting the release as a cross-claim against P. d D-1 should amend D-1's answer asserting the release as a permissive counterclaim against P.

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2 based on their alleged negligence. Assume that eleven months after the action was commenced against D-1 and D-2, P determines during discovery P's allegations in the complaint are incorrect. In fact, D-3 was driving the automobile. P moves to amend the complaint, seeking to substitute D-3 for D-1 and D-2. At this point, the applicable statute of limitations has run. D-3 was, of course, aware of the accident, but D-3 was completely unaware of the lawsuit against D-1 and D-2. Under the applicable state statute-of-limitations law, however, P's action would relate back if the action had been commenced in state court where the federal court is sitting. Under these circumstances, would P's amendment relate back? a P's amendment would relate back because the law that provides the statute of limitations allows relation back. b P's amendment would not relate back because this is not the kind of "mistake" concerning the identity of a party that Federal Rule 15(c) recognizes. c P's amendment would not relate back because D-3 did not receive notice of the action within the period provided by Rule 4(m). d P's amendment would not relate back because D-3 is likely to be prejudiced by in defending on the merits. e P's amendment would not relate back for the reasons stated in Answers B, C, and D, above.

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D caused P in connection with the accident. Assume that D believes that X will be liable to D under contribution for all or part of D's liability to P and properly asserts D's contribution claim against X? May D also join an unrelated slander claim against X. a Yes, a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party. b No, D's claim does not arise arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of P's claim against D

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D caused P in connection with the accident. D defends by denying D's own negligence and asserting P's contributory negligence. The case is tried to a jury. The court enters judgment for P after the jury returns a general verdict in favor of P. Assume that X then sues D asserting D's negligence caused the accident. Assume that mutuality of estoppel has been abolished. Which of the following statements, if any, are ACCURATE? a If the court permitted to use the prior action to establish D's negligence, this would be an example of offensive use of issue preclusion. b The court would not permit issue preclusion because it is impossible to determine how the jury decided the issue. c The court would not permit issue preclusion because the finding did not support the judgment in the action. d None of the above statement are accurate.

P, D- 1, and D- 2 have a three-car automobile accident in which all the parties suffer personal injuries. P sues D- 1 and D-2 in a U.S. District Court to recover for P's personal injuries received in the accident, alleging that either D-1 or D-2 or both were negligent and caused P's injuries. Assume that D-1 believes that either P or D-2 or both were negligent and inflicted D-1's injuries. Assume that D-1 properly asserts a claim against P in D-1's answer. If D-1 also possesses a breach of contract claim against P that is factually and legally unrelated to the automobile accident, can D-1 join that claim as well? a Yes, Rule 18(a) provides that a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join as many claims as it has against an opposing party; P is an opposing party and thus the unrelated claim can be asserted if D-1 wants to do so. b No, if the breach of contract is really factually and legally unrelated to the automobile accident, allowing D-1 to assert it would unnecessarily complicate the lawsuit; thus, D-1 must assert the unrelated contract claim in a separate action.

P, D-1, and D-2 have a three-car automobile accident in which all the parties suffer personal injuries. P sues D-1 and D-2 in a U.S. District Court to recover for P's personal injuries received in the accident. P alleges that either D-1 or D-2 or both were negligent and caused P's injuries. Assume that D-1 has denied D-1's negligence and asserted a crossclaim for contribution against D-2 in D-1's answer. If D-2 believes that D-1 was negligent and caused D-2's injuries, based on the limitation on Federal Rule 13(a) articulated in the Rainbow Management case, is D-2 required to assert D-2's claim for injuries based on D-1's negligence or is D-2 free to assert that claim in a separate action? a D-2 is free to assert D-2's claim in a separate action because D-1 has only asserted a contribution claim against D-2; thus, D-2 is not obligated to assert the claim for damages based on D-1's alleged negligence; Rainbow Management holds that only when a "substantive claim," as opposed to a claim for indemnity or contribution, triggers the compulsory counterclaim rule operate. b No, D-2 must assert D-2's claim in the action because D-1 and D-2 are opposing parties; thus, the compulsory counterclaim rule applies.

P, a citizen of State X, and D-1, a citizen of State Y, were friends. P and D-1 were on a cross-country trip in D-1's automobile when D-1, who was driving, collided with an automobile owned and operated by D-2, a citizen of State Z. The accident occurred in State Q. Four months after the accident, D-1 was visiting P. P and D-1 got in a heated argument about a matter unrelated to the auto accident. As a result of the altercation, both P and D-1 ended up with gunshot wounds. P has now commenced a negligence action for $500,000 against D-1 and D-2 in U.S. District Court. P's complaint asserts that D-1 and D-2 were both negligent and that they are liable for P's injuries resulting from the auto accident. Assume that D-2 believes that D-1's negligence was the sole cause of the accident and that D-1 is liable to D-2 for D-2's damages. Assume further that D-2 has properly asserted that claim in D-2's answer. With regard to related claims that D-1 might have against D-2, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, must D-1 take any further action? a D-1 is now an "opposing party" to D-2; if D-1 also has a claim against D-2 that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of D-2's claim against D-1 (e.g., that D-2 is liable for D1's injuries as a result of D-2's negligence), such a claim is a "compulsory" counterclaim and must be pleaded. b D-1 need not assert a claim against D-2, even if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of D-2's claim against D-1, because all crossclaims are permissive. c D-1 need not assert a claim against D-2, even if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of D-2's claim against D-1, because D-2's claim is a claim for contribution and indemnity, not a "substantive" one. d D-1 need not assert a claim against D-2, even if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of D-2's claim against D-1, because D-1 is a "co-party" rather than an "opposing" party. e Answers B, C, and D, above, are all correct.

P, a citizen of State X, sued D-1, a citizen of State X, on a federal claim in a U.S. District Court. P joined a state tort law claim against D-2, a citizen of State X, which also arose out of the same facts giving rise to P's federal claim against D-1. Is there supplemental jurisdiction over P's claim against D-2? a Yes because the claims are factually related and supplemental jurisdiction includes claims that involve joinder of a additional parties. b No because the joinder of D-2 violates diversity policies.

P, a citizen of State X, wants to sue D, a citizen of State Y, in the U.S. District Court for the District of State Y. P seeks $100,000 for personal injuries received in an accident suffered on property owned by D in State Y. P's complaint mistakenly names C, a citizen of State Y, as the defendant in the action. C is served two days after the action is commenced. Six months after the complaint is filed and the statute of limitations applicable to P's claim has run, P discovers that P has mistakenly named and served C, rather than D. P amends the complaint to drop C and substitute D as the correct defendant. Assume that D had become aware of P's potential claim at the time of the accident. Also, assume that D had became aware that P had mistakenly sued C a week after P had commenced the action against C, which at that time was still within the limitations period. Should P's amendment adding D relate back under Federal Rule 15(c)(1)(C)? a Yes because all of the requirements of Rule 15(c)(1)(C) have been met. b No because D was served six months after the complaint was filed and the statute of limitations had run by then.

P-1 and P-2 join in an action against the City of D. P-1 and P-2 seek an order requiring the city to issue them licenses to sell alcoholic beverages in their restaurants. The city had refused licenses to P-1 and P-2 on the same grounds, but on different occasions. Both P-1 and P-2 contend that the grounds for refusing them licenses are invalid for the same legal reasons. There is no other relationship between P-1 and P-2. What argument can be made that P-1 and P-2 are NOT properly joined as plaintiffs under Rule 20? a The claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrences or a series thereof. b The legal connection between the claims are insufficient to present a common question of law.

P-1, a citizen of North Carolina, and P-2, a citizen of Colorado, sue D, a citizen of Washington, in a U.S. District Court in the District of Colorado. P-1 and P-2 jointly own a tract of land in Colorado as tenants in common. Their claims are state property law claims based on the alleged removal of valuable minerals by D without permission. The total amount of their claims is $100,000 of which P-1 will get $50,000 and P-2 will get $50,000. Based on these facts, which of the following best describes the jurisdiction of the federal district court? a The federal district court has original jurisdiction over all claims without the need to resort to the use of supplemental jurisdiction. b Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are not satisfied; therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over at least some of the asserted claims. c Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, and reference to § 1367(b) is not needed; the court has jurisdiction over all the asserted claims. (Here, the key is the fact that P's action is based on federal law and the action against D-2 is an example of pendent party jurisdiction.) d The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, but the restrictions in § 1367(b) destroy jurisdiction. e The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied; in addition, none of the restrictions in § 1367(b) apply; the federal district court has jurisdiction over all of the asserted claims.

P-1, a citizen of State X, was a passenger on D-1 Airline Flight 007. D-1 is incorporated in State Y and its principal place of business is in State Z. P-1 was severely injured when Flight 007 landed at an airport in State Q. The airplane veered off the runway and crashed into a vehicle carrying baggage owned by Airline D-2 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State Y). One possible cause of the accident was a sudden failure of the brakes on the right side of the airplane. The brakes (and hydraulic system) were serviced by an independent contractor, D-3 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State S). Another possible cause might have been pilot error, specifically by pilot D-4, a citizen of State Q. Still another contributing cause might be the negligence of the driver of the vehicle carrying the luggage, D-5, a citizen of State X. (Had the vehicle not been at that location, the plane would likely have stopped without hitting anything, and thus the damages would have probably been minimal.) P-1 has now sued D-1 in U.S. District Court in State Q. P-1 seeks to recover $500,000 as compensation for P-1's injuries. Under the applicable law, tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. Assume that D-1 asserts that D-3's negligence was the principal cause of the accident and thus D-3 is liable to D-1 for all or part of the P-1's claim against D-1. What is the proper procedure for D-1 to assert this claim? a D-1 should serve a third-party complaint on D-3; D-1 would be the third-party plaintiff and D-3 would be the third-party defendant. b D-1 should assert a crossclaim against D-3. c D-1 should assert a counterclaim against D-3. d D-1 should seek to assert a claim against D-3 by encouraging D-3 to intervene; D-1 faces the risk of inconsistent judgments if D-3 is not joined.

P-1, a citizen of State X, was a passenger on D-1 Airline Flight 007. D-1 is incorporated in State Y and its principal place of business is in State Z. P-1 was severely injured when Flight 007 landed at an airport in State Q. The airplane veered off the runway and crashed into a vehicle carrying baggage owned by Airline D-2 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State Y). One possible cause of the accident was a sudden failure of the brakes on the right side of the airplane. The brakes (and hydraulic system) were serviced by an independent contractor, D-3 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State S). Another possible cause might have been pilot error, specifically by pilot D-4, a citizen of State Q. Still another contributing cause might be the negligence of the driver of the vehicle carrying the luggage, D-5, a citizen of State X. (Had the vehicle not been at that location, the plane would likely have stopped without hitting anything, and thus the damages would have probably been minimal.) P-1 has now sued D-1 in U.S. District Court in State Q. P-1 seeks to recover $500,000 as compensation for P-1's injuries. Under the applicable law, tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. Assume that P-1 did not assign P-1's claim to P-2 and that D-1 believes that P-1 was mentally incapacitated as a result of the injuries P-1 received in the accident. Issues relating to P-1's alleged incapacity would be determined by the law of which state? a The law of the state in which P-1 is domiciled—in this instance, State X. b The law of the state under which the defendant was organized—in this instance, State Y. c The law of the state in which the defendant has its principal place of business—in this instance, State Z. d The law of the state in which the district court is held—in this instance, State Q.

R sues as the representative of a class consisting of 3,000 persons who had been defrauded by D over a period of two years. R alleges that R was defrauded because D failed to disclose that a replica of a famous work of art that R purchased from D was made of brass, information that R alleges D was under a legal duty to disclose. R alleges that the other 2,999 members of the class were defrauded when D told them that the replicas of the same work of art that D sold them were gold, when they were really brass. Is the class action proper under Rule 23? a No, because the claims or defenses of the representative party, R, are not typical of the claims or defenses of the class. b No, because the representative party, R, will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. c No, for the reasons stated in Answers A and B, above. d Yes, because all the prerequisites for a class action under Federal Rule 23(a) are met.

S is in possession of property claimed by C-1 and C-2. S also claims ownership of the property. All the parties are citizens of the same state and their claims to the property are all based on state law. S would like to interplead C-1 and C-2. However, S cannot do so because (1) the state in which all of the parties live follows the traditional restrictions on interpleader and (2) S is not a disinterested stakeholder. Is there any procedure other than interpleader that S can use to avoid the threat of double liability? a This would be a good situation for S to use a declaratory judgment action in state court as a substitute for an interpleader action. b This situtation presents a situation where S has no options; S should seriously consider settlement.

Serving individuals in foreign countries is governed by Federal Rule 4(f) and refers to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, which has been signed by 79 countries. Under the convention, each contracting state is required to designate a central authority to accept incoming requests for service. A judicial officer who is competent to serve process in the state of origin is permitted to send request for service directly to the central authority of the state where service is to be made. Upon receiving the request, the central authority in the receiving state arranges for service in a manner permitted within the receiving state. Once service is effected, the central authority sends a certificate of service to the judicial officer who made the request. Parties are required to use three standardized forms: a request for service, a summary of the proceedings (similar to a summons), and a certificate of service. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, is service pursuant to Hague Convention mandatory in actions commenced in federal court? a Yes, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, service abroad using this Convention is mandatory wherever it applies for actions in federal court (unless Congress has provided otherwise). b No, the plaintiff can use a letter rogatory for service. [A request through diplomatic channels for help to complete service in accordance with the receiving country's internal rules and regulations; once the foreign court receives the Letters Rogatory, the court can decide to comply with the request or deny it due to lack of sufficient information, improper format, or failure to produce an adequate reason as to why it's necessary; If the foreign court agrees to grant the request, service is then completed under the local rules of their jurisdiction.]

TRUE OR FALSE: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not extend or restrict the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal court nor do they extend or limit the venue of actions in those courts. a TRUE: Federal Rule 82 makes clear that the Rules are entirely procedural and that they have leave unchanged the various statutes setting out the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts and venue of federal court actions. b FALSE: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limit the type of claims that can be joined; as a result, the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts is necessary (although indirectly) affected.

The defendant moves in a preanswer motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The motion is denied. The defendant then moves in another preanswer motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Would the following actions by the defendant be proper in federal court? a Under Federal Rule 12(h)(3), subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time; this is the best interpretation of the rule in order to reflect statutory subject-matter jurisdiction policies. b The subject-matter jurisdiction objection may not be made in a second preanswer motion because it was "then available" at the time of the first motion; thus, the objection has been waived.

Under ordinary circumstances, could a pleader use the "without knowledge" form of denial with respect to any of the following allegations? a Whether the pleader was negligent b Whether the pleader was married c Whether a foreign (out of state or out of country) corporation has qualified to do business in the state (by registration with the Secretary of State) d Whether a street becomes a one-way street in a certain direction at a particular time of day near where the pleader lives and is widely known by the general public e None of the above are likely to be allegations that a pleader could permissibly use the "without knowledge" form of denial.

What is a challenge to a juror without stating a reason is called? a A peremptory challenge b A categorical challenge c A challenge for cause unknown d A challenge by consent

Would the following actions by the defendant be proper in federal court? The defendant moves for a more definite statement of the claim. The motion is granted. The plaintiff then serves a more definite statement, showing for the first time possible grounds for a challenge that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The defendant then moves under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint. Would the motion be proper? a The motion would be proper because the ground for objection revealed by the response to the motion to make more definite was not "available to the party" at the time the motion to make more definite was made. b A second motion is not possible, but the objection can be raised at any time prior to trial.

A general demurrer admitted the the previously alleged facts, but asserted that the facts did not give rise to a legally recognized claim or defense. In which pleading system(s) will you find general demurrers? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a Common-law pleading b Code pleading c Federal Rules pleading

A, B

One of the subject-matter bases for subject-matter jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction. Assume that the plaintiff wants to commence an action in federal district court based on a federal question. Which of the following bases would satisfy the plaintiff's obligation of properly pleading subject-matter jurisdiction? (Select as many that apply.) Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a The specific constitutional provision authorizing jurisdiction. b The specific federal statutory provision authorizing jurisdiction. c The specific treaty provision authorizing jurisdiction. d The specific administrative provision authorizing jurisdiction e The specific Federal Rule of Civil Procedure authorizing jurisdiction

A, B, C

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil proceedings in the United States district courts. For which of the following propositions is Federal Rule 1 (or the accompanying Advisory Committee Notes) frequently cited as authority? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be interpreted to favor decisions on the merits rather than ones based on technicalities. b The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be interpreted to avoid confusion and avoid setting up a trap for the unwary. c The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be interpreted to prevent a litigant from flouting the spirit of the Federal Rules even when a litigant's conduct might otherwise comport with the literal reading of the Rules. d The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be interpreted to rescue clearly deficient pleadings in order to achieve substantial justice even though the pleadings totally devoid of substantive merit to establish a claim under the applicable law. e All of the above answers are correct.

A, B, C

What is the legal significance of the Advisory Committee Notes accompanying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?. Choose all correct answers. Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a The Advisory Committee Notes are not part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and have not been approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. b The Advisory Committee Notes are only guides; however they have assumed the force of veritable legislative history. c The Advisory Committee Notes are formidable secondary authority which means they can be cited as persuasive but not binding authority. d The Advisory Committee Notes accompanying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have the same precedential value as an unpublished opinion in a legal action and may not be cited by any judge in any trial or appellate court decision or by any litigant in any brief or other material presented to any court.

A, B, C

Assume that a process server hands the defendant the summons. The defendant wants to raise the fact that the defendant is misnamed in the summons in a pre-answer motion. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which subdivision of Rule 12(b) should the defendant use? (Choose any correct answer). a Rule 12(b)(4) (to challenge the contents of the process) on the theory that the summons does not properly contain the names of the parties (i.e., insufficient process). b Rule 12(b)(5) (to challenge the manner of service) on the theory that a party not named in the summons has been served (i.e., insufficient process). c Rule 12(b)(2) (to challenge personal jurisdiction over the defendant), which might cover this situation. d Any of the above might work because it is unclear.

A, B, C, D

In order to have a valid class action under Federal Rule 23, the plaintiff(s) must meet several requirements. What are they? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. b There are questions of law or fact common to the class. c The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. d The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

A, B, C, D

Sometimes, persons who are required parties (as defined by Federal Rule 19(a)) cannot be joined because of limitations of the court's power to obtain personal jurisdiction over them or because of rules limiting the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court or the venue of the action. When joinder is impossible for one of these reasons, Rule 19(b) directs the court to determine whether the action may continue without the absent person. Which of the following factors should the court take into account in making this determination? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a Whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence would be adequate. b Whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder. c The extent to which a judgment rendered in the person's absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties. d The extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by: (A) protective provisions in the judgment; (B) shaping the relief; or (C) other measures.

A, B, C, D

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited a refusal to sell or rent a dwelling to any person because of his/her race, color, religion or national origin. P files a complaint in federal court that alleges federal jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and simply states "D, the owner of the State Street Apartments, refused to rent to P because of P's religion. P complaint demanded damages. Are these allegations sufficient to meet current federal pleading standards? a Yes, because it provides fair notice of P's claim. b Yes, because P's claim is plausible. c No, because P has failed to give D fair notice of P's claim. d No, because P's claim, as alleged, is not plausible.

A, B, C, D

Under the standards set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which of the following, if any, must a plaintiff's complaint contain? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a Allegations that are (1) simple (2) concise and (3) direct. b A short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends. c A short and plain statement of the plaintiff's claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. d Allegations establishing the plaintiff's capacity to sue. e A demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

A, B, C, E

Under the standards set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, what must a plaintiff's complaint must do? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a The plaintiff's complaint must show that the pleader is "plausibly" entitled to relief. b The plaintiff's complaint must have a caption with (1) the court's name (2) a title (3) a file number and (4) the designation "Complaint." c The plaintiff's complaint must state the claim in numbered paragraphs. d The plaintiff's complaint must include a verification (a declaration under oath or upon penalty of perjury that a statement or pleading is true). e The plaintiff's complaint must state each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence must in a separate count If doing so would promote clarity.

A, B, C, E

Which of the following statements, if any, about commencement of civil actions in federal court are CORRECT? a Unless the Federal Rules or local procedure provide otherwise, legal papers such as the complaint must now be filed electronically with the court. b When a complaint is filed electronically, commencement of the action is ordinarily deemed to have occur when the filing process is complete even if the filing system has an "electronic glitch" or the filing fee remains unpaid. c Because the federal district courts are "always open," a complaint is still timely as of that day even if it was delivered to the office after the clerk's regular business hours. d Certain federal statutes contain special preconditions that must be met as part of commencing a civil actions; good examples include exhaustion of available administrative remedies or obtaining a "right-to-sue" letter; however, in such situations, failure to satisfy those preconditions will still toll the statute of limitations if the complaint was filed before the statute of limitations has run. e If the original complaint is mailed to the Clerk's Office rather than sent electronically, the filing of the complaint is ordinarily not considered complete and the action not commenced; instead, the date of commencement of the action is when he U.S. Postal Service actually delivers the complaint to the court. f All of the above statements are correct.

A, B, C, E

Assume that a company had a dispute over commissions with one of its employees. The employee is fired and the former employee sues the company in an appropriate state court to recover the commissions the employee allegedly earned. Assume that the state has service-of-process rules identical to those in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The former employee attempts to serve the president of the company with the summons and complaint. However, a security guard prevents the former employee from doing so and escorts the former employee from the company headquarters, but the former employee manages to hand the summons and complaint to a young janitor in the parking lot. The janitor enters the building and places the summons and complaint on the company's general counsel's desk after work hours. On which of the following grounds, if any, was service potentially IMPROPER? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a Service may be improper because the plaintiff personally served the process; parties to a lawsuit are not proper persons to serve process.. b Service may be improper because the janitor and the corporate general counsel are not officers or managing agents or general agents of the company; as a result the company was not properly served with process. c Service may be improper if the general counsel was on vacation at the time of service and the general counsel's secretary simply filed the papers the next morning without letting the general counsel or the president know about the service; assume that no one in the company learned of the lawsuit until a default judgment was entered against the company; service of process always requires actual notice be received by the defendant and it is improper on that ground. d Service may be improper because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize service by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the company's headquarters.

A, B, D

Code pleading required the plaintiff's complaint to state "facts" constituting a "cause of action," which, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to legal relief. In attempting to meet this standard, in code pleading what would the plaintiff be PROHIBITED from doing? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a Pleading evidence b Omitting allegations of facts need to establish all elements of the plaintiff's cause of action c Pleading ultimate facts d Plead legal conclusions

A, B, D

On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who meets what criteria? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a They are given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute. b They have a claim or defense that shares a common question of law or fact with the pending claim. c They claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. d They are given a conditional right to sue.

A, C

Rule 8 covers the "General Rules of Pleading" To what does the term "pleadings" refer? a Formal written documents that set out the parties' claims. b Formal written requests to a court for a desired ruling or order. c Formal written documents that set out the parties' defenses. d Formal requests asking the court for a judgment on the merits of the case before the trial. e Form document prepared by the plaintiff and issued by a court that informs the defendant that they are being sued or are required to appear in court.

A, C

Which of the following are accurate statements about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were promulgated pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act and came into force in 1938. b The U.S. District Courts have the inherent power to vary the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when they disagree with how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have attempted to solve the problems they address. c The Federal Rules are designed to be interdependent; in interpreting them courts should seek to harmonize the rules with one another; thus courts will only allow one rule to take precedence over another when a truly irreconcilable conflict arises. d The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply all proceedings in the federal district courts and federal appeals courts except in criminal cases.

A, C

Assume that the plaintiff asserted a federal law claim against one defendant and joined with that claim a state law claim arising out of the same facts against a second nondiverse defendant. This situation is best described as involving what kind of jurisdiction? Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer. a Pendent jurisdiction b Ancillary jurisdiction c Pendent party jurisdiction d Supplemental jurisdiction

A, C, D

Under Federal Rule 19(a), under what conditions must a person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction be joined? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a If rhat person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest. b If that party claims a common and undivided interest in the action. c if in that person's absence the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties. d If that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double or multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.

A, C, D

Federal Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading (complaint) must state a "claim for relief" and it must contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support." Assume that a lawyer is going to commence a diversity action in federal court based on section 1332 of Tile 28 of the United States Code. Which of the following identify what the lawyer must do to satisfy these requirements? (Select all that are correct.) Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a The plaintiff must allege the citizenship of individual persons when they parties to the action b The plaintiff must allege either the state of incorporation or the principal place of business for parties that are corporations. c The plaintiff must allege the citizenship of all of members of parties that are unincorporated entities (such as an association or a sole proprietorship) . d The plaintiff must allege their place of residence in addition to their citizenship for parties that are individuals. e The plaintiff must allege that the amount in controversy (exclusive of interest and costs) exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars.

A, C, E

"Proof of service" is a confirmation that that service of process has been made. It is also sometimes called "return of service" or a "certificate of service." The document is generally filed with the court by the process server,--potentially a sheriff,, a marshal or a professional process server. Which of the following statements about proof or service are accurate? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a It is the plaintiff's responsibility to confirm that proper service of process has been accomplished by arranging for the filing of a proof or service. b The burden of proving proper service is always on the plaintiff. c The proof of service should contain sufficient facts to confirm that valid service has been accomplished; the filing of a proof of service gives rise to an irrebuttable presumption which means that it cannot be contradicted by the defendant. d Filing of a proof of service is recognized as prima facie evidence that service was properly accomplished [The Latin expression prima facie means "at first sight" or "at first view" or "based on first impression."} e All of the above are accurate statements.

A, D

Rule 9(a), (b), and (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure deal with how matters are alleged or whether they need to be alleged at all. Thus, some matters do not need to be alleged at all (unless they are needed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction). Which of the following items ordinarily do NOT need to be alleged at all? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a A party's capacity to sue or be sued or a party's authority to sue or be sued in a representative capacity. b An item of special damage. c Malice. d The legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party.

A, D

The obligation not to present pleadings, written motions, and other papers for any "improper purpose" presents the challenge of formulating a standard to assess a presenter's intent or purpose. The courts have framed standards in different ways and are set out in the answers below. In your opinion, which ONE of the following standards is the MOST LIKELY to be workable? [This question is designed to show how difficult it is to formulate a workable standard based on "any improper purpose."] a Whether the legal position at issue has no chance of success b Whether a reasonable attorney in similar circumstances would not have believed that his or her actions to be legally justified c Whether the actions compromise standards of professional integrity and competence d Whether the arguments are unequivocally frivolous or show objective unreasonablenesss e Whether the pleading or contention is culpably careless f Whether the actions are akin to contempt

ALL

A procedure in which a dispute is submitted by agreement of the parties to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision on the dispute.

Arbitration

Assume P sues D in federal court. Before D serves a preanswer motion or an answer, P wants to amend the complaint. Under these circumstances, what must or may P do? a P must seek permission to the court in order to amend the complaint. b P may amend the complaint "as a matter of course," provided that P has not previously amended the complaint.

Assume P sues D in federal court. D serves an answer. During the deposition of P six months later, D learns for the first time of a possible affirmative defense (e.g., P assumed the risk of the injury). D wants to amend D's answer to assert this affirmative defense. Under these circumstances, what can D do, if anything? a D can amend once "as a matter of course," provided that D has not previously amended the answer. b D can amend the answer, but D must seek court permission to amend. c D cannot amend because all amendments must be sought no more than 21 days after the pleading was served. d D cannot amend because all affirmative defenses are waived if they are not included in the answer.

Assume P, a citizen of State X, and D, a citizen of State Y, have an auto accident while they are driving in State Y. P sues in P's own name and without a guardian in a U.S. District Court in State Y. Under the law of State Y, plaintiffs in an actions involving automobile accidents are allowed to sue without a guardian at age 16. However, in P's home state where P is domiciled, a plaintiff in all civil actions must be age 18 or older. Based on Federal Rule 17(b), does P have the capacity to sue without a guardian in the federal district court in State Y? a Yes, because the Federal Rules provide that capacity to sue is governed by the law of the state where the court is located; State Y law clearly allows P to sue without a guardian and the accident happened there. b No, because P is domiciled in State X and State X requires P to have a guardian appointed.

Assume a plaintiff commenced an action in federal district court. The defendant believes that the plaintiff is mentally ill. What is the most likely objection that the defendant can raise and how should the defendant do it under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? a The plaintiff lacks "standing to sue"; this objection would be raised by a specific denial pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule 9(a)(2). b The plaintiff lacks "capacity to sue"; this objection would be raised by a specific denial pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule 9(a)(2), and the defendant must state any supporting facts that are peculiarly with the defendant's knowledge. c The plaintiff is "improperly joined"; this objection would be raised by a motion pursuant to Rule 21. d The plaintiff has made a "mistake"; mistake is an affirmative defense which should be raised in the defendant's answer and the circumstances constituting the mistake must be stated with particularity pursuant to Rule 9(b).

Assume that P and D have an auto accident and that each believes that the other party was at fault. Assume further that P sues D in a federal district court based on diversity and the requisite amount in controversy is met. Assume also that D has a potential claim against P for damages that D suffered in the accident. Under Federal Rule 13, would D's claim against P be permissive or compulsory? a Permissive (e.g., D could commence a separate suit against P if D won in the pending action). b Compulsory (i.e., D's claim would be lost if it is not asserted in the pending action).

Assume that P and D have an auto accident, and each believes that the other party was at fault. If P sues D in a federal district court based on diversity and the requisite amount in controversy is met, what is the appropriate method for D to assert a claim against P for damages that D suffered in the accident? a A crossclaim. b A counterclaim. c A third-party claim. d A contingent claim.

Assume that P has alleged in P's complaint the following in a U.S. District Court: "On June 1, 20xx, in a public highway called Main Street in the City of Metropolis in State X, defendant D-1 or defendant D-2, or both defendants D-1 and D-2, willfully or recklessly or negligently drove, or caused to be driven, an automobile against plaintiff who was then crossing the highway." Assume that D-1 answers this allegation in the following manner: "Defendant D-1 alleges that D-1 is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the complaint." Under ordinary circumstances, is this allegation likely to be considered proper or improper? a It is a proper form of responding to the allegations of a complaint because P has been too vague in P's allegations. b It is improper because matters concerning the pleader's own conduct is presumed to be within the knowledge of the pleader. c It is Improper because this response is technically an "argumentative" response. d It is improper because D-1 must respond by making "a short and plain statement" of D-1's version of the events.

Assume that P is involved in a four-car collision and suffers significant damages. P sues the other three drivers, D-1, D-2, and D-3, for $300,000 in a U.S. District Court based on diversity jurisdiction. P's complaint alleges that D-1, D-2, and D-3 were negligent. Under the applicable substantive law, D-1, D-2, and D-3 are jointly and severally liable if they are found to be have been negligent. D-1 wants to be sure that if D-1 has to pay the entire judgment, D-2 and D-3 will have to reimburse D-1 for their prorated share. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what should D-1 do? a D-1 should assert counterclaims against D-2 and D-3 based on contribution. b D-1 should assert crossclaims against D-2 and D-3 based on contribution. c D-1 should serve third-party complaints on D-2 and D-3 based on indemnity. d D-1 should an interpleader claim against D-2 and D-3 in D-1's answer based on indemnification.

Assume that P sues Dr. D for malpractice. At trial, P attempts to offer evidence that D had held herself out as a specialist, but P's complaint had only alleged that D was a general practitioner. Under the substantive law, D would be charged with a higher standard of care if she had held herself out as a specialist. D did not object to the admission of evidence that she had held herself out as a specialist. Before the case goes to the jury, P wants the jury charge to reflect that D held herself out as a specialist. What can P do to make sure that the record reflects the fact that D held herself out as a specialist? a P can do nothing because it is too late to amend P's complaint. b Because D failed to object to the evidence during the trial, D has effectively consented to the trial of the case based on D being a specialist; thus, P can move to amend the complaint to conform it to the evidence at trial pursuant to Federal Rule 15(b)(2). c P can move for judgment as a matter of law. d P can use the "aider by verdict" doctrine to make sure the record indicates the basis of the trial.

Assume that P, a citizen of State X, sues D-1, a citizen of State Y, and D-2, a citizen of State Z, in federal court. P's diversity claim arose out of an automobile accident that P had with D-1 and D-2. P asserts that both D-1 and D-2 had been negligent. P's claim against D-1 and D-2 was for $100,000. Assume that D-1 asserts a crossclaim seeking contribution from D-2 should they are found to be joint tortfeasers. Before the enactment of the supplemental jurisdiction statute, the federal court would have had subject-matter over D-1's crossclaim (even if the contribution claim would have amounted to $50,000--half of P's full claim). What doctrine produced this result? a Pendent jurisdiction b Ancillary jurisdiction

Assume that P, a spectator, is injured at a baseball game when P is hit by a foul ball. P sues D, the baseball club, to recover for P's injuries in federal district court. In response to P's complaint asserting liability, D wants to assert that spectators impliedly assume certain risks, such as being hit with a foul ball, when they go to a sporting event and are injured as a natural and foreseeable result of the sport; thus, D is not liable. Which of the following is the proper way for D to raise this defense? a By means of a denial of P's allegations in D's answer. b By asserting assumption of the risk as an affirmative defense in D's answer. c By means of a compulsory counterclaim in D's answer. d By means of a general denial in D's answer.

Assume that S, a storage company, is storing some diamonds. C-1 and C-2 both claim to be entitled to the diamonds worth $500,000. Assume that S is a citizen of State X and its principal place of business is also in State X. Assume that C-1 is a citizen of State Y and that C-2 is a citizen of State Z. Assume that C-1 and C-2 have commenced separate actions against S in their respective home state courts. S wants to enjoin these actions. What type of interpleader action should S use? a Rule interpleader in order to take advantage of nationwide long-arm jurisdiction because C-1 and C-2 live in different states. b Statutory interpleader, but S would have to be willing to deposit the diamonds or post a bond at the time of the filing of the complaint.

Assume that S, a storage company, is storing some diamonds. S is nearly bankrupt but still has the diamonds safely stored. C-1 and C-2 both claim to be entitled to the diamonds worth $500,000. Assume that C-1 has sued S in a U.S. District Court. C-2 wants to intervene in C-1's action against S in order to protect C-2's interests. Would C-2 intervention be of right or permissive? a Permissive because a judgment against S could be rendered without joinder of C-2. b As of right because C-2 claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest neither S nor C-1 adequately represent that interest.

Assume that a company had a dispute over sales commissions with one of its employees. The company fires the employee and plans to sue the former employee to recover customer lists that the employee improperly removed from the company's premises. However, before bringing suit, the former employee moved to a neighboring state. The company's lawyers invite the former employee to the company's headquarters to "discuss settlement of the dispute." The former employee makes a special trip from the employee's home in the neighboring state to the headquarters. When the former employee arrives, an executive of the company announces that "the settlement discussions are "off" and a process server hands the former employee service of process for an action to recover the customer lists. What is the best argument that the former employee can make to establish that service of process was invalid? a The employee lacks minimum contacts. b The employee is immune from service of process because of the company's fraud or trickery. c The employer has waived the right to sue because the employer invited the employee to the settlement discussions. d None of the above are even plausible arguments.

Assume that a company has a dispute over sales commissions with one of its employees; the company filed suit against the employee seeking damages for disparagement based on the employee's statements about the company in a state court in Texas; the employee answered and then properly removed the case to the appropriate U.S. District Court; the employee's answer included a counterclaim for commissions owed to the employee. Is the company required to serve an answer to the employee's counterclaim as required by Federal Rule 7(a)(3) or can the company rely on the following provision in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 92: "When a counterclaim . . . is served upon a party who has made an appearance in the action, the party so served, in the absence of a responsive pleading, shall be deemed to have pleaded a general denial of the counterclaim . . . ."? a Even though an action has been removed from state to federal court, the state court rules of pleading still apply; thus, it is safe for the company to rely on the provision in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. b When an action commenced in state court is properly removed to federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to pleadings or motions after removal; thus, the company must serve an answer to the counterclaim as required by Federal Rule 12(a)(1)(B), which provides that a party must serve an answer to a counterclaim; it would be unsafe to do otherwise because failure to answer is likely to be regarded as requiring parties to respond to allegations made against them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) ("An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied."). c No action is necessary because the federal rules generally do not require repleading following removal. d Answers A and C are both correct.

Assume that a nine-year-old girl incurred unusually severe injuries when she sliced her finger on a Star-Kist can of tuna. She sued Star-Kist in a diversity action in federal district court based on diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy that exceeded $75,000. Pursuant to Federal Rule 20, the girl's family joined in the suit, seeking $20,000 in damages for emotional distress and certain medical expenses. Assume the nine-year-old girl was domiciled in State X, but the family members were domiciled in State Y. Assume further that Star-Kist was incorporated in State Z and its principal place of business is State Y. Star-Kist objects on the ground that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking because the family members are not diverse and they fail to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. Under the holding of Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., what should happen? a The action can proceed because of the Rule 20 gap. b The lack of diversity "contaminates" the entire case and thus destroys original jurisdiction over all claims in the action. c The action can proceed based on pendent party jurisdiction. d None of the above answers are correct.

Assume that a plaintiff has filed suit in federal court alleging that the defendant has violated her civil rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq.). Assume further that the claim arises from an incident in which the plaintiff was denied service at a public restaurant based on her perceived national origin. If the plaintiff was also physically harmed by the defendant, she may want to file claims for assault and battery. Assault and battery of a private party are state law claims; no federal laws exist under which the plaintiff could bring such claims; and in the absence of diversity and the requisite amount in controversy, the assault and battery claim could not be heard in federal court. Thus, if federal courts could not hear state law claims such as the plaintiff's, many plaintiffs would be forced to present two cases in two courts involving essentially the same matter. Such a rule would be unduly expensive for plaintiffs, would increase the number of cases in the court system, and could lead to seemingly inconsistent results from different courts concerning related matters. Prior to the enactment of the supplemental jurisdiction statute, assume that a judicially created doctrine would have allowed a federal court to hear both claims. Under what doctrine would that have been allowed? a Ancillary jurisdiction would give the federal court the authority to hear the assault and battery claims because they arose out of the same incident that gave rise to the federal civil rights claims. b Pendent jurisdiction would give the federal court the authority to hear the assault and battery claims because they arose out of the same incident that gave rise to the federal civil rights claims.

Assume that civil rights action based on § 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code has been brought in federal district court. The plaintiff's action is against police officers who allegedly illegal arrested searched, and beat the plaintiff. Assume that the federal court in the same action also exercises jurisdiction over state-law claims based on false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, and trespass occurring during the same incident. Which of the following doctrines would be the TRADITIONAL BASIS for exercising federal jurisdiction over the related state-law claims? a Ancillary jurisdiction b Pendent jurisdiction c Pendent party jurisdiction

Assume that in an action brought in federal court the plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff loaned the defendant a car, and that contrary to the defendant's promise to take good care of the car, the defendant damaged it in a drag race. The plaintiff sues for damages. Is there any way that the defendant, given Rule 11, can properly plead in the answer that (1) the plaintiff did not loan the defendant the car, (2) the defendant returned the car undamaged, and (3) the car already was damaged when the plaintiff loaned it to the defendant in light of the requirements of Rule 11? a No, because the plaintiff had to either loaned the defendant or not; either one or other has to be true. b Yes, the defendant could deny that the plaintiff loaned the defendant the car and then plead hypothetically as follows: "If it is found that the plaintiff loaned the defendant the car, the defendant denies that the car was damaged or that the defendant damaged it--if the defendant, based on a reasonable investigation, believes the facts stated in the hypothetical form are accurate.

Assume that the defendant omits the objection that a party has failed to join a party as required by Rule 19 from the answer; at trial, the defendant attempts to show that such a party has not been joined. Absent an amendment, did a waiver of a defense occur under the Federal Rules? a The objection has been waived by failing to include it in the defendant's answer. b The objection has not been waived. (See Fed. R. C. P. 12(h)(2))

Assume that the plaintiff has commenced an action in federal court by filing a complaint against D-1 and D-2 similar to former Federal Form 12 (Complaint for Negligence When the Plaintiff Does Not Know Who Is Responsible). Assume also that the plaintiff must prove who was driving the motor vehicle that hit the plaintiff in order to recover. Defendant D-1 tells D-1's attorney that D-1, and not defendant D-2, was driving the motor vehicle that hit the plaintiff. However, D-1 is pretty sure that the plaintiff cannot prove that D-1 was driving. May D-1's attorney answer the complaint by denying that D-1 was driving? Under the requirements of Federal Rule 11, what may D's attorney do? a D's attorney may answer the complaint by denying that D-1 was driving; the plaintiff has the burden of proof on this issue. b D's attorney may not answer the complaint by denying that D-1 was driving under these circumstances; a fact know to the be true cannot be denied.

Assume that the plaintiff has commenced an action in federal court by filing a complaint against D-1 and D-2, alleging that D-1 or D-2, or both D-1 and D-2 wilfully or recklessly or negligently drove or caused to be driven a motor vehicle against plaintiff. Assume that the plaintiff must prove who was driving the motor vehicle that hit the plaintiff in order to recover. D-1 tells the attorney that D-1 cannot remember who was driving the car. Under these circumstances, in light of the requirements of Rule 11, what can or must D-1's attorney do? a D's attorney can deny the allegation if D-1 cannot honestly remember (e.g., D-1 was too intoxicated at the time). b Before denying that D-1 was driving, D-1's attorney must make a reasonable investigation to determine who was driving; at the very least, the attorney must investigate by interviewing any disinterested witnesses.

Assume that the plaintiff is crazy or too young to sue or be sued and thus lacks the capacity to sue? How should the defendant raise this issue? a A general denial. b At specific denial which states any supporting facts that re peculiarly within the party's knowledge. c A special demurrer. d A motion of judgment on the pleadings.

Assume that the plaintiff's lawyer quickly filed a complaint in federal court today. How long does the plaintiff's lawyer has to amend the complaint without obtaining leave of court? a 21 days from the date the complaint was filed. b 21 days after the defendant serves a response to the complaint--namely, a Rule 12 pre-answer motion or an answer to the complaint.

Assume the plaintiff in a civil action in federal court serves a complaint containing the following paragraph: "On June 1, 20xx, in a public highway called Main Street in the City of Metropolis in State X, defendant D-1 or defendant D-2, or both defendants D-1 and D-2, willfully or recklessly or negligently drove, or caused to be driven, an automobile against plaintiff who was then crossing the highway." What kind of pleading is this an example of? a Theoretical pleading b Alternative pleading c Hypothetical pleading d Conjectural pleading

D-1 owned an apartment house. The apartment house tenants included D-2 and P. In addition to being a tenant, D-2 also served as D-1s handyman around the apartment house. D-2's activities included ensuring that all the light bulbs in the stairwells were in working order. One evening P was coming home from dinner with her boyfriend. As she was going up the stairs in the hall on the way to her apartment, she tripped on a wrench. It turns out the light on the landing was broken. When she heard the racket in the hall, D-3, a visitor in the building, came to help. While trying to help, it turned out that D-3 accidentally stepped in P's hurt ankle causing even more of an injury. As a result of tripping on the wrench and being stepped on, P was required to have surgery. After this incident, P filed a lawsuit against D-1 in the United States District Court claiming that D-1 was negligent in the maintenance of the apartment house. D-1 serves a motion to dismiss P's action. D-1's motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(7) ("failure to join a party required by Rule 19"). Specifically, D-1 maintains that P's failure to join D-3 as defendant in the action based on D-3's negligence makes P's action subject to dismissal. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, should the action be dismissed? a Yes because failure to join D-3 could lead to the risk of double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations. b No, when there is joint and several liability among joint tortfeasors (you can sue anyone of them for the full amount), joint tortfeasors are not required parties.

Federal Rule 23(b) requires a party to demonstrate that a proposed class action falls within one of the categories in that section of the rule. Assume that multiple parties are making claims to a defendant's limited fund. There is a risk that claimants might not be able to recover any damages from the defendant if a prior lawsuit exhausted the defendant's resources. In this situation, the court can certify a mandatory class action based on which one of the following types of class actions? a Rule 23(b)(1)(A). b Rule 23(b)(1)(B). c Rule 23(b)(2). d Rule 23(b)(3).

Federal Rule 9(b) requires that a party must plead mistake with particularity. What of the following BEST describes the practical consequence of this pleading requirement? a A pleader needs only to allege the mistake in general terms if it is a result of a confused state of mind. b A pleader must describe the circumstances constituting the mistake; namely, the who, what, when, where, and how of the mistake, which likely includes the precise nature of the mistake, who made the mistake, and when. c A pleader must describe the mistake in sufficient detail to show that the mistake was caused by gross human error that led to large discrepancies based on the result of carelessness, miscommunication, fatigue, or poor judgment. d None of the above answers

I, a life insurance company, is incorporated in State X and has its principal place of business in State Y. I insured H. H died and H's two "wives" are claiming the proceeds of H's life insurance policy. W-1 is a citizen of State Y, and W-2 is a citizen of State Z. The amount of the policy is $100,000. I wants to bring an interpleader action in federal court, joining the claimants, W-1 and W-2, as defendants. What form of interpleader action should I use? (One form of interpleader is know as "rule interpleader" based on Federal Rule 22 and the other is known as "statutory interpleader" based on provisions in Title 28 of the United States Code.) a I can use rule interpleader because more than $75,000 is in controvers and the parties are diverse (I is a citizen of State X vs. W-1 and W-2, respectively, are from State Y and State Z). b I can use statutory interpleader because only minimal diversity is required between two or more of the claimants and the amount in controversy is met. c I can choose between rule and statutory interpleader in this situation because the requirements of both are met (Answers A and B, above are thus correct). d I cannot use either rule or statutory interpleader because the requirements of neither procedure are met.

I, a life insurance company, is incorporated in State X and with its principal place of business in State X. I insured H. H died and H's two "wives" are claiming the proceeds of H's life insurance policy. W-1 is a citizen of State Y, and W-2 is a citizen of State Z. The amount of the policy is $100,000. Assume that W-1 has sued I in State Y in a state court action to recover the policy proceeds. Assume that W-2 has sued I in State Z in a state court action to recover the policy proceeds. Assume that W-1 is not subject to personal jurisdiction outside of State Y and W-2 is not subject to personal jurisdiction outside of State Z (under normal personal jurisdiction requirements). Assume I wants to commence an interpleader action in federal court in State Y and have the court enjoin W-1 and W-2 from maintaining their actions. What form of interpleader should I use? a I should use rule interpleader because all requirements of Rule 22 can be met, including subject-matter jurisdiction, venue, and personal jurisdiction; and the court can enjoin the claimants using its general equitable powers. b I should use statutory interpleader because all requirements of statutory interpleader can be met, including subject-matter jurisdiction, venue, and personal jurisdiction; the federal court has natonwide long-arm jurisdiction permitting service upon the claimants within any judicial district and has nationwide power to enjoin ongoing actions in any state or federal court concerning the stake. c I will be unable to meet the requirements either of rule or statutory interpleader in this situation.

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, in analyzing plausibility, the majority suggested that the starting point is the substantive elements of the claim. Then those elements are to be assessed in relation to the well-pleaded facts. In carrying out this analysis, the majority suggested a two-pronged approach: the judge must first exclude "legal conclusions" (Prong 1) before applying the plausibility standard to the remaining factual allegations (Prong 2). How workable does this approach appear to be? a It will be quite workable since legal conclusions are easy to identify; they are merely formulaic recitation of the elements of the claim. b A real challenge--as illustrated in Iqbal itself where even the majority (5 Justices) and dissenters (4 Justices) could not agree on what allegations in the complaint constituted "legal conclusions."

In a trial in federal court, the jury awards the plaintiff six million dollars. The defendant believes that the verdict in that amount was excessive resulting from "passion or prejudice" on the part of the jury. The judge enters a judgment for six million dollars. What post-trial motion should the defendant use under these circumstances? a A motion for judgment as a matter of law in D's favor b A motion for a new trial c A motion to alter or amend the judgment d A motion for reconsideration e A motion for a directed verdict

In an action pending in federal district court, assume that the court concludes that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest. Pursuant to Federal Rule 17(a)(3), what should the court do? a The court is required to immediately dismiss the action; the action must then be recommenced in the name of the real party in interest. b The court must allow a reasonable time for the real party in interest to ratify, join, or be substituted into the action. c The court should appoint a guardian or an administrator to act on behalf of the real party in interest. d The court should determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed or should be dismissed.

In order to understand the Rule 23 gap, you need to understand how diversity and the amount-in-controversy requirements operated in class action cases prior to the adoption of the supplemental jurisdiction statute. With regard to diversity of citizenship, which of the following reflects the law? a All members of the class must be completely diverse from the parties on the other side of the action. b Only the named representatives of the class have to be diverse from the parties on the other side of the action; members of the class who are not class representatives can be from the same state as the opposing party.

In personal injury cases, "damages" is a term that refers to the amount of money awarded to the injured party (or plaintiff) who, for example, suffered harm due to the negligent, reckless, or intentional action of the defendant. Damages are grouped as either general or special. In federal civil actions, special damages need to be specifically stated; whereas, general damages are assumed and do not need to be listed in the complaint. General damages flow naturally from the defendant's wrongful action and are often calculated using standard formulas (e.g., the difference between the contract price and the market price for breaches of contracts). General damages also often involve compensation for non-specific economic injuries. Given these differences, which of the following are likely to represent general damages which do not have to specifically stated? a Lost wages and loss of earning capacity in a personal injury civil action. b Physical pain and suffering in a civil action arising out of a fight (battery) in a bar. c Medical expenses (past and future) in a civil action arising out of negligent driving. d Mental anguish caused by when someone threatens bodily harm to another in a convincing way.

Interpleader developed in equity. It was frequently used by plaintiffs (and others) beset by multiple claimants. However, parties in equity faced several strict, technical requirements. These requirements have largely now been supplanted in modern interpleader actions. However, the historical impact of those requirements can still be seen in the language of modern interpleader rules (e.g., Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Determine which one of the following traditional requirements is NOT met in this situation: C-1 is in possession of land. C-1 claims title to the land under a deed and asserts that S owes C-1 $1,000 as the value of S's use and occupation of the land. C-2 claims title to the land by adverse possession and also asserts that S owes C-2 $1,000 as the value of S's use and occupation of the land. a The same thing or debt or duty must be claimed by both or all the parties against whom the relief is demanded. b All their adverse titles or claims must be dependent or be derived from a common source. c The person asking for the relief--the plaintiff--must not have nor claim any interest in the subject matter. d The person seeking relief must have incurred no independent liability to either of the claimants; that is--that person must stand perfectly indifferent between them--in the position of a stakeholder. e All of the above requirements are met in the above situation.

P Insurance Co. sues D, its insured, for a declaratory judgment that a policy issued by P to D does not over a certain loss. D's answer contains a counterclaim against P under a statute that provides for recovery of attorney's fees and expenses in actions between insurance companies and insured parties over policy coverage, when such actions terminate in favor of the insured. The counterclaim seeks to recover such fees and expenses for the action filed by the company. This situation is an example of what? a A compulsory counterclaim; the plaintiff clearly had to raise it in order to prevent the claim from being lost on the basis of the compulsory counterclaim rule. b A contingent counterclaim; the primary issue will be whether a contingent claim can be asserted as a counterclaim at all under Federal Rule 13.

P and W, who are husband and wife, set out on an automobile trip with P driving. There is an accident with a car driven by D. W is killed. P, as administrator of W's estate, sues D for wrongful death of W based on D's negligence. D alleges that P's negligence was the sole cause of the accident in a counterclaim? Based on the language of Federal Rule 13, which of the following is the best argument that the counterclaim is NOT proper? a P and D are are not the real parties in interest. b P and D are not opposing parties because the plaintiff is liable only in another capacity; here P is suing as the administrator of W's estate.

P commenced a medical malpractice claim against D. At trial, P is unable to offer any evidence proving causation. However, P produces a surprise witness who was previously unavailable and who testifies dramatically that the doctor was in fact the cause of P's injury. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, assume that the judge correctly rules that the witness's testimony is inadmissible and instructs the jury to disregard it. Notwithstanding the judge's admonition, the jury finds in favor of P even though there was no evidence that was legally admitted into the record to support the plaintiff's malpractice claim. Assuming that D has compiled with any necessary prerequisites, which of the following motions would be the BEST post-trial motion for the defendant to use in these circumstances? a A motion for a new trial. b A motion for judgment as a matter of law in D's favor. c A motion to correct a clerical mistake because the jury surely made a mistake in filling out the verdict form. d A motion to strike the jury verdict.

P sues D in a U.S. District Court. P alleges that E, D's employee, negligently ran P down while P was crossing a certain highway. Shortly after the alleged accident, E was killed in a motor vehicle accident with another party. Therefore, there is no witness to the alleged accident other than P. D has no direct evidence whether E ran P down or not, but D believes P may have faked the accident after P learned that E had been killed. D provides D's attorney with information that P is not a credible witness and can be effectively impeached at trial. In D's answer, can D's attorney deny the allegation that E ran P down consistently with Federal Rule 11? a Yes, D's attorney can simply deny the allegation in D's answer. b Yes, D's attorney can deny the allegation in D's answer, but D should do so on the basis of lack of information and belief. c No, D must admit the allegation in D's answer.

P sues D in a federal court. D does not appear or answer in the action, and a default judgment is entered against D under Federal Rule 55. D subsequently sues P on a claim arising out of the same transaction as P's claim in the federal action. Based on the language of Federal Rule 13, is D barred from asserting this claim by Federal Rule 13(a)? a Yes because D's claim was a compulsory counterclaim that should have been asserted in the suit brought by P against D; it was lost by the operation of the provisions of Federal Rule 13(a). b No because D defaulted in the first action; Rule 13(a) operates only when a party serves a pleading on an opposing party; a party who defaults for failure to appear does not serve anything.

P sues D in federal district court for breach of contract for $100,000. D serves an answer admitting the existence of the contract, but denying D breached and asserting D was induced to enter into the contract by fraud. Based on a ruling in another case that occurred after D served D's answer, D now wants to assert issue preclusion (res judicata) against P on the fraud issue. How should D raise this affirmative defense? a D should seek permission to amend the answer to raise the defense of issue preclusion. b D should seek permission to serve a supplemental answer to raise the defense of issue preclusion.

P wants to sue D for $500,000 in a U.S. District Court based on diversity jurisdiction. D is eighteen years old. P wants to determine whether D has the capacity to be sued. D is a citizen of the United States. D is considered to be domiciled in State X. However, D spends more than half of the year in State Y. D is not being sued in a representative capacity. At the time of the commencement of the action, D was present in State Q, which is the state where the U.S. District Court is located. The law of which state determines D's capacity to be sued? a State Q b State X c State Y

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2 based on their alleged negligence. After alleging diversity jurisdiction, assume that P alleged that "On June 1, 20xx, in a public highway called Main Street in the City of Metropolis in State X, defendant D-1 or defendant D-2, or both defendants D-1 and D-2, willfully or recklessly or negligently drove, or caused to be driven, an automobile against plaintiff who was then crossing the highway." P then alleged damages and demanded judgment. Assume that D-1 and D-2 believe that the allegations in the complaint concerning the accident are false and that P does not have any evidentiary support for those allegations. Furthermore, D-1 and D-2 believe that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, of the following courses of action, which one should D-1 and D-2 pursue? a They should move to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6); they should also request sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule 11 as part of that motion. b They should move to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1); in addition, they should serve a motion pursuant to Federal Rule 11 describing the specific conduct that violates Rule 11, but they should wait 21 days before filing or presenting it to the court as required by the "safe harbor" provision. c They should immediately ask the court to issue a "show-cause" order imposing sanctions before P has a chance to voluntarily dismiss or withdraw the claim. d They should move to strike the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f) and request sanctions pursuant to Rule 11.

P would like to commence an action against D in a U.S. District Court. P believes that D negligently ran P down with a motor vehicle on a certain date, at a certain time, while P was crossing a specific street. However, P has not been able to develop any evidence that D was negligent because P has, despite reasonable efforts, been unable to interview W, who was a witness to the accident. However, P believes that W will be available for an interview at a future date, but fears that the statute of limitations may run before P can conduct the interview. Under these circumstances, can P file a complaint in federal court against D without violating Rule 11? a Yes, P can commence the action as usual. b Yes, P can commence the action, but P should allege that the claim does not have evidentiary support, but it will have after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation. c No, P must wait until P is able to interview W; P needs to do so quickly or the opportunity to commence the action will be lost.

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D and X in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D and X jointly caused P in connection with the accident. The issue of fault is hotly contested by the parties. The case is tried to a jury. in P's civil action, what is P likely to have to do in order to win a verdict in P's favor? a Because the issue is hotly contested, P will be required to show that P is entitled to win by clear and convincing evidence. b P will have to convince the trier of fact that there is a preponderance of evidence in P's favor in order to win ( "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). c P will need to convince a majority of the jury (seven of the twelve jurors) that P is entitled to win. d P will have the duty to convince the jury by proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every element of the claim before a jury can decide the case in favor of P..

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D caused P in connection with the accident. D defends by denying D's own negligence and asserting P's contributory negligence. After a bench trial, the court found that D was not negligent and that P was contributorily negligent. Based on those findings, the court enters judgment in favor of D. Assume that X then sues P asserting P's negligence caused the accident. Assume also that mutuality of estoppel has been abolished. Which of the following statements, if any, are accurate? a The court would not permit issue preclusion because the finding did not support the judgment in the action. b This situation is an example of alternative findings; If the First Restatement of Judgments was followed, the issue of P's negligence would be precluded. c This situation is an example of alternative findings; if the Second Restatement of Judgments was followed, the issue of P's negligence would be determined on a case by case basis. d None of the above statements are accurate.

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D caused P in connection with the accident. If D believes that X will be liable to D under contribution for all or part of D's liability to P, must D assert this contribution claim against X? a Yes, if D believes that X will be liable to D under contribution for all or part of D's liability to P, D must join this contribution action against X. b No, joinder is permissive under Federal Rule 14(a); D may, but is not required, to assert this claim in the pending action.

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D caused P in connection with the accident. Is P entitled to a jury trial in this case? a Yes, P will automatically have a jury trial. b Yes, provided P requests one by serving the other parties with a written demand—which may be included in a pleading—no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served. c No, P will not be entitled to a jury trial because negligence claims were based historically on trespass on the case; only claims based on trespass were tried by a jury. d No, P will not be entitled to a jury trial because historically P's claims would have to have been brought in an equity court, which did not provide a jury trial.

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D caused P in connection with the accident. P's complaint specifically seeks damages for the following: pain and suffering, loss of earnings, loss of future earnings, medical bills, cost of future medical care, and costs associated with cancelled trips or altered plans. In which category are these damages? a They are all examples of general damages. b They are all examples of special damages except pain and suffering. c They are all examples of exemplary damages.

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D caused P in connection with the accident. Several months after the commencement of the action, D takes P's oral deposition. During the course of the deposition, D learns for the first time that P was texting at the time of the accident. D wants to assert P's contributory negligence as a defense in the action. How should D do so? a D should amend D's answer once as a matter of course if D has not amended D's answer previously. b D should seek leave of court to amend D's answer to add contributory negligence as an affirmative defense in the action. c D should seek leave of court to serve a supplement answer asserting contributory negligence as an affirmative defense. d D should serve a third-party complaint asserting P's contributory negligence.

P, the seller of real estate, sued D, a buyer of the real estate, in a state court to foreclose a mortgage and to recover a dollar deficiency because D was in arrears on paying the mortgage. Assume that the state has a rule identical to Federal Rule 13(a) dealing with compulsory counterclaims. Assume that D did not appear and judgment against D was entered by default. The buyer, D, subsequently commenced a fraud action against the seller of the real estate, P, seeking rescission of the mortgage and restitution of the amounts paid by the buyer. Which of the following is the best argument that D's action is precluded? a D violated Federal Rule 13(a) because a pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. b D's subsequent action should be barred because, if successful, it would completely nullify the prior action, which would violate the common-law compulsory rule.

P-1 and P-2 are husband and wife and P-1 and P-2 are both citizens of Nebraska. P-1 and P-2 were hit by an automobile in Colorado while they were crossing the street. The automobile was driven by D, a citizen of Colorado. Assume P-1 and P-2 were injured and have commenced an action in a Colorado federal district court. Jurisdiction is based solely on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. P-1 and P-2 each claim $50,000 for personal injuries arising from D's alleged negligence. Based on these facts, which of the following best describes the jurisdiction of the federal district court? a The federal district court has original jurisdiction over all claims without the need to resort to the use of supplemental jurisdiction. b Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are not satisfied; therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over at least some of the asserted claims. (There is no anchor claim.) c Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, and reference to § 1367(b) is not needed; the court has jurisdiction over all the asserted claims. d The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, but the restrictions in § 1367(b) destroy jurisdiction. e The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied; in addition, none of the restrictions in § 1367(b) apply; the federal district court has jurisdiction over all of the asserted claims.

P-1 and P-2 join in an action against the City of D. P-1 and P-2 seek an order requiring the city to issue them licenses to sell alcoholic beverages in their restaurants. The city had refused licenses to P-1 and P-2 on the same grounds, but on different occasions. Both P-1 and P-2 contend that the grounds for refusing them licenses are invalid for the same legal reasons. There is no other relationship between P-1 and P-2. Assuming that P-1 and P-2 are not allowed to join as plaintiffs in a single action, but instead must commence separate actions, is there some way that the cases could be tried together? a No, there is no procedure for joint trials if the plaintiffs could not join together originally. b If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions or consolidate the actions.

P-1, a citizen of State X, and P-2, a citizen of State Y, sue D, a citizen of State Y, in the U.S. District Court for the District of State Y. P-1 and P-2 assert a joint claim against D for breach of contract for $200,000. (Both P-1 and P-2 are parties to the contract with D and are both injured by the breach in the same way.) Under § 1367(a) & (b), is there federal jurisdiction over this action? a The federal district court has original jurisdiction over all claims without the need to resort to the use of supplemental jurisdiction. b Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are not satisfied; therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over at least some of the asserted claims. (The lack of diversity between P-2 and D "contaminates" the action.) c Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, and reference to § 1367(b) is not needed; the court has jurisdiction over all the asserted claims. d The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, but the restrictions in § 1367(b) destroy jurisdiction. e The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied; in addition, none of the restrictions in § 1367(b) apply; the federal district court has jurisdiction over all of the asserted claims.

P-1, a citizen of State X, was a passenger on D-1 Airline Flight 007. D-1 is incorporated in State Y and its principal place of business is in State Z. P-1 was severely injured when Flight 007 landed at an airport in State Q. The airplane veered off the runway and crashed into a vehicle carrying baggage owned by Airline D-2 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State Y). One possible cause of the accident was a sudden failure of the brakes on the right side of the airplane. The brakes (and hydraulic system) were serviced by an independent contractor, D-3 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State S). Another possible cause might have been pilot error, specifically by pilot D-4, a citizen of State Q. Still another contributing cause might be the negligence of the driver of the vehicle carrying the luggage, D-5, a citizen of State X. (Had the vehicle not been at that location, the plane would likely have stopped without hitting anything, and thus the damages would have probably been minimal.) P-1 has now sued D-1 in U.S. District Court in State Q. P-1 seeks to recover $500,000 as compensation for P-1's injuries. Under the applicable law, tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. Assume that D-1 asserts that D-3's negligence was the principal cause of the accident and thus that D-3 is liable to D-1 for all or part of the P-1's claim against D-1. Assume D-1 has joined D-3 by means of the proper procedure and that D-1 wants to also assert a claim for damage to D-1's aircraft against D-3. Is D-1 permitted to do so? a D-1 would be allowed to assert this claim only if it involves a question of law or fact common to P-1's claim against D-1. b D-1 would be allowed to assert this claim because Rule 18(a) allows a party asserting a third-party claim to join as many claims as the party has against an opposing party. c D-1 would not be allowed to assert this claim because joinder is not allowed when there is an independent basis for liability, as here. d D-1 would not be allowed to assert this claim because it does not depend on the outcome of the main claim nor is it in the nature of or secondary liability to D-1.

P-1, a citizen of State X, was a passenger on D-1 Airline Flight 007. D-1 is incorporated in State Y and its principal place of business is in State Z. P-1 was severely injured when Flight 007 landed at an airport in State Q. The airplane veered off the runway and crashed into a vehicle carrying baggage owned by Airline D-2 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State Y). One possible cause of the accident was a sudden failure of the brakes on the right side of the airplane. The brakes (and hydraulic system) were serviced by an independent contractor, D-3 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State S). Another possible cause might have been pilot error, specifically by pilot D-4, a citizen of State Q. Still another contributing cause might be the negligence of the driver of the vehicle carrying the luggage, D-5, a citizen of State X. (Had the vehicle not been at that location, the plane would likely have stopped without hitting anything, and thus the damages would have probably been minimal.) P-1 has now sued D-1 in U.S. District Court in State Q. P-1 seeks to recover $500,000 as compensation for P-1's injuries. Under the applicable law, tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. Assume that P-1 had assigned the claim to P-2, but the wrong party had commenced the action. After a proper objection, what should the court do? a The court should immediately dismiss the action. b The court should not dismiss the action until a reasonable time has been allowed for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder, or substitution of, the correct party. c The court should not dismiss the action because the court is obligated to grant relief in accordance with the relative substantive rights of the parties, and D-1 is not entitled to win. d The court should not dismiss the action because improper joinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action; parties may be dropped or added by order of the court at any stage of the action on such terms as are just.

P-1, a citizen of State X, was a passenger on D-1 Airline Flight 007. D-1 is incorporated in State Y and its principal place of business is in State Z. P-1 was severely injured when Flight 007 landed at an airport in State Q. The airplane veered off the runway and crashed into a vehicle carrying baggage owned by Airline D-2 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State Y). One possible cause of the accident was a sudden failure of the brakes on the right side of the airplane. The brakes (and hydraulic system) were serviced by an independent contractor, D-3 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State S). Another possible cause might have been pilot error, specifically by pilot D-4, a citizen of State Q. Still another contributing cause might be the negligence of the driver of the vehicle carrying the luggage, D-5, a citizen of State X. (Had the vehicle not been at that location, the plane would likely have stopped without hitting anything, and thus the damages would have probably been minimal.) P-1 has now sued D-1 in U.S. District Court in State Q. P-1 seeks to recover $500,000 as compensation for P-1's injuries. Under the applicable law, tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. P-1 wants to join D-1, D-2, D-3, and D-4 as defendants in P-1's initial action on the ground that they are liable either jointly, severally, or in the alternative to P-1. Would P-1 be permitted to do so? a P-1 would be allowed to do so because a party asserting an original claim may join as many claims as the party has against all other parties in the action. b P-1 would be allowed to do so because P-1 is asserting a right to relief arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and there are questions of law and fact common to all defendants. c P-1 would not be allowed to do so because the joinder of D-1, D-2, D-3, and D-4 as defendants in P-1's initial action would cause undue delay and prejudice. d P-1 would not be allowed to do so because D-1 and D-2 are citizens of the same state.

R sues as the representative of a class consisting of all persons who had been defrauded by D. R alleges that D defrauded some 3,000 persons over a period of two years by making a variety of misrepresentations. Is the class action proper under Federal Rule 23? a No, because the class is not so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. b No, because there are likely to insufficient questions of law or fact common to the class. c No, for the reasons stated in Answers A and B, above. d Yes, because all the prerequisites for a class action under Federal Rule 23(a) are met.

TRUE OR FALSE: Federal Rule 11 operates as a strict liability provision, and a violation may be found when any carelessness or misbehavior is identified. a True because simply failing to prevail can be a violation. b False because a violation may be found only when some significant carelessness or misbehavior is identified.

TRUE OR FALSE: In addition to an allegation demonstrating subject-matter jurisdiction in the complaint, plaintiffs are required to allege in the complaint that personal jurisdiction over the defendant exists; however, the federal courts permit this required allegation to be done in general terms. a TRUE: In order for a court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the court must have a statutory basis for its power, and the exercise of its power must comply with due process; under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; satisfaction of this requirement can be satisfied by a simple allegation in the complaint. b FALSE: Ordinarily, plaintiffs need not allege personal jurisdiction in their complaints; the obligation to object to personal jurisdiction is imposed on the defending party under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure..

TRUE OR FALSE: Now that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have abolished separate law and equity courts, the distinction is no longer relevant and one needn't worry about those historical differences; thus, it is a waste of good time to have to learn about forms of action and equity jurisdiction and procedure. Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer. a True; it couldn't have been said better. b Sorry to say, but it is false.

The Federal Rules have an answer for almost any issue that comes up during litigation. For example, assume that the defendant moves pursuant to Federal Rule 12(e) for a more definite statement because the plaintiff's complaint is so vague or ambiguous that the defendant cannot reasonably prepare a response. The court grants the motion and P serves a more definite statement of P's claim. How many days does the defendant now have to serve an answer (assuming that the court has not specified a time for answering) (see Federal Rule 12(a)(4))? a 7 days b 14 days c 21 days d 28 days

When a Rule 11 sanction permits payment of an opposing party's attorney's fees or associated costs, courts may use a "lodestar" method of calculating the appropriate fee amount. What is the lodestar method? a The "lodestar" method is derived from the fact that a star can be used as a reference point; thus, an attorney can receive a substantially enhanced ("lodestar") compensation as a sanction when the judges considers the attorney's performance to be "stellular" (this is, outstanding and a guide to others). b The "lodestar" method is commonly used by judges and arbitrators to determine attorney fees for a prevailing party. The loadstar is calculated by multiplying the reasonable number of hours by a reasonable hourly rate. c The "lodestar" method refers to the manner of determining attorney fees for the hard work performed by competent counsel to protect the rights of those who otherwise would have been without representation and thus not be able to challenge conduct violating Rule 11 themselves. d None of the above descriptions are appropriate in the context of Rule 11 sanctions.

Which of the following is the primary goal of Rule 11 sanctions? a Punishing b Deterring c Chastising d Disciplining e Compensating f All of the above are regarded as goals and no one of them is considered to be the primary goal.

Which of the following statements about "good-faith" pleading is NOT true? a Verification is a statement under oath that the facts alleged in a pleading are true. b Verification is outdated; the federal courts no longer use verification in any circumstances. c Rule 11 is the primary source for regulating truthful pleading and other abuses of the litigation process in the U.S. District Courts; however, Rule 11 does not apply to discovery abuses. d Federal courts have the inherent power to impose sanction for bad-faith litigation conduct. e All of the above statements are true.

Would the following actions by the defendant be proper in federal court? Assume that the defendant moves before answering to dismiss the action on the ground that the contents of the summons are defective—an insufficient process objection. The motion is denied. The defendant then moves for a more definite statement under Federal Rule 12(e) on the ground that the complaint is so vague that the defendant cannot reasonably be required to frame an answer. Is the second motion proper? a It is clear that the second motion may be made. b A second motion is technically not permitted under the wording of Rule 12(g)(2) because the second challenge was "available" at the time of the first motion made "under this rule." However, Rule 12(h)(1) does not provide explicitly that the objection is waived, and no other way exists to raise this objection except by a second preanswer motion. This appears to be an oversight by the drafters of the Federal Rules.

Would the following actions by the defendant be proper in federal court? The defendant moves before answering to drop a misjoined party pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion is granted. The defendant then moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Is the motion proper? a The second motion is improper and the personal jurisdiction is waived. b The second motion is proper because it was pursuant to Rule 21, not 12 (unless it was somehow waived by conduct).

YES OR NO: Consider the following the standard for determining whether a claim is legally sufficient (i.e., to withstand a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6)): "A complaint should not be dismissed for a failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that no set of facts in support of the [plaintiff's] claim which would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief." Is this the proper standard today? a Yes, this is still a proper statement of the law--see Conley v. Gibson. b No, this is no longer a proper statement of the law--see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley.

Assume that a local owner and an out-of-town owner of adjoining properties dispute the location of a boundary line between their respective properties. The out-of-town owner has announced that a crew is coming tomorrow to cut the trees down. The trees are old oak trees. and the adjoining landowner has gone to federal district court to seek a temporary restraining order to stop the out-of-town owner's crew from cutting the trees. Who is authorized to serve the TRO on the defendant? (Recall that to obtain a TRO, a party must convince the judge that the party will suffer immediate irreparable injury unless the order is issued; if the judge is convinced that a temporary restraining order is necessary, the judge may issue the order immediately, without informing the other parties and without holding a hearing and before the complaint and summons are served on the defendant. For purposes of this question you can assume that there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy is met.) Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party to the litigation. b The United States marshal or deputy marshal. c Any person specially appointed for that purpose. [Although not specified further in the text of Federal Rule 4.1(a) the person appointed will be "presumably a law enforcement officer" according the U.S. Marshal Service website.] d Any person of suitable age or discretion who does not reside in the plaintiff's household. e All of the above answers identify persons who are authorized to serve the TRO on the defendant.

B, C

On which two of the following policies was ancillary jurisdiction based? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a The policy that a state law should be tried in federal court if it raises a novel or complex issue of state law. b The policy of avoiding unfairness of having to adjudicate factually related claims in separate actions. c The policy of judicial efficiency: related claims should be adjudicated at the same time. d The policy that a federal court should try state law claims when they substantially predominate over the claim or claims over which the federal court has original jurisdiction.

B, C

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there are more than one type of intervention. What are those types of intervention called? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a Intervention as a matter of course. b Intervention as of right. c Permissive intervention. d Equitable intervention.

B, C

Certain matters do not need to be alleged at all unless it is necessary to show the federal district court has jurisdiction over the action. According to Federal Rule 9, which of the following do NOT have to be alleged at all unless a party is disputing them. Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a Special damages. b A party's capacity to sue or be sued. c The legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party. d A party's authority to sue or be sued in a representative capacity.

B, C, D

Federal Rule 9 contains several rules dealing with pleading special matters. Two of the rules, Rule 9(b) and Rule 9(g), deal with matters that must be pleaded with particularity or specially stated. Which of the following, if any, MUST be pleaded WITH PARTICULARITY OR SPECIFICALLY STATED? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a The circumstances constituting negligence in an auto accident case b The affirmative defense states that both parties to the contract relied on a mistaken assumption when entering the contract; thereby making the contract void c At least some of the following in a fraud case: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer's intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party's ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party's reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party's right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party's consequent and proximate injury d Lost wages or medical expenses in a personal injury case

B, C, D

According to Federal Rule 1, how are the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to be construed, administered, and employed by the courts and the parties to the litigation? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a To determine whether an individual or entity committed an unlawful act and the appropriate punishment. b To secure the speedy determination of every civil action and proceeding. c To secure the inexpensive determination of every civil action and proceeding. d To encourage the parties to bring civil actions to determine disputes between parties rather than resorting to self-help or violence or arbitration.. e To secure the just determination of every civil action and proceeding.

B, C, E

In a contract, a condition precedent is an event which must take place before a party to a contract must perform or do their part. In a deed to real property, a condition precedent is an event which has to occur before the title (or other right) to the property will actually be in the name of the party receiving title. How are conditions precedent handled for purposes of pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 9(c))? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a A condition must be stated in full and it is considered to be material when testing the sufficiency of a pleading. b In pleading conditions precedent it suffices to allege generally that all conditions precedent have occurred or been performed. c A pleading need not allege conditions precedent except when required to show that the court has jurisdiction. d A party seeking to deny that a condition precedent has occurred or been performed must do so with particularity.

B, D

In addition to the other class action requirements, Federal Rule 23(b)(3) (the so-called damages class action), has two additional specific requirements designed to ensure that a class action is truly a more efficient means of resolving multiple individual claims. What are those two requirements? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a The pleadings must not contain allegations about representation of absent persons. b The questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. c Class counsel must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the entire class. d The class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

B, D

Assume a Rule 11 sanction is based on a contention which was not warranted by existing law and it was a frivolous argument for changing the law. Can the client also be sanctioned for this violation in addition to the client's attorney? a Yes, the client is responsible for all actions taken on the client's behalf and thus is liable for sanctions as well. b Yes, the client can be sanctioned because it is the client's obligation to employ a competent attorney. c No, only the attorney can be sanctioned as specifically set out by Federal Rule 11(c)(5)(A). d Answers A and B, above, are both correct.

Assume that D serves an answer containing a counterclaim denominated as such. How many days does P have to serve an answer to the counterclaim (see Federal Rule 12(a)(1)(C))? a 7 days b 14 days c 21 days d 28 days

Assume that P has alleged in P's complaint the following in a U.S. District Court: "On June 1, 20xx, in a public highway called Main Street in the City of Metropolis in State X, defendant D-1 or defendant D-2, or both defendants D-1 and D-2, willfully or recklessly or negligently drove, or caused to be driven, an automobile against plaintiff who was then crossing the highway." Assume that D-1's answer to P's complaint contained the following allegation: "Defendant admits that P was injured while crossing a public highway called Main Street in the City of Metropolis in State X on June 1, 20xx. Defendant D-1 did not wilfully or recklessly or negligently drive or caused to be driven an automobile against the plaintiff." Is this denial is proper? a It is improper because it is an argumentative denial. b It is improper because D-1 should have asserted the substance of this allegation in the form of an affirmative defense. c It is technically "pregnant" with the admission that D-1 wilfully or recklessly or negligently hit P with something (such as a truck rather than an automobile); however, the denial is still probably proper under Federal Rule 8(b). d It is improper because P's allegations, except those as to the amount of damage, are automatically taken as denied or avoided unless they are admitted because all pleadings are construed as to do substantial justice.

Assume that P sued D-1 and D-2 in a diversity action in federal court based on D-1 and D-2's alleged negligence. Assume further that D-1 and D-2 properly raised the statute-of-limitations issue in their response to P's complaint. Under these circumstances, what, if anything, would P be required to do by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? a P would be required to serve a reply because the statute-of-limitations defense is "new matter." b P would be be required to serve an answer because under the restyled Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there must always be an answer to a counterclaim. c P would not be required to do anything; allegations in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted are taken as denied or avoided. d P would not be required to do anything; however, the statute-of-limitations defense would be taken as admitted unless P sought permission from the court to serve a reply avoiding this defense.

Assume that S, a storage company, is storing some diamonds. C-1 and C-2 both claim to be entitled to the diamonds worth $500,000. Assume that S is a citizen of State X and its principal place of business is also in State X. Assume that C-1 is a citizen of State Y and that C-2 is a citizen of State Z. What type of interpleader action is available to resolve the ownership issue, if it is at all? a Rule interpleader b Statutory interpleader c S can choose between statutory or rule pleader under these circumstances. d Neither rule nor statutory interpleader is available under these circumstances.

Assume that a defendant properly objects on the ground that the plaintiff is not old enough to sue in the plaintiff's own name based on Federal Rule 17(b). Assuming the the defendant is correct, what should the court do? a The court should dismiss the action. b The court may appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the minor if the court thinks it is necessary. c The court must appoint a guardian ad litem--or issue another appropriate order--to protect the minor. d The court can take the action described in either Answer A or Answer B, above.

Assume that a nine-year-old girl incurred unusually severe injuries when she sliced her finger on a Star-Kist can of tuna. She sued Star-Kist in a diversity action in federal district court based on diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy that exceeded $75,000. Pursuant to Federal Rule 20, the girl's family joined in the suit, seeking $20,000 in damages for emotional distress and certain medical expenses. Star-Kist concedes the parties are diverse, but Star-Kist objects on the ground that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking when any of the plaintiffs joined by Rule 20 fail to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. Why are these facts an example of the "Rule 20 gap" under § 1367(a) & (b)? a Section 1367(a) allows the action to go forward because the girl's family claims are part of the same Article III case or controversy. b Section 1367(b) only prohibits jurisdictionally insufficient claims founded solely on § 1332 against defendants who are joined by Rule 20; here, there is a single defendant and the language of § 1367(b) doesn't prohibit claims by diverse plaintiffs joined by Rule 20 when one of them has an insufficient amount in controversy. c Answers A and B, above, taken together, are correct.

Assume that the defendant wants to ask for dismissal because there is another pending action between the same parties for the same cause. This prior pending action is not apparent on the face of the complaint. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what should the defendant do? a The defendant should deny the allegations in the complaint because they have already been alleged in a prior pending action. b The defendant should move to strike the allegations in the complaint because they are redundant. c The defendant should assert this defense as an affirmative defense in the defendant's answer because this defense falls within the general language of Rule 8(c) requiring a party to "affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense." d The defendant should move for summary judgment.

Assume that the defendant wants to object on the ground that the an action has not been brought in the name of the person who actually possesses the substantive right being asserted and actually has a legal right to enforce the claim (under applicable substantive law). What is this objection called under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? a Lack of capacity to sue. b Lack of standing. c Failure to sue in the name of the real party in interest. d Improper joinder of parties.

Federal Rule 12(a) provides the time periods for responding to the complaint. How many days does an individual who is not a U.S. government employee have to respond after being served with the summons and complaint? a 14 days b 20 days c 21 days d 28 days

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d) authorizes inconsistent pleading. What is the effect of inconsistent pleading? a Because Federal Rule 8(d) protects a party's right to plead inconsistent claims or defenses, statements made in those claims or defenses cannot generally be offered as evidentiary admissions with respect to other claims or defenses within the same pleading containing inconsistent or alternative averments (allegations). b If one of the inconsistent positions taken by the pleader is accepted by the court, the pleader may be foreclosed by "judicial estoppel" from taking inconsistent, contrary positions in subsequent proceedings. [For your own information, judicial estoppel occurs when (1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.] c Both answers A and B, above, are accurate statements. d Neither answers A and B, above, are accurate statements.

I, a life insurance company, is incorporated in State X and with its principal place of business in State Y. I insured H. H died and H's two "wives" are claiming the policy proceeds. Assume W-1 is a citizen of State Z, and W-2 is a citizen of State Z. The amount of the policy is $75,000. I wants to bring an interpleader action in federal court, joining the claimants, W-1 and W-2, as defendants. It is especially important to I that I does not have to deposit the policy proceeds with the court while the action is pending. What form of interpleader action should I use? a I should use rule interpleader because normal diversity requirements are met and the deposit of the stake is not ordinarily required. b I should use statutory interpleader because I is a citizen of State X and Y and W-1 and W-2 are citizens of State Z; there is no overlap between citizenship of the parties on each side of the lawsuit (I vs. C-1 and C-2) and the amount in controversy exceeds $500; statutory interpleader does not ordinarily require the stakeholder to deposit the stake into the registry of the court. c I cannot use either rule or statutory interpleader because the claimants are not diverse; I cannot use rule interpleader because the amount in controversy is too low.

In judging a wide range of possible conduct alleged in a complaint, much of it innocent and possibly highly unlikely, the allegations must be specific enough to reach a level of certainty so that they can be assumed to be true for purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). What is that level? a Conceivable b Possible c Plausible d Probable

In order to achieve a single issue of law or fact, common-law pleading prohibited various kinds of pleading. Recall that the way a defendant denied facts in a common-law action was by means of a traverse. Assume that P alleged that D hit P over the head with a lead pipe. Assume that D traversed by alleging that "D did not hit P over the head with a lead pipe." What would the traverse be said to contain? a A confession and avoidance b An argumentative denial c A negative pregnant d A replication

P sues D in a U.S. District Court. P alleges that E, D's employee, negligently ran P down while P was crossing a certain highway. Shortly after the alleged accident, E was killed in a motor vehicle accident with another party. Therefore, there is no witness to the alleged accident other than P. D has no direct evidence whether E ran P down or not, but D believes P may have faked the accident after P learned that E had been killed. D provides D's attorney with information that P is not a credible witness and can be effectively impeached at trial. Assume that D's attorney denied the facts of the accident in D's answer in an appropriate fashion. At a later date, however, D's attorney finds a neutral witness who saw E run D down as alleged by P. What are the attorney's obligations under Federal Rule 11 after discovery of the witness? a D can continue to deny the accident occurred because P is not a credible witness and can be effectively impeached at trial. b D must amend D's answer admitting that the accident occurred. c D need not amend D's answer, but D can no longer deny the allegation that E ran P down consistently with Rule 11.

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P lost consciousness immediately as a result of being hit and has had difficulty remembering exactly what happened. Based on the information that P was able to give to P's attorney, it is possible that either D-1 or D-2 were responsible for P's injuries. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2. Assume D-1 thinks that P lacks the capacity to sue because of the mental injuries that P suffered as a result of the accident. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as restyled, how should this issue be raised? a The issue would be raised by D-1's denial of the paragraphs of the complaint describing P's claim. b The issue should be raised by a preanswer motion pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(7) because P has failed to join a required party, viz., a "guardian ad litem" or "next friend." c The issue must be raised by a specific denial in D-1's answer; D-1 must include such supporting facts as are peculiarly within D-1's knowledge. d The issue should be raised by a general averment in D-1's answer because (as provided by Rule 9(b)) "conditions of the mind of a person may be averred generally."

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2 based on their alleged negligence. Assume that D-1 wants to assert that P signed a release of all claims against D-1 in return for a substantial monetary payment prior to P's commencement of the action against D-1 and D-2; thus, D-1 maintains that D-1 owes P nothing. To raise this issue, what should D-1 do? a D-1 should serve a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that P's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because it has already been settled. b D-1 should assert it as a compulsory counterclaim in D-1's answer. c D-1 should assert the release in D-1's answer as an affirmative defense pursuant to Federal Rule 8(c). d D-1 should use a general denial in D-1's answer. e D-1 should serve a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(1) on the ground that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because P's complaint does not belong in federal court because it has already been settled.

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2 based on their alleged negligence. Assume that prior to commencing the action, P has not been able to develop any evidence that D-1 or D-2 had acted in the manner alleged because P had, despite reasonable efforts, been unable to interview W, who was the only independent witness to the accident. P believes that W will be available for an interview in the future, but P fears that the statute of limitations may run before P can conduct that interview. Which of the possible courses of action listed below should P follow? a P must wait to commence the action; P must interview W or find some other basis to support P's allegations; otherwise, P will violate Federal Rule 11. b P should request an extension of time under Federal Rule 6(b) because P has "good cause"; a motion for an extension of time automatically tolls the statute of limitations. c P should specifically identify the allegations as ones that will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. d P should commence the action but not sign the complaint; in this way, P can avoid certifying to the best of P's knowledge, information, and belief that the factual contentions in the complaint have evidentiary support.

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D caused P in connection with the accident. Assume that P received a severe head injury as a result of the accident and that D believes P is unable to conduct the litigation rationally. What objection should D make and how should it be made? a D should move to drop P under Federal Rule 21 because P is a misjoined party. b D should move to dismiss P's action pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(7) on the ground that a guardian is a required party. c D should a party must do so by a specific denial in D's answer, which must state any supporting facts that are peculiarly within the party's knowledge. d D should move to dismiss the action if P has failed to not allege P's capacity to sue or be sued in P's complaint. e Answers C and D are both correct.

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D caused P in connection with the accident. D moves to dismiss P's action on the ground that P has failed to join a mandatory ("required") party, X, because X was also at fault. Should D's motion be granted? a Yes, because D and X are joint tortfeasors and they are mandatory (required) parties in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties. b Yes, because D maintains that P's injury resulted from a single accident caused by the simple negligence of more than one person, X is a required a party; D's motion should be granted if joinder of X was feasible. c No, joint tortfeasors are not mandatory parties and D's motion should be denied. d Answers A and B, above, are both correct.

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury. P's complaint alleges D "negligently" caused the accident. D moves to dismiss P's action on the ground that P's complaint fails to state a claim for relief because P's complaint does not specify how D had been negligent. Should D's motion be granted? a Yes, because P needs to give D "fair notice" of P's claim by specifying the manner in which D had been negligent. b Yes, because D is an excellent driver and thus it is not plausible that D had been negligent in the circumstances of this case. c No, because the allegation of negligence is considered to be sufficient to put D on notice of the nature of P's claim and the nature of D's breach of duty. d No, because D should have moved for judgment on the pleadings.

P, D-1, and D-2 have a three-car automobile accident in which all the parties suffer personal injuries. Assume P properly sues D-1 and D-2 in a U.S. District Court to recover for P's personal injuries received in the accident. P alleges that either D-1 or D-2, or both, were negligent and caused P's injuries. D-1 believes that the accident was caused solely by D-2's negligence. Is it possible for D-1 to assert a claim for negligence against D-2 in P's lawsuit? a Yes, D-1 should assert a counterclaim against D-2. b Yes, D-1 should assert a third-party complaint against D-2. c Yes, D-1 should assert a crossclaim against D-2. d No, D-1 must assert a claim against D-2 in a separate action.

P, a citizen of State X, and D, a citizen of State Y, were involved in an automobile accident in State Z. P was severely injured in the accident. P commenced a negligence action for $500,000 in a U.S. District Court in State X against D. Assume that P would like to have a jury trial in this action. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what should or must P do? a P need not do anything because the right is automatically granted in all cases in which a right to trial by jury is available. b P must indicate the specific issues on which P wants a jury trial in P's demand not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to those issues; otherwise, P's right to a jury trial will be deemed waived. c P may endorse the demand for a jury trial in P's complaint; if P does not specify the specific issues on which P wants a jury trial in that demand, P's demand will be deemed to be one for trial by jury for all the issues so triable. d P must make a demand for a jury trial in a timely manner; however, if P later decides against having a jury trial in the action, P may unilaterally withdraw P's demand provided such a withdrawal will not cause a postponement of the trial date.

P, a citizen of State X, and D-1, a citizen of State Y, were friends. P and D-1 were on a cross-country trip in D-1's automobile when D-1, who was driving, collided with an automobile owned and operated by D-2, a citizen of State Z. The accident occurred in State Q. Four months after the accident, D-1 was visiting P. P and D-1 got in a heated argument about a matter unrelated to the auto accident. As a result of the altercation, both P and D-1 ended up with gunshot wounds. P has now commenced a negligence action for $500,000 against D-1 and D-2 in U.S. District Court. P's complaint asserts that D-1 and D-2 were both negligent and that they are liable for P's injuries resulting from the auto accident. Assume that P wanted to initially assert a battery claim against D-1 (based on the altercation) in the same action as P's negligence claim. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, could P do so? a P would be permitted to join this claim with P's negligence claim only if (1) these claims arose out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and (2) there is a question of law or fact common to the claims. b P would be permitted to join this claim with P's negligence claim because both claims are within the same legal category (i.e., torts). c P would be permitted to join this claim with P's negligence because Federal Rule 18 provides for unrestricted joinder of claims against opposing parties. d P would not be permitted to join this claim because the relief demanded is not against all the defendants in the action.

P, a citizen of State X, sues D-1 and D-2 in a U.S. District Court for the District of State Y. Both D-1 and D-2 are citizens of State Y. P's complaint alleges P was injured as a result of D-1 and D-2's negligent conduct based on state tort law. P's claim against D-1 is for $100,000. P's claim against D-2 is for $50,000. Under § 1367(a) & (b), is there federal jurisdiction over this action? a Yes, because all of the requirements of § 1367(a) are met (i.e., complete diversity and the plaintiffs' claims are factually related) and jurisdiction is not withdrawn by the terms of § 1367(b). b No, because P's claim contaminates P's claim and thus the action fails to meet the requirement of § 1367(a); thus, there is no need to consider whether the action is prohibited by § 1367(b) . c No, because although all of the requirements of § 1367(a) are met (i.e., complete diversity and the plaintiffs' claims are factually related), jurisdiction is withdrawn by the terms of § 1367(b) because (1) the case involves multiple defendants (and not multiple plaintiffs) joined pursuant to Rule 20 and (2) the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met with regard to one claim (and that violates diversity policies). d No, because only federal claims can serve as "freestanding claims."

P, a citizen of State X, sues D-1 and D-2 in a U.S. District Court for the District of State Y. Both D-1 and D-2 are citizens of State Y. P's complaint alleges P was injured as a result of D-1 and D-2's negligent conduct based on state tort law. P's claim against D-1 is for $100,000. P's claim against D-2 is for $50,000. Under § 1367(a) & (b), is there federal jurisdiction over this action? a Yes, because all of the requirements of § 1367(a) are met (i.e., complete diversity and the plaintiffs' claims are factually related) and jurisdiction is not withdrawn by the terms of § 1367(b). b No, because P's claims against D-1 and D-2 "contaminate" the action under § 1367(a) and thus the action fails to meet the requirement of § 1367(a); there is no need to consider whether the action is prohibited by § 1367(b). c No, because although all of the requirements of § 1367(a) are met (i.e., complete diversity and the plaintiffs' claims are factually related), jurisdiction is withdrawn by the terms of § 1367(b) because (1) the case involves multiple defendants (and not multiple plaintiffs) joined pursuant to Rule 20 and (2) the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met with regard to one claim (and that violates diversity policies). d No, because only federal claims can serve as "freestanding claims."

P, a citizen of Texas, sues D-1, a citizen of California, in a U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida. P asserts a federal antitrust claim for price fixing based on a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 and seeks to recover treble damages in the amount of $5,000,000. In addition, using Federal Rule 20, P joins a factually related breach-of-contract claim arising under state law in the amount of $55,000 against D-2, a citizen of Texas. Based on these facts, which of the following best describes the jurisdiction of the federal district court? a The federal district court has original jurisdiction over all claims without the need to resort to the use of supplemental jurisdiction. b Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are not satisfied; therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over at least some of the asserted claims. c Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, and reference to § 1367(b) is not needed; the court has jurisdiction over all the asserted claims. (Here, the key is the fact that P's action is based on federal law and the action against D-2 is an example of pendent party jurisdiction.) d The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, but the restrictions in § 1367(b) destroy jurisdiction. e The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied; in addition, none of the restrictions in § 1367(b) apply; the federal district court has jurisdiction over all of the asserted claims.

P-1, a citizen of State X, was a passenger on D-1 Airline Flight 007. D-1 is incorporated in State Y and its principal place of business is in State Z. P-1 was severely injured when Flight 007 landed at an airport in State Q. The airplane veered off the runway and crashed into a vehicle carrying baggage owned by Airline D-2 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State Y). One possible cause of the accident was a sudden failure of the brakes on the right side of the airplane. The brakes (and hydraulic system) were serviced by an independent contractor, D-3 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State S). Another possible cause might have been pilot error, specifically by pilot D-4, a citizen of State Q. Still another contributing cause might be the negligence of the driver of the vehicle carrying the luggage, D-5, a citizen of State X. (Had the vehicle not been at that location, the plane would likely have stopped without hitting anything, and thus the damages would have probably been minimal.) P-1 has now sued D-1 in U.S. District Court in State Q. P-1 seeks to recover $500,000 as compensation for P-1's injuries. Under the applicable law, tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. Assume that P-1 had properly assigned P-1's right of action arising from this crash to P-2. Who is the proper party to bring this action? a P-1, because P-1 was the person injured, not P-2. b P-1, because P-1 still has the capacity to sue. c P-2, because P-2 is now the real party in interest. d P-2, because P-2 is a necessary party.

Rule 11 sanctions can be initiated is by a "sua sponte" order of the judge. Which of the following descriptions MOST LIKELY explains what "sua sponte" mean? a Latin that literally means 'from [the] stronger" and it is used to suggest that an argument is based on another argument so strong as to make it unanswerable. b Latin that means "of our own accord" and it is used by the court itself when the action is taken by a multi-member court, such as an appellate court, rather than by a single judge c Latin that means "of one's own accord; voluntarily" and it is used to indicate that a court has taken notice of an issue on its own motion without prompting or suggestion from either party. d Latin that describes an action taken by the court without strict legal authority to do so, but it is recognized as legally valid nonetheless

S Insurance Co. is incorporated in State X and also has its principal place of business in State X. C-1, a citizen of State X and C-2, a citizen of State Y, are both demanding payment of $500,000, the amount of a life insurance policy issued to H, who is now deceased. The policy proceeds were to be paid to H's "wife." H had been previously married to both C-1 and C-2. However, H had divorced from both C-1 and C-2 several years ago. Assume that S admits it owes the policy proceeds to someone. Assume that C-2 has sued S in a state court in State Y to recover the policy proceeds. S removes the action to a federal district court in State Y. S then moves to dismiss the action on the ground that C-2 has failed to join a required party, C-1. Should S's motion be granted? a S's motion should be granted because (1) complete relief cannot be awarded in the action and (2) C-1's joinder would deprive the court of jurisdiction over the action. b S's motion should granted because (1) C-1 is a person who claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and would leave S with a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations and (2) C-1's joinder would deprive the court of jurisdiction over the action; as provided by Rule 13 c S's motion should denied because (1) C-1 is a person who claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and would leave S with a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations but (2) Rule 13(h) provides for joinder of additional parties to a counterclaim; and (3) C-1's joinder is feasible by means of a counterclaim against C-2 and C-1 for "statutory" interpleader. d S's motion should denied because C-1 is not a person who must be joined if feasible.

S Insurance Co. is incorporated in State X and also has its principal place of business in State X. C-1, a citizen of State X and C-2, a citizen of State Y, are both demanding payment of $500,000, the amount of a life insurance policy issued to H, who is now deceased. The policy proceeds were to be paid to H's "wife." H had been previously married to both C-1 and C-2. However, H had divorced from both C-1 and C-2 several years ago. Assume that S is not claiming that S admits it owes the policy proceeds to someone. Assume that C-1 has sued S in a state court in State X to recover the policy proceeds. Assume also that C-2 has brought a similar suit against S in State Y. S wants to bring an interpleader action against C-1 and C-2 in federal court. What type of action would be the most effective one for S to use? a S should use "rule" interpleader because S would be able to use nationwide service of process available only through "rule" interpleader. b S should use "rule" interpleader because S does not claim that S is entitled to keep the policy proceeds. c S should use "statutory" interpleader because "statutory" interpleader permits the federal district court to enjoin the claimants from continuing actions in any state or federal court concerning the property (policy proceeds). d S should use a declaratory judgment action because injunctive relief against inconsistent actions pursuant to declaratory judgments actions is an express exception to the Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283).

S Insurance Co. issued a policy of automobile insurance to A. Subsequently, A is involved in an automobile accident with C-1 and C-2, both of whom are injured in the accident. C- and C-2 each claim the $100,000 face amount of the policy. A's negligence is conceded by everyone, but S argues that it owes nothing under the policy because the policy terms did not cover the accident. S claims in the alternative that even if it is liable on the policy, C-1 and C-2 ought to be forced to interplead because their claims exceed the total amount of its liability under the policy. Under the traditional approach to interpleader (as summarized by Pomeroy), would interpleader have been allowed in this action? a Yes, because there is a substantial need for interpleader under these circumstances. b No, because The same thing, debt, or duty must be claimed by both or all the parties against whom the relief is demanded. c No, because the stakeholder is claiming an interest in the subject matter by disputing liability on the grounds that the policy does not cover the accident. d No, because the person seeking relief must have incurred no independent liability to either of the claimants; that is, that person must stand perfectly indifferent between them, in the position merely of a stakeholder.

Subrogation is the right of an insurer to legally pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to the insured. This is done as a means of recovering the amount of the claim paid by the insurance carrier to the insured for the loss. Under the normal rules of subrogation, the insurer "owns the claim" when it has paid the insured's entire claim. When the insurer has not paid any of the claim, the insured retains ownership of the claim. If the insurer has paid part of the claim, either the insured or the insurer can sue, and the other can intervene to protect its prorata share of the recovery. Assume that I, an insurer, agreed to insure P against all property damage P might suffer in automobile accidents. The insurance agreement has a typical subrogation provision. Subsequently, P and D are involved in an automobile accident and P's car is damaged. In a suit against D for the damage to P's automobile, who is the real party in interest if I has paid part, but not all, of P's claim? a I is the real party in interest because it has paid part of the P's claim and thus has subrogation rights. b P is the real party in interest because not all of P's claim has been paid. c Both I and P are real parties in interest and can sue for the reasons stated in Answers A and B.

The defendant answers the complaint by a general denial in federal court. The defendant then moves to strike scandalous matter from the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 12(f). Would the motion by the defendant be proper? a Rule 12(f) technically bars the motion if the defendant has already answered. b The court may strike the matter on its own initiative. c Answers A and B, above, are both correct.

The former doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction are now embodied in what statutory doctrine? a Additional jurisdiction b Secondary jurisdiction c Supplemental jurisdiction d Subordinate jurisdiction

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, how should the defendant respond to the complaint if the defendant believes that the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the accident? a D should move to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)). b D should deny P's negligence in D's answer (Rule 8(b)(1)). c D should raise the plaintiff's contributory negligence in D's answer (Rule 8(c)(1)). d D should immediately move for summary judgment (Rule 56).

Under the standards set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what requirements must the plaintiff's pleading meet? Multiple answers:Multiple answers are accepted for this question Select one or more answers and submit. For keyboard navigation...SHOW MORE a The complaint must contain ultimate facts as opposed to legal conclusions. b The complaint must state facts constituting a cause of action. c The complaint must give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. d The complaint must not not plead evidence.

What is the type of action brought by a stockholder of a corporation or a member of an unincorporated association to enforce a right of action belonging to the corporation or association called? a A corporate class action. b A settlement class action. c A derivative action. d A mass corporate action.

Which of the following is NOT a method for enforcing the burden of proof against P, the plaintiff, at trial? a A directed verdict (judgment as a matter of law) b An involuntary dismissal (judgment as a matter of law) c A summary judgment (no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law) d A judgment not withstanding the verdict (judgment as a matter of law) e All of the above constitute methods of enforcing the burden of proof at trial.

Which of the following is NOT an affirmative defense? a Assumption of risk b Laches c Special damages d Mitigation of damages

Assume that P is involved in a four-car collision and suffers significant damages. P sues the other three drivers, D-1, D-2, and D-3, for $300,000 in a U.S. District Court based on diversity jurisdiction. P's complaint alleges that D-1, D-2, and D-3 were negligent. D-1 believes that the accident was solely caused by P's negligence and that P is liable for D-1's damages. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what should D-1 do to assert D-1's claim for damages? a D-1 should move to dismiss P's action on the ground that it fails to state a claim for relief since P was the negligent party. b D-1 should deny D-1's negligence. c D-1 should assert a permissive counterclaim against P in D-1's answer. d D-1 should assert a counterclaim against P in D-1's answer; it is a compulsory counterclaim.

Assume that S, a storage company, is storing some diamonds. C-1 and C-2 both claim to be entitled to the diamonds worth $50,000. Assume that S is a citizen of State X and its principal place of business is also in State X. Assume that C-1 is a citizen of State Y and that C-2 is a citizen of State Y. What type of interpleader action is available to resolve the ownership issue, if it is at all? a Rule interpleader b Statutory interpleader c S can choose between statutory or rule pleader under these circumstances. d Neither rule nor statutory interpleader is available under these circumstances.

Assume that a party serves a complaint that does not state an item of special damage. What are the possible consequences of failing to claim that item of special damage by stating it in the complaint? a Failure to state that item of special damages may result in the court barring recovery of those damages. b Because there is no timing requirement stated in Rule 9(g), the court may grant leave to amend the complaint to include the omitted item or items. c The court is likely to excuse or liberally construe a weakly pleaded special damages allegation when the opposing is not unfairly surprised or actually prejudiced by the omission. d All of the above answers identify possible consequences.

Assume that a plaintiff has alleged that defendant's negligent conduct caused the plaintiff's injuries. The defendant, however, wants to show that the defendant was out of town on the date of the accident. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what should the defendant do? a The defendant should move to dismiss for improper venue in a pre-answer motion. b The defendant should use a denial in the defendant's answer if the defendant's position is that the accident never occurred. c The defendant should admit the occurrence but deny the date if the defendant's position is that the accident occurred but not on the date alleged in the complaint. d Answers B and C, above, are correct.

Assume that plaintiff sends a notice and request for waiver of serve prescribed by Federal Rule (4)(d) to the defendant. The defendant does not return the waiver as requested. The plaintiff then has the defendant served with process. However, by the time the defendant is served, the applicable statute of limitations had run. The defendant asserts that the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in the defendant's answer because the applicable law requires the action to be commenced by personal service of the summons on the defendant within the statutory period. Is this defense good? a The defense is good because the statute of limitations has run because it requires for tolling that the action be commenced by personal service of process on the defendant within the statutory period, and not simply by the filing of the action with the court within the statutory period. b This defense is good because Rule 4(d)(4) provides that when the waiver is filed, the action shall proceed as if the summons and complaint had been served at the time of filing the waiver, the statute would clearly run here. Only if the statute is tolled by the defendant=s receipt of notice of commencement or is tolled by filing the action itself would the waiver process seem safe. c The defense is not good; otherwise, it would be a trap for the unwary. d Answers A and B above, taken together, provide a good explanation of why the defense is good.

Assume that the defendant believes that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claim because the amount in controversy is insufficient to meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what can happen? a The defendant can raise subject-matter defects by a Rule 12(b)(1) pre-answer motion. b The defendant can place the objection to subject-matter jurisdiction in the defendant's answer. c The court can raise the issue on its own initiative. d Any of the above can happen.

Assume that the jury awards the plaintiff six million dollars in an action in federal district court. The judge enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount. However, when the plaintiff receives a copy of the judgment, it reads that the plaintiff has been awarded $600,000. What should P do to correct this mistake? a P should move for a new trial based on the error if the plaintiff believes that $600,000 is clearly inadequate. b P should move to reopen the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 60(b) on the grounds of fraud or mistake. c P should appeal because of the error. d P should move to amend the judgment to correct the clerical error pursuant to Federal Rule 60(a); unlike motions under Rule 60(b), there is no time limit stated in the Rule for making this motion.

Before filing filing, submitting, or later advocating a pleading, written motion, or other paper, Federal Rule 11 imposes an obligation to make a inquiry that (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information. Which of the following statements accurately describe that inquiry? a The inquiry was "reasonable" under the circumstances of the case. b The attorney may not rely on information provided by the client because it is likely to be biased. c The standard for judging where the inquiry was appropriate is an objective standard. d Answers A and C, above, taken together, accurately describe that inquiry. e Answers A, B, and C. above, taken together, accurately describe that inquiry.

Federal Rule 10(c) permits adoption by reference in the same pleading or in any other pleading or motion. It also provides that a copy of a written instrument [e.g., a contract] that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes. Which of the following BEST describes what these provisions mean and/or their value in practice? a Adoption by reference refers to the act where an adult formally becomes the guardian of a child and incurs the rights and obligations of a parent for purposes of litigation. b An adoption reference is a testament to what characteristics a litigant has to demonstrate that person would be a good litigant. c Adoption by reference is the same thing as taking judicial notice of adjudicative facts. [Judicial notice is used by a court when it declares a fact presented as evidence as true without a formal presentation of evidence.] d One often overlooked, but widely used and awesome provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the little subsection that allows incorporation or adoption by reference; thanks to Federal Rule 10(c), lawyers don't have to pay someone to retype out whole contracts or other documentary evidence for use in complaints or other pleadings; they also don't have to pay someone to retype allegations used in multiple places in a pleading.

Federal Rule 8(d) states that "no technical form is required." What is the purpose of this provision? a Rather than relying on technical pleading, the notice theory is designed to eliminate needless battles over form or technicalities which delay a trial on the merits or in some cases resulted in the loss of a meritorious claim. b Under simplified pleading, cases are expected to "turn on their substantive merits rather than on the lawyers' technical and tactical skills. c Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the pleading stage is designed to avoid artful gamesmanship that was inherent in the age of writs, demurrers, rebutters, sur-rebutters, replies, etc. d All of the above answers reflect the intended purpose of the provision that "no technical technical form is required."

Federal Rule 81(c) sets how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure operate when an action is removed from a state court to a federal district court. (Recall that a defendant in a state court action can file a notice of removal in a federal district court when the plaintiff's action pending in state court fits within a grant of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and the defendant is not a citizen of the state where the state court action is pending.) Which of the following statements about removal are accurate? a A defendant who has not answered the complaint before removal must answer or present other defenses or objections under these rules within the longest of these periods: (A) 21 days after receiving—through service or otherwise—a copy of the initial pleading stating the claim for relief; (B) 21 days after being served with the summons for an initial pleading on file at the time of service; or (C) 7 days after the notice of removal is filed. b In a removed action, even if a jury trial has been properly demanded in state court, the party seeking a jury trial in federal court must "renew" that demand to establish the right to a jury trial in federal court. c For a defendant served with the complaint before removal, state law controls the timeliness of service; however, the 90-day time limit of Federal Rule 4(m) applies for defendants not served with the complaint prior to removal, which is possible in some states where only the summons is served (without the complaint); the 90-day deadline for service is calculated from the date of removal. d Answers A and C, above, are both correct. e Answers A, B, and C, above, are all correct.

Federal Rule 9(b) requires a party to state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake in an allegation. Assume that the opposing party believes that the pleading has not set out fraud or mistake with particularity as required by Rule 9(b). Which of the following courses of action is the LEAST likely method for successfully raising this deficiency? [In practice, a party may use more than one method in the alternative just to make sure that all bases are covered.] a A motion under Federal Rule 12(e) requesting a more definite statement. b A motion under Rule 12(f) to strike the allegation. c A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) [for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted]. d A motion for summary judgment. e All of the above methods are equally viable.

Federal statutes sometimes modify the "complete diversity" requirement of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). Which of the following actions would be permitted and/or would require special pleading to show that subject-matter jurisdiction is properly based on the cited statute? a Actions between two citizens or subjects of the same foreign state when no U.S. citizens are joined in the action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). b Actions based on the Class Action Fairness Act, which is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). c Actions based on federal statutory interpleader, which is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1335. d Answers B and C are correct. e Answers A, B, and C are correct.

For an individual within a judicial district of the United States, sufficient "tendering" may be accomplished by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(A)). Which of the following might be considered to be sufficient "tendering" of the process to the recipient when the recipient is physically confronted with service but refuses to take personal possession of the service documents? a Leaving the documents on a nearby table. b By placing the documents on the floor near the person. c By slipping the documents through the passenger side's window of the car as the driver (defendant) attempting to roll up the window. d All of the above are good possibilities.

For most actions, 28 U.S.C. § 1914 provides that the clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal, or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350 [and an "administrative" fee of $52]. How is this provision carried out in practice? Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer. a Some (but not all) federal courts require that all filing fees be paid prior to a lawsuit being considered commenced. b If a litigant cannot afford to pay the filing fees, it is possible for the litigant to proceed in forma pauperis [a Latin term meaning "in the manner of a pauper" and often referred to as "IFP" actions] without payment of filing fees. c Pro se [Latin for self or "in one's own behalf."] plaintiffs are given special treatment; for example, some courts will consider a lawsuit to be conditionally commenced upon the simultaneous filing of a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (provided that if the motion is subsequently denied, the filing fees are promptly paid). d All of the above answers reflect how the payment of filing fees is carried out in the federal district courts.

How is a civil action commenced in federal court? a To commence an action, a plaintiff must file a summons and complaint with the Clerk of Court where the action is brought. b Litigation is commenced when the claimant issues a "Claim Form" at court. This is a brief document that sets out the basis of the claim. The date of issue starts the "litigation clock" that sets various steps have to be taken within short timescales thereafter. c Proceedings are commenced by the plaintiff serving the defendant with a writ of summons ("Assignation") setting out the grounds of the plaintiff's claim and summoning the defendant to appear in court on a specific date. A list of evidentiary documents supporting the claim has to be attached to the writ. Counsel for the plaintiff then files an official copy of the served writ with the court. d A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.

In Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, the U.S. Supreme Court relied on the fact that Federal Rule 9(b) required particularity of pleading in two instances and the Latin expression "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius." What were the two areas of particularity and what does this Latin expression mean? a The areas were duress and estoppel, and the expression means "expression of one includes all others." b The areas were capacity to sue and conditions of the mind, and the expression means "expression of the former includes the latter." c The areas were special damages and waiver, and the expression means "expression of the whole includes all of its parts." d The areas were fraud and mistake, and the expression means "expression of the one is the exclusion of the other."

In addition to the methods specifically set out in the Federal Rule 4(h)(1)(B) for serving a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association, such entities may be served in any manner prescribed by Federal Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual. One of those ways set out is in any manner authorized "state law." Which state's law may be used? a "State law" refers to the law of the State in which the U.S. District Court sits. b "State law" refers to the law of the State in which service is to be accomplished. c "State law" refers to where the business entity is incorporated or legally organized. d Answers A and B are correct. e Answers A, B, and C are correct.

Members of damage class actions based on Federal Rule 23(b)(3) must receive what type of notice? a The best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. b A notice clearly and concisely states in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members. c Proper notice, the cost of which must be paid by the plaintiff. d All of the above are required.

P sues D in federal court using allegations identical to those in the abrogated Federal Form 10(c) (Complaint "For Goods Sold and Delivered") ("The defendant owes the plaintiff $ _ for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff from date to date"). D serves an answer denying the allegations of the complaint other than those relating to subject-matter jurisdiction. At trial, D attempts to offer proof that the goods delivered by P were defective and thus worthless. Under these circumstances, is D permitted to do? a D should be allowed to offer proof that the goods delivered by P were defective and worthless. D's answer gave P adequate notice of D's defenses. b D should not be allowed to offer proof that the goods delivered by P were defective and worthless. Rule 8(b)(2) requires the defending pleader to fairly meet the substance of the allegation. D's response has the effect of only denying that D bought the goods, that they were delivered, and that D owes P the amount claimed. c D should have admitted the purchase and delivery, denied D owes the money, and alleged affirmatively that the goods delivered by P were defective and thus worthless in order to give adequate notice of D's defenses. d Answers B and C, above, are correct.

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. Assume the plaintiff in a civil action in federal court serves a complaint containing the following paragraph: "On June 1, 20xx, in a public highway called Main Street in the City of Metropolis in State X, defendant D-1 or defendant D-2, or both defendants D-1 and D-2, willfully or recklessly or negligently drove, or caused to be driven, an automobile against plaintiff who was then crossing the highway." Assume that P at trial attempts to offer evidence concerning D-1's net worth on the ground that P is entitled to punitive damages because D-1 acted "willfully" in running down P. D-1 objects to this evidence because P did not request punitive damages in P's complaint (which is true). P's best argument that this evidence and recovery should be allowed is that punitive damages in this situation is a form of what kind of damages? a Special damages b Exceptional damages c Customary damages d General damages

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P lost consciousness immediately as a result of being hit and has had difficulty remembering exactly what happened. Based on the information that P was able to give to P's attorney, it is possible that either D-1 or D-2 were responsible for P's injuries. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2. Assume that D-1 and D-2 assert that the relevant statute of limitations applicable to P's claim is four years. Under the Federal Rules, if D-1 and D-2 want to raise the issue that P has waited too long to sue, what should D-1 and D-2 do? a D-1 and D-2 should serve a motion to strike P's complaint. b D-1 and D-2 should serve an answer containing a counterclaim. c D-1 and D-2 should assert a crossclaim raising the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. d D-1 and D-2 should serve an answer containing the following defense: "The plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations because it arose more than four years before this action was commenced"; D-1 and D-2 must state this defense separately if doing so would promote clarity. e D-1 and D-2 should deny the allegations of the complaint because allegations of time are material for purposes of testing the sufficiency of a pleading.

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2 based on their alleged negligence. Assume that D-1 wants to assert that P signed a release of all claims against D-1 in return for a substantial monetary payment prior to P's commencement of the action against D-1 and D-2; thus, D-1 maintains that D-1 owes P nothing. Assume that P did, in fact, sign the release. However, P believes that the release was procured by fraudulent statements made by D-1 inducing P to sign the release. Assume that P did not anticipate D-1's defense in P's complaint. Assume further that after D-1 serves the answer containing the release defense, there is no further pleading in the action. On this state of the record, P attempts to offer evidence at trial that the release was procured by fraud and that D-1 objects to the evidence. Under these circumstances, is the evidence admissible or inadmissible? a It is inadmissible because it is not within the issues framed by the pleadings. b It is inadmissible because P has not pleaded fraud with particularity. c It is admissible because Federal Rule 1 commands that the Rules be administered to secure the just determination of every action. d It is admissible because allegations in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required are considered denied or avoided.

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2 based on their alleged negligence. Assume that D-1 wants to assert that P signed a release of all claims against D-1 in return for a substantial monetary payment prior to P's commencement of the action against D-1 and D-2; thus, D-1 maintains that D-1 owes P nothing. Assume that P did, in fact, sign the release. However, P believes that the release was procured by fraudulent statements made by D-1 inducing P to sign the release. Assume that P did not anticipate D-1's release defense in P's complaint and that D-1 serves an answer containing the release defense. Assume further that the court orders P to plead in response and P wants to assert that the release was procured by fraud. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what can or must P do? a P can allege the fraud in general terms because malice and fraud may be averred generally. b P must allege the fraud by stating with particularity facts giving rise to a "strong inference" that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. c P must allege the fraud by providing enough facts to meet the "fair notice" standard, viz, by giving the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's assertion is and the grounds upon which it rests. d P must allege the circumstances constituting fraud with particularity.

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2 based on their alleged negligence. Assume that D-2 is served the summons and complaint by a process server. D-2 wants to raise the fact that D-2 is misnamed in the summons. How can D-2 do so? a By asserting a general denial in D-2's answer. b By asserting this defense in D-2's answer (assuming that D-2 has not previously made a motion under Rule 12). c By serving a motion to dismiss for insufficient process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4). d By taking either the action described in answer (B) or (C), at D-2's option.

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2 based on their alleged negligence. The first paragraph of P's complaint contained the following allegation: "Plaintiff is a resident of State X and defendants are residents of State Y. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars." D-1 and D-2 believe that P's allegation of subject-matter jurisdiction is defective even though it is true that the plaintiff is a resident of State X and defendants are residents of State Y. Under these circumstances, what could D-1 and D-2 do to raise this objection? a D-1 and D-2 could raise this issue by denying paragraph 1. b D-1 and D-2 could raise this objection by a preanswer motion; the motion would be granted. c D-1 and D-2 could raise this objection in their respective answers; the motion would be granted. d Answers (B) and (C) are both correct. e D-1 and D-2 could raise this objection in the manner described in answers (B) and (C); however, the motion would be denied because, for diversity purposes, it is residence, not citizenship, that counts.

P was crossing the street when P was injured in an accident. P's attorney commenced a diversity action in U.S. District Court on P's behalf against D-1 and D-2 based on their alleged negligence. The first paragraph of P's complaint contained the following allegation: "Plaintiff is a resident of State X and defendants are residents of State Y. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars." D-1 and D-2 believe that P's allegation of subject-matter jurisdiction is defective. Assume for purposes of this question that D-1 and D-2 properly raised a challenge P's allegations of subject-matter jurisdiction. Under Federal Rule 15 ("Amended and Supplemental Pleadings"), what could P do? a P could not do anything if D-1 and D-2 had served a responsive pleading raising the objection; the time for amendments will have passed; P's action would be dismissed with prejudice. b P could amend the complaint (by changing the words "resident(s)" to "citizen(s)") as a matter of course if D-1 and D-2's objection had been raised by preanswer motions (assuming that P had not previously amended the complaint) if P acts within 21 days after service of the motions. c P could seek leave to amend the complaint (by changing the words "resident(s)" to "citizen(s)") if this objection was raised in D-1 and D-2's answers if more than 21 days have elapsed since their answers were served. d P could take the action described in answers (B) and (C) because they are both correct. e P could seek the court's permission to serve a supplemental pleading with revised allegations.

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D and X in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D and X jointly caused P in connection with the accident. Will P be able to discover D and X's insurance coverage? a No, because the existence and extent of D and X's insurance coverage is not relevant to the trial on the merits of the case. b No, because the discovery of insurance could lead to an inflated verdict and thus would be unfair to the defendants. c Yes, but only the existence of insurance may be discovered; however, the terms and amount of the coverage are not subject to discovery. d Yes, because the facts of insurance coverage must be disclosed even without a discovery request.

P, D-1, and D-2 have a three-car automobile accident in which all the parties suffer personal injuries. P sues D-1 and D-2 in a U.S. District Court to recover for P's personal injuries received in the accident. P alleges that either D-1 or D-2 or both were negligent and caused P's injuries. D-1 believes that either P or D-2 or both were negligent and inflicted D-1's injuries. How should D-1 assert these claims? a D-1 should assert counterclaims against P and D-2; these claims are compulsory. b D-1 should assert crossclaims against P and D-2; these claims are permissive. c D-1 should assert a crossclaim against P and a counterclaim against D-2; the crossclaim is permissive, but the counterclaim is compulsory. d D-1 should assert a counterclaim against P and a crossclaim against D-2; the counterclaim is compulsory, but the crossclaim is permissive.

P, D-1, and D-2 have a three-car automobile accident in which all the parties suffer personal injuries. P sues D-1 in a U.S. District Court to recover for P's personal injuries received in the accident. P alleges that D-1 was negligent and caused P's injuries. D-1 believes that D-2 was the negligent party and that D-2 is liable for all or part of P's damages under the applicable law. How can D-1 assert this claim for contribution against D-2? a D-1 can assert a claim for contribution in a separate action against D-2. b D-1 can assert a claim for contribution by means of a third-party complaint. c D-1 can assert a claim for contribution by using interpleader. d D-1 can choose between the methods stated in Answers A and B, above, at D-1's option.

P, a citizen of State X, wants to sue D, a citizen of State Y, in the U.S. District Court for the District of State Y. P seeks $100,000 for personal injuries received in an accident suffered on property owned by D in State Y. P's complaint mistakenly names C, a citizen of State Y, as the defendant in the action. C is served two days after the action is commenced. Six months after the complaint is filed and the statute of limitations applicable to P's claim has run, P discovers that P has mistakenly named and served C, rather than D. P amends the complaint to drop C and substitute D. When D is served with process, it is the first time that D becomes aware of the action. Assume this situation appears to fail to meet the requirements of Federal Rule 15(c)(1)(C) (governing amendments changing the party or the naming of the party). Assume further that many others were hurt in the same accident and have already sued D within the statute of limitations period. Is there any other way that this amendment still could relate back? a Yes, if the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back. b Yes, if a court accepts the argument that in this situation notice of the other actions is enough to constitute "such notice of the action," provided P can show that D will not be prejudiced in any way in maintaining a defense on the merits. c No, P is out of luck in this situation. d Answers A and B, above, are both ways that the amendment could still relate back.

P, a citizen of State X, wants to sue D, a citizen of State Y, in the U.S. District Court for the District of State Y. P seeks $100,000 for personal injuries received in an accident suffered on property owned by D in State Y. P's complaint mistakenly names C, a citizen of State Y, as the defendant in the action. C is served two days after the action is commenced. Six months after the complaint is filed and the statute of limitations applicable to P's claim has run, P discovers that P has mistakenly named and served C, rather than D. P amends the complaint to drop C and substitute D. When D is served with process, it is the first time that D becomes aware of the action. Should the amendment relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C)? a The amendment should relate back because all of the requirements of Rule 15(c)(1)(C) have been met. b The amendment should not relate back because the claim asserted in the pleading did not arise out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out or attempted to be set out in the original pleading. c The amendment should not relate back because it did not change the party or the naming of the party whom a claim was asserted. d The amendment should not relate back because D did not receive notice of the action within the 90-day period provided by Rule 4(m).

P-1, a citizen of State X, and P-2, a citizen of State Y, join together using Rule 20 to sue D, a citizen of State Z, in a U.S. District Court for the District of State Z. P-1 and P-2's complaint alleges they were injured as a result of D negligent conduct in the same accident. P-1 and P-2's claims are based on state law. P-1's claim against D is for $100,000. P-2's claim against D is for $50,000. Under § 1367(a) & (b), is there federal jurisdiction over this action? a Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are not satisfied; therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over at least some of the asserted claims. b Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, and reference to § 1367(b) is not needed; the court has jurisdiction over all the asserted claims. c The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, but the restrictions in § 1367(b) destroy jurisdiction. d The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied; in addition, none of the restrictions in § 1367(b) apply; the federal district court has jurisdiction over all of the asserted claims; this is an example of the Rule 20 gap.

P-1, a citizen of State X, was a passenger on D-1 Airline Flight 007. D-1 is incorporated in State Y and its principal place of business is in State Z. P-1 was severely injured when Flight 007 landed at an airport in State Q. The airplane veered off the runway and crashed into a vehicle carrying baggage owned by Airline D-2 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State Y). One possible cause of the accident was a sudden failure of the brakes on the right side of the airplane. The brakes (and hydraulic system) were serviced by an independent contractor, D-3 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State S). Another possible cause might have been pilot error, specifically by pilot D-4, a citizen of State Q. Still another contributing cause might be the negligence of the driver of the vehicle carrying the luggage, D-5, a citizen of State X. (Had the vehicle not been at that location, the plane would likely have stopped without hitting anything, and thus the damages would have probably been minimal.) P-1 has now sued D-1 in U.S. District Court in State Q. P-1 seeks to recover $500,000 as compensation for P-1's injuries. Under the applicable law, tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. Assume that D-1 asserts that D-5 is a required party under Federal Rule 19 and moves to dismiss the action on the ground that D-5 has not been joined pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(7). Should D-1's motion be granted? a Yes, it should be granted because all joint tortfeasors must be named as defendants in a single lawsuit. b Yes, it should be granted because D-5 is a required party whose joinder would destroy diversity. c No, it should not be granted because the failure to join D-5 can be accommodated pursuant to Rule 19(b); the action can proceed among the parties before the court by requiring P-1 to secure a judgment against D-5 in separate litigation prior to executing any judgment against D-1. d No, it should not be granted because a tortfeasor with the joint-and-several liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability.

P-1, a citizen of State X, was a passenger on D-1 Airline Flight 007. D-1 is incorporated in State Y and its principal place of business is in State Z. P-1 was severely injured when Flight 007 landed at an airport in State Q. The airplane veered off the runway and crashed into a vehicle carrying baggage owned by Airline D-2 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State Y). One possible cause of the accident was a sudden failure of the brakes on the right side of the airplane. The brakes (and hydraulic system) were serviced by an independent contractor, D-3 (which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State S). Another possible cause might have been pilot error, specifically by pilot D-4, a citizen of State Q. Still another contributing cause might be the negligence of the driver of the vehicle carrying the luggage, D-5, a citizen of State X. (Had the vehicle not been at that location, the plane would likely have stopped without hitting anything, and thus the damages would have probably been minimal.) P-1 has now sued D-1 in U.S. District Court in State Q. P-1 seeks to recover $500,000 as compensation for P-1's injuries. Under the applicable law, tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. Assume that P-1 did not assign P-1's claim to P-2 and that D-1 knows that P-1 was mentally incapacitated as a result of the injuries P-1 received in the accident. If P-1 is truly incapacitated, who would be the proper party to bring the action? a The proper party would be P-1, because P-1 was the person injured; D-1 is estopped from asserting that P-1 is incapacitated because D-1 was the cause of that mental incapacity. b The proper party would be P-1, because P-1 is the real party in interest. c The proper party would be P-1, because P-1 is a necessary party. d The proper party would not be P-1, because P-1 lacks the capacity to sue; a representative must sue on P-1's behalf.

R-1, a citizen of State X, and R-2, a citizen of State Z sue D, a citizen of State Y, in the U.S. District Court under Rule 23(b)(3). R-1 and R-2, the named members of the class, seek $50 million for D's tortious activity injuring the class members. R-1's claim against D is for $80,000 and R-2's is for $100,000. No other member of the class has a claim that exceeds $75,000. Under §1367(a) & (b), is there jurisdiction over this action? a Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are not satisfied; therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over at least some of the asserted claims. b Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, and reference to § 1367(b) is not needed; the court has jurisdiction over all the asserted claims. c The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, but the restrictions in § 1367(b) destroy jurisdiction. d The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied; in addition, none of the restrictions in § 1367(b) apply; the federal district court has jurisdiction over all of the asserted claims.

Rule 11 provides that by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating a pleading, written motion, or other paper, the attorney (or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of that person's knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented for "any improper purpose." Which of the following is LEAST LIKELY to be considered an improper purpose? a Needlessly increasing the cost of the litigation b Harassing the opposing party c Causing unnecessary delay d Commencing litigation based on the subjective motivation of teaching the defendant a lesson

Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party to demonstrate that a proposed class action falls within one of the categories set out in that section of the rule. Lawyers typically refer to various types of class actions by the particular subsections of Rule 23(b). (It is important to know which categories of class action is being used for several reasons, especially with regard to the requirements of notice and the option to opt out of the class.) If the representative plaintiff commenced a products liability class action seeking damages on behalf of all consumers injured by the the defendant's product, this type of class action would most likely be classified as one falling into which one of the following rule provisions? a Rule 23(b)(1)(A). b Rule 23(b)(1)(B). c Rule 23(b)(2). d Rule 23(b)(3).

To what does the expression "burden of proof" refer? a Sufficiency of the allegations of P's complaint b Duty to produce evidence or go forward with evidence; this burden can shift during the trial c Duty to persuade the trier of fact; this duty becomes relevant only at the end of the trial d Both the meanings indicated in Answers B and C, above.

To what does voir dire refer? a The process of demanding a jury trial. b The challenges that a party can make against a particular juror; in some instances, a party need not state a reason. c The process of creating a jury pool from the assembled lists of individual prospective jurors. d The examination that is conducted in which the prospective jurors are asked questions in order to determine their fitness to serve in the particular case.

To which of the following proceedings do the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply? a Federal tax court proceedings [The U.S. Tax Court is one of the courts in which taxpayers can bring suit to contest IRS determinations, and it is the primary court in which taxpayers can do so without prepaying any portion of the disputed taxes]. b The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. c The territorial/insular courts of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. d All of the above described situations are situations where the Federal Rules of Civil procedure apply except proceedings in the federal tax court. e All of the above described situations are situations where the Federal Rules of Civil procedure apply.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Conley v. Gibson, Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, what requirement(s) must be satisfied in order to meet the standards of Federal Rule 8(a)(2) (requiring "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief")? a The complaint must provide fair notice of the claim. b The complaint must allege facts constituting a cause of action c The complaint must show that the pleader is plausibly entitled to relief. d Answers A and C are both requirements that must be satisfied. e Answers A, B, and C are all correct.

What was the "theory of the pleadings" doctrine? a The plaintiff had to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the proper form of action. b A traverse had to be directed to an essential element of the plaintiff's claim and it had to be specific; in other words, it could not be argumentative. c It was the basis for the merger of law and equity. d The defendant could challenge a code pleading complaint as legally insufficient if the plaintiff failed to follow a consistent legal theory in the complaint.

When a party has retained an attorney, Federal Rule 11(a) requires that at least one attorney must sign each pleading, written motion, or other document filed or served during the course of a civil action in federal district court. What happens if the lawyer does not sign the document? a The proponent will be notified that the signature is missing. b The proponent will then have an opportunity to correct the omission. c If the omission isn't promptly corrected, then the court must strike the document. d The steps stated in Answers A, B, and C all occur; moreover, the use of an attorney's e-filing login and password to electronically file a documents constitutes the signature of that attorney on the document for purposes of Rule 11.

Which of the following is traditionally the first event that will occur at a trial? a Sequestration of the jurors b Testimony of the parties, followed by testimony of non-party witnesses c Presentation by the party having the burden of proof (usually the plaintiff) of that party's case in chief d Opening statements

Which of the following may NOT be imposed by the court as a sanction for violation of Federal Rule 11? a Public reprimands b Dismissal of the action c Mandatory ethics retraining or pro bono service d Monetary payment to the opposing party when the court sanctions on its own initiative. e All of the above are available sanctions that may be imposed for violation of Rule 11.

Which of the following pleadings, if any, is NOT required or allowed without court permission? a An answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim. b An answer to a crossclaim. c An answer to a third-party complaint. d A reply to an answer... e All of the above pleadings are required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Why do the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require fraud to be pled with particularity? a It protects defendants from "strike suits" [A lawsuit of questionable merit brought by a single person or group of people with the purpose of gaining a settlement that would be less than the cost of the defendant's legal costs; such suits frequently appear when the defendant is a considerably larger entity than the plaintiff, such as a corporation or an estate]. b It helps ensure that only viable claims of fraud are allowed to proceed to discovery. c It helps safeguard defendants against spurious accusations and resulting reputational harm. d All of the above are likely explanations of why the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require fraud to be alleged with particularity.

With respect to the amount in controversy required for a class action under Federal Rule 23 prior to the enactment of the supplemental jurisdiction statute, what requirement existed? a All members of the class, both the named representatives as well as the other members of the class, must meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. b Only the named representatives have to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement; the other class members do not. c The members of the class can aggregate their individual claims to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, provided they meet the "common and undivided interest" test. d Answers A and C, taken together, provide the best description of the requirement.

Would the following actions by the defendant be proper in federal court? The defendant moves before answering to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue is improper. The motion is denied. The defendant then moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that a party has not been joined as required by Rule 19. Is the motion proper? a The second motion is improper under the provisions of Rule 12(g)(2) (consolidation). b The defense is not waived under the provisions of Rule 12(h)(2) (waiver). c The second motion is improper and the defense is waived under the provisions of Rule 12(h)(2) (waiver). d Answers A and B, above, are correct. e Answer A and C, above, are correct.

A federal court must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members of the class. In which of the following actions, if any, must such a notice be given? a A suit against a local school board seeking an order to require the school board to cease maintaining schools segregated by race. b A suit to challenge as unconstitutional a state's one-year residency requirement for welfare payments. c A suit for damages for fraud when the fraud was perpetrated on many persons by similar misrepresentations, each victim being damaged in an amount of less than $5.00. d A suit for damages by lakefront property owners brought against a person who allegedly polluted the lake and thus damaged the property. e Answers C and D, above, would both be situations where the notice would be required.

Assume that a lawyer is drafting a complaint in a personal injury case arising out of a collision at an intersection based on the defendant's alleged negligence. Which of the following are likely to be considered special damages that must be "specifically stated" in this type of case? a Hospital and doctor bills b Lost wages or earning capacity c Property damages to the plaintiff's vehicle d Cost of prescription drugs e All of the above because they are not necessarily predictable, inevitable consequences of a defendant's negligence.

Criminal law and civil law differ with respect to how cases are initiated (who may bring charges or file suit), how cases are decided (by a judge or a jury), what kinds of punishment or penalty may be imposed, what standards of proof must be met, and what legal protections may be available to the defendant. Which of the following are likely to be classified as "civil actions"? a A person seeks compensation for damage caused as a result of another person's conduct based on that person's negligence, intentional wrongdoing, or strict liability. b A claimant seeks damages resulting from a defamatory statement by another person that causes harm to the claimant's reputation. c A person seeks compensation based on a misrepresentation of fact that was either intentionally or negligently made. d A patient seeks damages when a doctor had a professional working relationship with that person and the doctor violated the doctor's duty of care either through the doctor's actions or inaction which directly caused the patient's injuries and losses. e All of the above are examples of civil actions.

Even if a claim falls within the supplemental jurisdiction of the federal courts, § 1367(c) allows the court to dismiss the supplemental claims at its discretion. What factors is the court directed take into account in making its decision? a The district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. b The claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction. c The claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law. d Exceptional circumstances provide other compelling reasons for declining supplemental jurisdiction. e All of the above are factors that the court should take into account.

Federal Rule 10 sets out several requirements for the form of the pleadings. Other rules, including Federal Rules 8 and 11, provide additional requirements. Assume that P is going to file a complaint in federal court. Which, if any, of the following is NOT a requirement with which P must comply? Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer. a A caption that contains the name of the court, the title of the action, the file number (provided by the court), and the names of all the parties. b A short and plain statement of facts which tend to show that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment for the relief to which plaintiff deems himself or herself entitled. c A short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends. d A signature of an attorney of record or, if not represented by an attorney, by the party personally; the pleading must also state the signer's address, email and telephone number. e All of the above are requirements with which P must comply.

Federal Rule 11 has a "safe harbor" provision. The legal definition of a "safe harbor" is a provision granting protection from liability or a penalty if certain conditions are met. In practice, how does this "safe harbor" provision operate in the context of Rule 11? a In the context of Rule 11, it means that the allegedly offending party must be given an opportunity to retract or correct the offending paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial. b The alleged violator has 21 days to withdraw or correct the allegedly offending act after being notified by receiving an unfiled copy of the motion seeking Rule 11 sanctions. c A Rule 11 motion seeking sanctions must be filed separately from all other motion; thus, a lawyer cannot be embedded in a motion to dismiss or appear as a closing point or a footnote in some other filing. d The motion seeking sanctions must specifically highlight the particular offending conduct. e All of the above are accurate descriptions of how Rule 11's safe harbor provision operates.

Federal Rule 11 is broadly applied. However, there are some situations where it is NOT applicable. Which of the following descriptions, if any, identifies situations in which Federal Rule 11 is or remains applicable? a Rule 11 applies to conduct in an action even when it is subsequently determined that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. b Rule 11 applies to discovery disclosures and discovery requests, discovery responses, discovery objections, and motions under Federal Rules 26 through 37 (covering discovery). c Rule 11 applies even when a civil action has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice if the court retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions after the dismissal. d Rule 11 applies to appellate briefs and other conduct that occurs after the filing a notice of appeal. e .Answers A and C, above, identify areas where Rule 11 applies or remains applicable. f Answers A through D, above, all identify areas where Rule 11 applies or remain applicable.

Federal Rule 13(a)(1) makes a counterclaim compulsory if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. Which of the following is NOT considered to be an appropriate factor in determining whether a counterclaim is "compulsory"? a If separate trials of the claims would involve a substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the courts. b If the claim bears a logical relationship to an opposing party's claim. c If the claims are offshoots of the same basic controversy between the parties. d If the claims involve (many of) the same factual and legal issues. e All of the above are considered to be appropriate factors in determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not.

Federal Rule 8(d) provides that "a party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency." How does Rule 8(d) operate in practice? a Although pleaders are allowed to plead alternatively by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at least one of the alternative allegations must meet the requisite pleading standards. b Federal Rule 8(d) would permit a plaintiff to allege an unjust enrichment claim as an alternative to a breach of contract claim (unless the existence of a valid, enforceable contract is uncontested or the unjust enrichment claim is foreclosed for other reasons). c While separate inconsistent claims or defenses are permitted by Rule 8(d), the factual allegations within each claim or defense cannot be inconsistent with the alleged right of recovery or else the claim or defense could defeat itself. d Inconsistent pleading is permitted when there is legitimate doubt as to the true facts. e All of the above are accurate statements of how Federal Rule 8(d) operates in practice.

Federal Rule 8(e) provides direction on how the court should construe pleadings in federal court. Which of the following is NOT a direction given to the court? a Liberality should be given priority over technicality. b The court should construe pleadings to do substantial justice. c The court should not give pleadings an unwarranted generous reading that it prejudices another party or denies a party of fair notice of a claim or defense. d The court should (and the generally does) apply less stringent standards to pleadings drafted by layperson, such as pro se habeas corpus petitions or social security applications; however, nothing in this liberality obligates the court to redraft a pro se pleading. e The court must rely on the labels on the labels used by pleaders to describe to describe their claims or defenses because the federal courts still apply the familiar principle of contract law that documents to be construed against their drafters. f All of the above answers reflect directions given to the court by Federal Rule 8(e).

Federal Rule 81 controls the manner in which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to a variety of contexts and abolishes the use of certain writs at the trial level. Based on the provisions of Federal Rule 81, which of the following describe the scope and effect of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? a The Federal Rules supplement statutory procedures in several situations, including bankruptcy proceedings and proceedings arbitrated under the Federal Arbitration Act (i.e., the Rules generally act as a default provisions when no arbitration rule addresses a procedural issue.) b Rule 81 abolishes the writ of scire facias (a judicial writ founded on some matter of record and requiring the party proceeded against to show cause why the record should not be enforced, annulled, or vacated). c Rule 81 abolishes the writ of mandamus at the federal district court level (the use of a judicial writ compelling a government official to do something; however, a writ of mandamus is properly employed by appellate courts to compel a lower court to perform an act that is ministerial in nature and that the court has a clear duty to do under law). d The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to habeas corpus proceedings (based on a writ inquiring into the lawfulness of the restraint of a person who is imprisoned or detained in another's custody) and quo warranto proceedings (based on a writ used to challenge a person's right to hold a public or corporate office) e All of the above answers describe the scope and effect of the Federal Rule 81.

Federal Rule 9(c) provides that a party may plead the occurrence or performance of a "condition precedent" generally (e.g., "all conditions precedent have been performed"). That means you need to know what condition precedents are and you need to be able to recognize them. A condition precedent is a legal term describing a condition or event that must come to pass before a specific contract is considered in effect or any obligations are expected of either party. Pursuant to Rule 9(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a condition precedent thus needs only be generally averred to satisfy the pleading standard. Which of the following appropriately describes a condition precedent? a An insurance contract requires the insurer to pay to rebuild the customer's home if it is destroyed by fire during the policy period. The fire is a condition precedent. b A merger-and-acquisition deal requires the acquired company to operate as a subsidiary and produce specified results within a set timeframe before a final purchase payout has to be made. Satisfying the set conditions is a condition precedent that must occur before the final acquisition payment has to be made. c A contract involving a sale of real estate requires a satisfactory examination of the property performed by a licensed home inspector. A satisfactory inspection is a condition precedent to the buyer's obligation to complete the transaction. d The parties enter into a valid contract and one of the clauses states the contract is terminated when the interest rate moves over 10%. This condition is a condition precedent. e Answers A, B, and C are examples of conditions that have occurred or been performed that may be pled generally, but not Answer D because it is a condition subsequent. f None of the above are examples of conditions precedent.

Federal Rule 9(c) provides that in pleading conditions precedent, it suffices to allege generally that all conditions precedent have occurred or have been performed. Which of the following describe how this provision operates in practice? a This provision would apply to a contractual requirement that the parties engage in the alternative dispute resolution before commencing any litigation. b This provision would apply to a statutory requirement that a party provide a debt with notice of assignment of a debt prior to commencing a suit to collect the assigned debt. c When a defendant seeks to challenge a plaintiff's allegation that a condition precedent has been fulfilled, the denial must be stated with specificity and particularity; failure to do so, in effect, admits the allegation that the condition precedent has been satisfied; however, courts may leniently construe an attempt to deny as long as the attempted denial imparts fair notice and results in no prejudice to the opposing party. d Once a condition precedent has been adequately contested by the defendant, then the burden returns to the plaintiff to prove the contested condition precedent has, in fact, been met. e All of the above accurately describe how Federal Rule 9(c) operates in practice.

It is clear that under Rule 11(c)(3), the court on its own may initiate sanctions for violation for Rule 11. What must the court do to validly impose those sanctions and when is such an order used? a Before imposing sanctions, the court must issue a show cause order requiring the attorney, law firm, or party to "show cause" why specifically described conduct or representations do not violate Rule 11; and the court must ensure that the parties receive both notice and an opportunity to defend against the proposed sanction. b A show cause order is used as a last resort when the affected party fails to raise the objection; however, the show cause order is subject to the same safe harbor provision which allows the offending conduct to be corrected within 21 days after the order is issued. c Unlike party-initiated motions for sanctions, a sanctions proceeding initiated by court can begin after the case has been dismissed when in hindsight the court feels sanctions are warranted. d As a practical matter, a show cause order will only be issued in circumstances analogous to contempt of court. e Answers A and D, taken together, accurately describe what the court must do to validly impose those sanctions and when is such an order used

P sues D in a diversity action in federal district court. P's complaint is signed by P's lawyer in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). P tells D's lawyer that D knowingly lied about the existence of termites in the house. Based on the information that P provided and without further investigation, P's lawyer served a complaint on D that alleged that D knowingly lied to P about termites in a house in order to induce P to buy it. After discovery, it becomes clear that there is no evidence in favor of the allegation in P's complaint that D believed that there were termites in the house at the time he sold the house to P. D moves a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against P after providing the requisite 21 day "safe harbor notice" required under Rule 11. What ONE of the following is a valid reason why this motion should fail? a P, as a represented party, cannot be subjected to Rule 11 sanctions. b Rule 11 does not apply to discovery. c Since it was a fraud action, P was allowed under R. 9(b) to allege a condition of mind generally. It was not necessary for him to state any evidence in favor of D's condition of mind. d P's lawyer had a good faith belief in the truth of the allegations in the complaint. e None of the above answers state a valid reason why D's motion should fail.

P, D, and X, each driving their own cars, collided into each other. P sues D in federal court based on a state law negligence for the personal injury that D caused P in connection with the accident. P's complaint seeks $250,000 in damages. Assume that D is properly served with process, but D does not respond within twenty-one (21) days by either filing a motion or filing an answer. Which of the following are accurate statements about the default process? a P should seek to obtain a default judgment; obtaining a default judgment is a two-step process that begins with asking the clerk of the court to enter the default; the second step is asking for entry of a judgment that awards the relief sought in the complaint; this can be done in one of two ways; the party seeking the default judgment can apply to the clerk of the court for entry of a default judgment if the amount is for a sum certain; otherwise, the request must be made by motion to the district court judge. b Requesting an entry of default typically involves filing two documents with the court clerk: (1) a request for default and (2) a supporting affidavit; the request for default sets forth the request for the court clerk to enter the default of the party who has not answered the complaint or otherwise defended the action within the time required by the rules or as extended by court order; the supporting affidavit sets forth the basis for the entry of default; it should include the date of service of the summons and complaint, the failure of the defaulting party to file a motion or serve a responsive pleading, and the absence of an extension of time to respond; unless it was already filed, a copy of the proof of service of the summons and complaint should be attached as an exhibit in support of the request for entry of default. c The "sum certain" limitation is the most common impediment to applying directly to the clerk for a default judgment; it excludes many forms of relief commonly sought in civil litigation including injunctive and declaratory relief, unliquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and prejudgment interest. d Applications for a default judgment may be made to the clerk in only limited circumstances: (1) Plaintiff's claim must be for a sum certain; (2) the defendant must not have appeared or otherwise participated in the action; (3) the defendant must not be an infant or incompetent person; (4) the defendant must not be the United States or member of the armed forces; (5) if there are multiple defendants, all must be in default. e All of the above are accurate statements.

P, a citizen of Colorado, sues D-1, a citizen of California, in a U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York. P seeks $100,000 for breach of contract. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. D-1 serves a third-party complaint pursuant to Rule 14 on D-2, a citizen of California. D-1 asserts that if D-1 is liable to P, D-2 has to indemnify D-1 for one-half of the amount paid to P, i.e., $50,000. Based on these facts, which of the following best describes the jurisdiction of the federal district court? a The federal district court has original jurisdiction over all claims without the need to resort to the use of supplemental jurisdiction. b Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are not satisfied; therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over at least some of the asserted claims. c Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, and reference to § 1367(b) is not needed; the court has jurisdiction over all the asserted claims. d The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied because the claims are factually related, but the restrictions in § 1367(b) destroy jurisdiction. e The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied; in addition, none of the restrictions in § 1367(b) apply; the federal district court has jurisdiction over all of the asserted claims.

R, a citizen of Alabama, commences a class action against D, a citizen of Mississippi, based on D's allegedly tortuous conduct affecting a large number of individuals in a similar way. R's action is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 in a U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi. R's individual claim exceeds the required jurisdictional amount, but many claims by members of the class do not. Based on these facts, which of the following best describes the jurisdiction of the federal district court? a The federal district court has original jurisdiction over all claims without the need to resort to the use of supplemental jurisdiction. b Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are not satisfied; therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over at least some of the asserted claims. c Under the generally accepted approach to supplemental jurisdiction, including the latest U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, and reference to § 1367(b) is not needed; the court has jurisdiction over all the asserted claims. d The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied, but the restrictions in § 1367(b) destroy jurisdiction. e The requirements of § 1367(a) are fully satisfied; in addition, none of the restrictions in § 1367(b) apply; the federal district court has jurisdiction over all of the asserted claims. This is an example of the Rule 23 gap.

S, a citizen of State X, finds a bag of gold coins buried in S's backyard. The coins are worth $50,000. News of S's find spreads quickly, and S is approached by two former owners of S's property where the coins were found. C-1 is a citizen of State Y and C-2 is a citizen of State X. C-1 and C-2 are both threatening lawsuits. However, S thinks S is the true owner based on the finders keepers principle ("whoever finds something by chance is entitled to keep it"). What action should S take to protect S in this situation? a S should use rule interpleader because only that type of interpleader allows the stakeholder to make a claim to the stake. b S should use statutory interpleader because the monetary requirement of rule interpleader is not met. c S should use statutory interpleader because the diversity requirement of rule interpleader is not met. d S cannot use either rule or statutory interpleader based on the facts stated in this question. e Answers B and C are both correct.

Sometimes a party will rely on a judgment of another tribunal in a pleading. For example, full faith and credit is the requirement (derived from Article IV, Section I of the U.S. Constitution) that state courts must respect the laws and judgments of courts from other states. In practice, a pleader specifically should identify certain matters regarding the judgment that the party relies on in a pleading. Of the items listed below, which one is NOT required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in doing so? a A pleader should specifically identify the judicial body issuing the judgment. b A pleader should specifically identify the date of the judgment. c A pleader should specifically identify participating in the proceeding. d A pleader should specifically identify the character or effect of the judgment. e A pleader should demonstrate by appropriate allegations showing rendering tribunal that it had jurisdiction to render the judgment or decision.

State law opens up the possibility of additional ways to serve a defendant with process. Which of the following ways might be possible under this "state law" option to serve an individual within a judicial district of the United States that are not specifically authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? a Service by publication. b Service by email or through social media portals. c Service by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the individual's regular place of business. d Service by mail. e All of the above are possibilities under the "state law service option."

The signing of a document triggers several obligations and representations pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule 11. Specifically, by presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies (to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances) which of the following? a The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law. b The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. c The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information. d It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. e All of the above are certifications being made.

What is a summons and what is service of process? a A summons is a form prepared by the plaintiff and issued by a court that informs the defendant that the defendant is being sued or the defendant is required to appear in court. A summons may be served by a marshal, sheriff, or some other authorized person, such as the process server. b A summons is an instrument used to provide notice to a party of civil proceedings and of the opportunity to appear and be heard. A summons informs the defendant that they have a certain number of days to respond to the lawsuit or appear in the court. c "Service" or "service of process" is the formal delivery of a legal document, such as a complaint or petition, to ensure that the opposing party is aware of the action and is given an opportunity to respond. d Service of process is an essential step in commencing a civil lawsuit. In fact, service of process is so essential in a lawsuit that, if it is not performed properly, a lawsuit cannot proceed. Service of process is critical because it establishes that the court hearing the lawsuit has jurisdiction over the defendant. e Although doing it in different ways, all of the above accurately describe what a summons and service of process are.

When the requirement of pleading fraud or mistake apply? a Any claim "grounded" in fraud, such as misrepresentation sounding in fraud. b Fraudulent concealment (e.g., in an action where a plaintiff can recover from a defendant on the grounds of fraudulent concealment where the defendant (1) concealed or suppressed a material fact; (2) had knowledge of this material fact; (3) that this material fact was not within reasonably diligent attention, observation, and judgment of the plaintiff; (4) that the defendant suppressed or concealed this fact with the intention that the plaintiff be misled as to the true condition of the property; (5) that the plaintiff was reasonably so misled; and (6) that the plaintiff suffered damage as a result. c Fraud or mistake when used as an affirmative defense d When fraud or mistake was committed by nonparties or when nonparties were defrauded, that fraud or mistake may be plead more generally. e All of the above answers are correct.

Which of the following are conditions that must be met for an action in federal court to be deemed a "civil action" or are statements accurately describing civil actions in federal court? a The action must be within federal subject-matter jurisdiction. b The proceeding must have been actually commenced in a federal court. c The term civil action encompass all component "claims" and "cases" within the lawsuit. d A party may join all claims and defenses that previously were deemed to either legal or equitable in nature (assuming their joinder is otherwise permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or applicable statutes). e All of the above answers set forth conditions that must be met for an action in federal court to be deemed a "civil action" or set forth statements accurately describing civil actions in federal court.

Which of the following are important consequences and effects that follow from the adoption of Federal Rule 2? a The forms of action are abolished. b The separate equity practice of the federal courts is eliminated. c The Conformity Act no longer superimposes state laws or rules upon the procedure in federal courts. d The merger of law and equity furnish a single uniform procedure by which a litigant may present a claim in an orderly manner to a court empowered to award whatever relief is appropriate and just; the substantive and remedial principles that applied prior to the advent of the federal rules are not changed. e All of the above describe consequences and effects of the adoption of Federal Rule 2.

Which of the following are pleading requirements set out by Federal Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? a Every pleading must have a caption with the court's name, a title, a file number, and a designation of the pleading (e.g., a complaint, a third-party-complaint, answer, etc.) b A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. c If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence—and each defense other than a denial—must be stated in a separate count or defense. d The title of the complaint must name all the parties; the title of other pleadings. however, after naming the first party on each side, the parties may refer generally to other parties. [After naming the first party on each side, may refer generally to other parties by the designation "et al."; "Et al." is short for the Latin term "et alia," which means "and others."] e All of the above are requirements set out by Federal Rule 10.

Which of the following is NOT a requirement of pleading or a permissible option under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? a Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. b A party may set out two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate one. c A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. d A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency. e All of the above are either requirements of pleading or are permissible approaches under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Which of the following statements is NOT TRUE? a Under the common-law system of pleading, a plaintiff could only join claims together if they fell within the same form of action, but the claims didn't have to be factually related. b Joinder of related claims under the Federal Rules is not compulsory; however, the judicial doctrine of "claim preclusion" may force a party to join them or they may be lost. c Under the Federal Rules, a party may join two claims even though one of them is contingent on the disposition of the other. d Claim joinder under the Federal Rules is, in effect, "free joinder of claims"; it could not be any broader. e All of the above statements are true.

Which of the following statements, if any, do NOT accurately describe the operation of Federal Rule 7.1? a Local federal district court rules may require additional disclosures. b The disclosure must be made when a party files its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the federal district court. c Federal Rule 7.1 does not address whether or not the statement must be served on other parties. d A supplemental statement must be promptly filed when any change in the required information occurs. e All of the above answers are accurate statements about the operation of Federal Rule 7.1.

Which of the following, if any, are accurate statements about commencing an action in federal court? a Service of process is required to commence an action in federal court. b Even when state law provides a tolling requirement or tolling limitation, Federal Rule 3 controls the calculation when the statute of limitations has been met; in effect, a state-law cause of action can be given a longer life in federal court than it would otherwise have had in the state courts. c Service of the summons and complaint must be accomplished within 180 days after commencement of an action in federal court unless good cause is shown why service was not accomplished in that period. d A case that has been removed from state court to a federal court is reconsidered to be "re"-commenced at the time of removal rather than the original commencement date in state court. e None of the above statements are accurate statements about commencement of actions in federal court.

A process early in the litigation where a case is referred to an expert (usually an attorney) who is asked to provide a balanced and unbiased evaluation of the dispute.

Early Neutral Evaluation

Which of the following must a summons in a federal civil action contain or do? a Identify the case (listing the court, the parties, and the name and address of the plaintiff's attorney b Be directed to the defendant specifically c Set out the deadline to appear and defend d Warn the defendant against default that will occur if the defendant fails to appear and defend, which will result in the entry of a default judgment for relief requested in the complaint e The summons must be issued and signed by the clerk of the court and it must bear the court's seal. f All of the above are required for a valid summons

Why is the date that a lawsuit commences very important (and why is it important that the date of commencement be easily determinable)? a Diversity is determined at the time that federal court jurisdiction is invoked by a filing in U.S. district court commencing the action (It is on that basis that the state citizenships of the parties established. (This is informally known as the "snapshot rule.") b The statute of limitations sets maximum period of time after an event when legal action can be taken; in federal court, the date when an action is commenced in federal court on federal claims is easily determined for purposes of the statute of limitations has been met by establishing that an action is commenced when a complaint is filed with the court. c A defendant in federal court must plead a counterclaim that arises out of the same "transaction or occurrence" as plaintiff's main claim, or it is deemed waived; however, the pleader need not state the claim if when the action was commenced in federal court, the claim was the subject of another "pending" action; Federal Rule 3 makes it easy to determine whether an action was "pending." d It is important to know when a federal court has authority to act; prior to the commencement of an action in federal court, the federal court lacks authority to act in a dispute; to give the court authority to act a "complaint" has to be filed with the court. e The "first-to-file rule" is a general principle of case management in the federal system. The thrust of this rule is that, absent compelling circumstances, federal courts will defer to actions previously filed in other federal courts when the parties and issues in the two suits are essentially the same based on the date of commencement of the action. f All of the above are reasons why the date that a lawsuit commences is very important and that it is easily determined.

Unjust enrichment and Restitution

General Assumpsit

a process wherein the parties meet with a mutually selected impartial and neutral person who assists them in the negotiation of their differences.

Mediation

A private consensual process where the attorneys for each party make a brief presentation of the case as if at a trial observed by a neutral advisor; the representatives attempt to settle the dispute; at the request of the parties the neutral advisor may serve as a mediator or may issue a non-binding opinion as to the likely outcome in court.

Mini-Trial

Any form of direct or indirect communication whereby parties who have opposing interests discuss the form of any joint action which they might take to manage and ultimately resolve the dispute between them.

Negotiation

Yes or No: United Mine Workers v. Gibbs indicated that for state and federal claims to be part of the same case or controversy, the claims must "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact." Did Congress use this same language in § 1367(a) to define when claims are part of the same case or controversy?

Law of contracts

Special Assumpsit

A nonbinding summarized presentation of a civil case to an advisory jury to show the parties how a jury reacts to the evidence.

Summary Jury Trial

False Imprisonment

Trespass

Recovery of possession of land

Trespass

Negligence

Trespass on the case

Nuisance

Trespass on the case

Conversion

Trover

Pendent jurisdiction was designed to prevent plaintiffs with federal claims from being deterred from resorting to federal court on their federal claims by the inconvenience of having to adjudicate related state law claims in a separate action. True or False?

True

TRUE OR FALSE: (1) A party asserting the existence or legality of an official document need only assert that the official document was issued legally or the official act was performed legally; and (2) such an allegation "suffices." As a practical matter, a party opposing the official document or act must specifically assert the defect in the official document or the illegality of the official act.

True

The constitutional justification for pendent and ancillary jurisdiction was that Article III authorized Congress to give the federal courts jurisdiction over entire cases or controversies, not just those portions that were federal. True or False?

True

The restrictions on supplemental jurisdiction in section 1367(b) apply only to cases founded solely on § 1332 (diversity). True or False?

True

सभी स्टडी सेट्स देखें

Civ Pro II

संबंधित स्टडी सेट्स

Context Clues 2

Chapter 1: What is Sport? Why Study It?

Chapter 2: Organizational Strategy, Competitive Advantage, and Information Systems

module 12

Unit 4

Intro to Anatomy

Chapter 14: Antidepressants, Psychomotor Stimulants, and Lithium

Course Point - Chapter 12: Diagnosing

Methods for Usability Evaluation

Chapter 9

ch39: rheumatism

PRE OP 17

Hygiene

WP

Final-Digoxin EAQ

Triage QA Interview questions

AP Piano Theory

STUDY SPANISH FOR TEST!!!

Chapter 4: Designing Studies Multiple Choice Practice Test

MT Test 4