MBE Civ Pro Missed

An insurance company, incorporated and with its principal place of business in State A, brought a federal statutory interpleader action in federal district court after a dispute arose as to person(s) entitled under state law to the proceeds of an insurance policy in the amount of $100,000. The claimants under the policy are all citizens of State B. The insurance company posted a bond for $100,000, representing the disputed proceeds. Does the court have jurisdiction over the action? A. No, because the claimants are not diverse. B. No, because the claim does not arise under federal law. C. Yes, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. D. Yes, because the insurance company is diverse from the claimants.

Answer choice A is correct. For statutory interpleader, diversity jurisdiction is met if any two adverse claimants are citizens of different states. With regard to the amount in controversy, in a statutory interpleader action, the property at issue must merely be $500 or more in value, not meet the $75,000 threshold required for regular diversity matters. In this case, although the amount-in-controversy requirement is met, none of the claimants are diverse because they are all citizens of State B. Therefore, the court does not have jurisdiction over the statutory interpleader action brought by the insurance company. Answer choice B is incorrect. There is no requirement that a federal statutory interpleader action be based on federal law. Answer choice C is incorrect. The amount in controversy for a federal statutory interpleader action need only be $500 or more; it does not need to exceed $75,000. In addition, although the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied, none of the claimants are diverse. Thus, the court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction over the action. Answer choice D is incorrect. Although the stakeholder (insurance company) must be diverse from the claimants in an action brought under the federal interpleader rule, the citizenship of the stakeholder is not relevant in an action for federal statutory interpleader.

As part of the purchase price of a business, the buyer gave the seller several nonnegotiable promissory notes, each with a different amount and due date. When the buyer defaulted on the first note, the seller brought an action in state court to enforce the note. Although the buyer received proper and timely notice of the action, the buyer did not defend against it, even though the buyer was aware that the seller had fraudulently deceived the buyer as to the sales volume of the business. The state court in State L granted the seller a default judgment. Subsequently, the buyer defaulted on the second note. The seller brought an action to enforce this note in a federal court located in State L. The buyer defended against this action on the basis of the seller's fraud, which induced the buyer to purchase the business. The seller contends that the buyer is precluded from asserting this defense. Should the court rule that the buyer is collaterally estopped from asserting the seller's fraud as a defense to this action? A. No, because the prior judgment was a default judgment. B. No, because each note constitutes a separate claim. C. Yes, because the buyer failed to raise this defense in the prior action. D. Yes, because all notes were given by the buyer for the purchase of the business.

Answer choice A is correct. In order for an issue to be precluded by prior litigation (i.e., for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply), the issue must have been actually litigated. Here, because the buyer elected not to contest the first action brought by the seller to enforce the first note, the issue of the seller's fraud was not actually litigated in the first action. Consequently, the buyer is not precluded from litigating the issue of the seller's fraud related to the purchase of the business. Answer choice B is incorrect. While each note constitutes a separate claim, and a judgment enforcing one note does not preclude the buyer from contesting the enforcement of another note, the seller's contention is based on issue preclusion, rather than claim preclusion. Answer choice C is incorrect. Unlike claim preclusion, in which the opportunity to contest a claim is sufficient to preclude the re-litigation of a claim that arose out of the transaction, issue preclusion does not apply to an issue that has not been actually litigated. Answer choice D is incorrect. Although each note was created at the same time as partial payment for the purchase of the business, each note constitutes a separate claim that can be independently enforced. In addition, the seller did not contend that the buyer cannot contest the enforcement of the second note because the first note was enforced. Instead, the seller argued that the buyer cannot raise the seller's fraud as defense because the buyer failed to raise this issue in the action to enforce the first note.

After being found vicariously liable for the actions of two past employees, an employer brought a civil suit, based on diversity jurisdiction, for contribution against the two past employees as co-defendants. At voir dire, after all parties had an opportunity to examine the prospective jurors, the employer's attorney made two peremptory challenges. The first co-defendant made two peremptory challenges. The second co-defendant made three peremptory challenges. The challenges, though not motivated by race, resulted in an all-white jury. Did the court err in allowing these challenges? A. No, the court did not err in allowing any of these challenges. B. Yes, because several defendants must be considered as a single party for the purposes of making peremptory challenges. C. Yes, because the second co-defendant was permitted more peremptory challenges than the employer was permitted. D. Yes, because peremptory challenges may not be made for racial or gender-based reasons.

Answer choice A is correct. The court did not err in allowing these challenges. Several defendants or several plaintiffs may be considered as a single party for the purpose of making such challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly. Therefore, answer choice B is incorrect. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although Rule 47(b) requires the court to allow the number of peremptory challenges provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1870, which is three for each party in civil cases, there is no requirement that a party use all of its challenges. Answer choice D is incorrect. Here, there is no evidence that the challenges were motivated by race. On these facts, the all-white jury may be merely coincidental, and is not conclusive evidence of judicial error.

A mother bought reusable snack bags from a company. The company uses an antibacterial agent called triclosan in its snack bags to help prevent mold from growing in the reusable bags. Triclosan is a known toxin that may, if used in a sufficient amount, weaken the immune system, especially when used in a moist environment, such as with reusable snack bags containing fruit or other damp foods. The mother who purchased the snack bags sued the company in federal court because she believed that the toxins in the company's snack bags caused her son to contract an illness due to his weakened immune system. At a trial without a jury, the judge, despite finding that the amount of triclosan used by the company in its snack bags was sufficient to cause the weakening of a child's immune system, held for the company because the plaintiff failed to prove that the boy would not have suffered from this particular illness unless his immune system had been weakened. In an unrelated action also filed against the company in the same federal court, a father sought damages from the company on behalf of his daughter, who contracted an illness after using the company's snack bags. During the trial, the father moved, on the basis of collateral estoppel, to prevent the company from contending that the amount of triclosan it used in its snack bags was insufficient to cause the weakening of a child's immune system. Can the court grant this motion? A. Yes, because offensive use of collateral estoppel is permitted. B. Yes, because the facts involved are related in time, space, origin, or motivation. C. No, because a jury did not render a final judgment on the merits. D. No, because the daughter was not a party in the prior case.

Answer choice A is correct. The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, precludes the re-litigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim. Offensive use of collateral estoppel (i.e., use by a nonparty against a party to the original suit) is permitted. Accordingly, the court may grant the father's motion. Answer choice B is incorrect because these are considerations to be made when determining when a cause of action is sufficiently identical under the doctrine of claim preclusion, but not for issue preclusion. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although a final judgment on the merits is required, there is no requirement that the judgment be made by a jury. Answer choice D is incorrect. Unlike claim preclusion, issue preclusion does not require strict mutuality of parties, but only that the party against whom the issue is to be precluded (or one in privity with that party) must have been a party to the original action.

A patient sued her surgeon in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, alleging medical malpractice. The patient presented properly authenticated evidence of the substantial medical expenses that she contended were due to the surgeon's malpractice. Although the jury found the surgeon liable, it awarded the patient only one dollar in damages. Twenty days after the entry of judgment, the patient filed a motion for a new trial on the issue of damages. The court provisionally granted the patient's motion, offering the surgeon the ability to avoid a new trial if the surgeon agreed to additur in the amount of $100,000. Is the court's response to the patient's motion proper? A. No, because a motion for a new trial cannot limit the issues that can be considered at the new trial. B. No, because the court may not impose additur as a condition for avoiding a new trial. C. Yes, because a new trial may be granted on the basis of an inadequate verdict. D. Yes, because the patient's motion for a new trial was timely and justified.

Answer choice B is correct. Although a federal court is permitted to offer remittitur (a reduction in the damages awarded by the jury) as the means by which the plaintiff can avoid a new trial, a federal court is not permitted to offer additur (an increase in the amount of damages awarded by the jury) as the means by which the defendant can avoid a new trial. Answer choice A is incorrect because a court may, on motion, grant a new trial either on all issues or with respect to only certain issues or parties. Answer choice C is incorrect, because, although a court may grant a new trial on the basis of an inadequate verdict, the court may not condition that grant on the defendant's refusal to accept additur. Answer choice D is incorrect. Although the patient timely filed her new trial motion because a motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the court's grant of the motion was improper because it was conditioned on the defendant accepting an additur.

A city sought to expand the size of a bridge over a major waterway. An old home was located adjacent to the bridge, in part of the area that would be needed for the expansion. The home was owned by a man who lived in a neighboring state and had not been to the property in a number of years. The city instituted eminent domain proceedings against the property. The city posted notices on the property and even published a notice in the local newspaper, and on its website, regarding the proceedings. Although the city's officials were aware that the man was the owner of the home and were able to locate his address from the neighboring state's tax rolls, they did not attempt to directly contact him. After no objections were made, the court ordered the condemnation. Upon learning of the proceedings from a friend one month later, the man filed a motion to set aside the judgment before the city began construction of the bridge. Will the man's motion to set aside the judgment be successful? A. Yes, because the court lacked in personam jurisdiction. B. Yes, because the man did not personally receive notice of the proceeding. C. No, because the city posted notices on the property and published a notice in the newspaper, and on its website, regarding the proceedings. D. No, because the motion is time barred.

Answer choice B is correct. Although in rem proceedings are commenced against property, they must still satisfy due process requirements for personal jurisdiction because they affect the rights of individuals in the property. Due process is met if the notice is "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." It is not sufficient to simply post the notice on the property or publish the notice in a newspaper as to persons who are known to have an interest in the property and whose whereabouts are reasonably ascertainable. In this case, the city's officials were aware that the man owned the home and that he lived in a neighboring state. Although his location was reasonably ascertainable, the city did not contact the man personally. Therefore, due process was not met. Answer choice A is incorrect because the court had in rem jurisdiction over the property. Accordingly, it did not need in personam jurisdiction over the man. However, the in rem proceedings must still satisfy due process requirements, including proper notice. Answer choice C is incorrect. Although the city did provide notice, the type of notice provided was not sufficient because the man's location was reasonably ascertainable. Answer choice D is incorrect. Any absent defendant who does not personally receive notice may set aside the judgment at any time within one year of the final judgment. Here, the man moved to set aside the judgment one month after the proceedings. Therefore, the motion is timely.

In a civil action tried in federal district court, the judge determined that nine jurors were needed due to the anticipated length of the trial to ensure that six jurors remained when the case was sent to the jury for deliberation. The judge's determination was made in good faith and based on her experience as a judge dealing with juror requests for dismissal from a case. Consequently, nine individuals were selected as members of the jury. However, after each attorney had made his closing argument, all nine jurors remained. Without consulting either party, the judge, acting without discriminatory intent with regard to race or gender, excused the three jurors who had been selected last; she did not demonstrate good cause for excusing these jurors. Was this action proper? A. No, because the judge failed to consult either party. B. No, because the judge did not excuse the three jurors for good cause. C. Yes, because a verdict may be returned by a jury with as few as six members. D. Yes, because the judge acted without discriminatory intent with regard to the race or gender of the excused jurors.

Answer choice B is correct. An individual who has been selected to serve as a juror must participate in the verdict unless excused for good cause, such as illness, family emergency, or misconduct. The federal rules do not authorize the dismissal of jurors to arrive at a specific number of jurors. Here, the judge excused the three jurors without demonstrating good cause. Therefore, the judge's action was not proper. Answer choice A is incorrect because the federal rules do not require a judge to consult with the parties or seek their approval prior to excusing a juror for good cause. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although a verdict may be returned by a jury with as few as six members, the rules require that an individual, once selected, must participate in the verdict unless excused for good cause. Answer choice D is incorrect. The fact that the judge acted without discriminatory intent with regard to race or gender in excusing the three jurors is not enough to make the judge's actions proper. Here, the judge failed to demonstrate good cause and thus, his action was not proper.

A plaintiff filed a complaint in state court based on a negligence claim arising from an accident. Before the defendant responded to the complaint, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a notice of dismissal. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a complaint in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting the same claim. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, and the court denied this motion. Before the defendant filed an answer to the complaint, the plaintiff again voluntarily filed a notice of dismissal. Can the plaintiff later pursue this claim through an action filed in federal court? A. No, because the second dismissal occurred after the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. B. No, because the second dismissal was with prejudice. C. Yes, because both dismissals were voluntary. D. Yes, because the first dismissal was a state action, not a federal action.

Answer choice B is correct. If a plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed an action based on a claim, a subsequent voluntary dismissal of an action based on the same claim is a dismissal with prejudice and thus has preclusive effect. This is sometimes referred to as the "two-dismissal" rule. Answer choice A is incorrect. Even though the defendant had responded to the second complaint, the plaintiff could voluntarily dismiss the action without court approval or the defendant's agreement because the defendant had not filed an answer or a summary judgment motion at the time that the plaintiff filed the notice of dismissal. However, even though the dismissal was voluntary and court approval or the defendant's agreement was not required, the second dismissal was with prejudice under the two-dismissal rule. Answer choice C is incorrect. Even though both dismissals were voluntary, the second dismissal is with prejudice under the two-dismissal rule. Answer choice D is incorrect because the two-dismissal rule applies regardless of whether the prior action was a state or federal action

A group of patients sought certification as a class in federal district court for a class-action lawsuit against a nursing home for damages resulting from substandard nursing care. The district court granted certification as a class, and the defendant nursing home timely and properly filed a petition for permission to appeal the certification with the appropriate court of appeals. If the court of appeals permits the nursing home's appeal, what is the effect on the district court proceedings? A. The proceedings in the district court are automatically stayed pending the appeal. B. The proceedings in the district court are stayed pending the appeal if the district court or the court of appeals so orders. C. The proceedings in the district court cannot be stayed pending the appeal. D. The proceedings in the district court can only be stayed pending the appeal by order of the district court.

Answer choice B is correct. If an appeal is permitted, it will not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district court or the court of appeals so orders. Accordingly, answer choice A is incorrect. Answer choice C is incorrect. The district court proceedings can be stayed pending the appeal if the district court or court of appeals so orders. Answer choice D is incorrect. The proceedings can be stayed pending the appeal by order of the district court or the court of appeals.

A plaintiff filed a wrongful death action in federal district court against two defendants seeking damages of $95,000. One of the defendants filed a cross-claim against the other defendant for contribution in the amount of $40,000. The cross-claim arose out of the same case or controversy as the wrongful death claim. Both the defendants are citizens of the forum state. The plaintiff is a citizen of a different state. Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over the cross-claim? A. Yes, because the action was filed in a federal district court located in the same state that the defendants were citizens. B. Yes, because the cross-claim arises out of the same occurrence as the original complaint. C. No, because both of the defendants are citizens of the same state. D. No, because the amount of the cross-claim does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement.

Answer choice B is correct. Since the cross-claim arises out of the same case or controversy as the original wrongful death claim, the federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the cross-claim when the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the original claim. The court has diversity jurisdiction over the original complaint; the amount in controversy ($95,000) exceeds the threshold requirement of an amount in excess of $75,000 and there is complete diversity between the plaintiff and the two defendants. Note: The cross-claim does not fall into one of the type of claims, such as intervention, for which supplemental jurisdiction is denied when the federal court's original jurisdiction is based solely on diversity jurisdiction. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the fact that the action was filed in a federal district court located in the same state where the defendants were citizens may be relevant for purposes of personal jurisdiction or venue, it is irrelevant for purposes of determining subject-matter jurisdiction. Answer choice C is incorrect because, even though the cross-claim does not satisfy the diversity of citizenship requirement and therefore does not qualify for diversity jurisdiction, the cross-claim does qualify for supplemental jurisdiction. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although it does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, the cross-claim does qualify for supplemental jurisdiction.

A plaintiff filed a complaint against his former employer in federal court, alleging that the plaintiff had been terminated based on his race in violation of federal law. The complaint included a short and plain statement of the plaintiff's claim and the facts upon which it was based, but not detailed factual allegations. Ten days after the complaint was filed, the defendant filed an answer. The following day, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The defendant attached to the motion an affidavit from the plaintiff's former supervisor stating that the plaintiff was terminated based upon his performance and described an incident in which the plaintiff made a mistake that caused the employer to lose an important customer. The court granted the motion to dismiss, noting that the facts described in the affidavit undermined the plaintiff's claims. Was the court's ruling granting the motion to dismiss proper? A. No, because the defendant waived any objection based on the pleadings by filing an answer. B. No, because the court considered matters outside the pleadings. C. Yes, because the plaintiff did not state with particularity the circumstances constituting discrimination. D. Yes, because the motion included a credible affidavit with facts that undermined the plaintiff's claims.

Answer choice B is correct. The court can grant a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) if the claim fails to assert a valid legal theory of recovery or fails to allege facts sufficient to support a cognizable claim. However, if the court considers new evidence in its review of a motion to dismiss, as it did with the affidavit here, it should treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss. Here, the court was in error because it did not treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment despite considering new evidence. Answer choice A is incorrect because the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted may be raised at any time. Answer choice C is incorrect because for most claims, "a short and plain statement" that provides defendant fair notice of the claim is sufficient. There is generally no requirement that the plaintiff state the claim with particularity. Answer choice D is incorrect because the court could not properly consider the affidavit in ruling on a motion to dismiss.

An employer filed suit in federal district court against a district director of the IRS for a refund of federal unemployment taxes that were allegedly wrongfully collected by the director under color of her legal authority. The employer now resides in the forum state, which has only one federal judicial district. For business reasons, the employer has recently moved from the state in which all the relevant events on which the claim is based took place and in which the director resides. The director has timely filed a motion to dismiss the action for improper venue. Should the court grant this motion? A. Yes, because the director resides in a state other than the forum state. B. Yes, because all of the relevant events on which the claim is based took place in a state other than the forum state. C. No, because the director was acting under color of her legal authority. D. No, because the court must transfer the case to the state in which all of the relevant events on which the claim is based took place.

Answer choice C is correct. An action against a federal officer or employee acting in an official capacity or under color of legal authority may be brought in the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. Answer choice A is incorrect because, even though the state in which the director resides may be a forum in which this action could have been brought, this does not prevent the employer from bringing the action in the state in which he resides. Answer choice B is incorrect because, even though the state where all of the relevant events on which the claim is based took place may be a forum for the action, this fact does not prevent the employer from bringing the action in the state in which he resides. Answer choice D is incorrect because, while a court may transfer a case to another federal district in which it might have been brought, the court is not required to do so.

An employee brought an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against her corporate employer in federal court for racial discrimination. The employee, from State A, alleged that the corporate employer had denied her a promotion, for which she was clearly qualified, solely on the basis of her race. The corporate employer was incorporated in State B and had its headquarters there, but its main physical presence was in State A. The employee sought $60,000 in damages. The employee sought to join an additional claim for breach of contract against the corporate employer based on a separate business transaction entered into between the employee and the corporate employer. The employee alleged $50,000 in damages arising from the breach. Can the court hear the employee's breach-of-contract claim? A. Yes, because the claim falls within the supplemental jurisdiction of the court. B. Yes, because the employee may aggregate all claims against the corporate employer to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. C. No, because the claim does not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. D. No, because the parties are not diverse.

Answer choice C is correct. If the original claim is based on federal-question jurisdiction, then a nonfederal claim may be joined only if diversity jurisdiction exists or if the two claims are part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim such that supplemental jurisdiction applies. In this case, the employee's original claim is based on federal-question jurisdiction because it arose under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, supplemental or diversity jurisdiction must exist for the court to be able to hear the employee's additional claim. Supplemental jurisdiction does not apply here because the additional claim is based on a breach of contract relating to a separate business transaction, whereas the original claim is based on racial discrimination relating to a promotion. Thus, the two claims are not part of the same case or controversy. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist in this case. Although the employee and the corporate employer are citizens of different states, the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met. Therefore, the federal court cannot hear the breach-of-contract claim. Answer choice A is incorrect because the two claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Answer choice B is incorrect because the employee may only aggregate the claims against the employer to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement if the subject-matter jurisdiction over the original claim is based on diversity jurisdiction. Because the original claim here is based on federal-question jurisdiction, the damages sought for each claim may not be aggregated. Answer choice D is incorrect because the employee is a citizen of State A and the corporate employer is a citizen of State B. Although the corporate employer has its main physical presence in State A, it is the location of the corporation's nerve center (i.e., headquarters) that is determinative for diversity purposes.

A plaintiff, a citizen of State X, sued a defendant, a citizen of State Y, for negligence in federal district court in State X under diversity jurisdiction, in connection with an automobile accident that occurred in State Y. The defendant has had no contacts with State X. The plaintiff personally served the defendant with a summons and complaint at his home in State Y. The defendant's first response to the complaint was an answer that specifically denied the plaintiff's claims but omitted the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Fifteen days after serving the answer on the plaintiff, the defendant amended the answer to include the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction without asking leave of the court. Which of the following statements is most accurate regarding the defendant's actions? A. The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction was permanently waived when the defendant's answer failed to include it. B. The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction has been waived unless the court subsequently grants the defendant leave to amend his answer. C. The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction was not waived and may be asserted by the defendant. D. The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction can never be waived and may always be asserted by a defendant.

Answer choice C is correct. Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(a), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it. Under Rule 12(h)(1)(B), a party waives the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to include it in a pre-answer motion, a responsive pleading, or in an amendment allowed by Rule 15(a)(1), as a matter of course. Here, the defendant included the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in an amendment made within 21 days after serving its answer. Accordingly, the defense was not waived and may be asserted by the defendant in the case. Answer choice A is incorrect. The failure to include the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in the defendant's answer would have waived the defense, but the defendant subsequently amended his answer within 21 days of serving it to include the defense. Answer choice B is incorrect. Because the defendant amended the answer within 21 days of serving it, leave of court is not required to amend, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(a). Answer choice D is incorrect. The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction (unlike lack of subject matter jurisdiction) can be waived, as discussed above.

A plaintiff brought a defamation action in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. Following the presentation of all evidence in the case, the court submitted the case to the jury. The jury, after being properly instructed, was supplied with a verdict form that contained both specific interrogatories as well as a general verdict. In answering the interrogatories, the jury found that the plaintiff was a public figure and that the defendant did not act with actual malice. The jury's general verdict awarded the plaintiff $200,000 in damages. Based on the jury's answers to the specific interrogatories, the court, concluding that, by law, the plaintiff could not be awarded damages, approved for entry by the clerk a judgment in favor of the defendant. Is the court's action proper? A. No, because it is at odds with the jury's general verdict. B. No, because a jury that has been supplied with special interrogatories cannot also render a general verdict. C. Yes, because it is in accord with the jury's answers to the special interrogatories. D. Yes, because the court must approve a judgment in accord with the jury's answers to the interrogatories.

Answer choice C is correct. When a jury is instructed to deliver both a general verdict and to answer special interrogatories, and the answers are consistent with each other but not with the general verdict, the court may (i) approve a judgment that is consistent with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, (ii) direct the jury to reconsider its answers and verdict, or (iii) order a new trial. In this instance, the jury, through its answers to the special interrogatories, found that the plaintiff was a public figure and that the defendant did not act with actual malice. By law, if a plaintiff is a public figure and the defendant does not act with actual malice, the defendant is not liable for defamation. Therefore, the court could approve a judgment in favor of the defendant that was in accord with the jury's answers to the special interrogatories. Answer choice A is incorrect. Generally, a court, unless ruling on a party's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, may not order the entry of a judgment that is contrary to a jury's general verdict. However, when the jury's answers to special interrogatories contradict the jury's general verdict, the court may order a judgment that is in accord with those answers. Answer choice B is incorrect because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49 specifically permits the use of special interrogatories along with a general verdict. Answer choice D is incorrect. In this circumstance, the court may (i) approve a judgment that is consistent with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, (ii) direct the jury to reconsider its answers and verdict, or (iii) order a new trial. The court is not required to approve a judgment consistent with the answers; rather, the court has discretion.

An Internet startup company began marketing a line of products under a trade name that was identical to a manufacturer's protected trademark. The manufacturer filed an action in federal district court for injunctive relief against the startup company, seeking to put a stop to the company's use of the protected trade name. The district court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the manufacturer and scheduled a hearing to consider a permanent injunction. The startup company wants to immediately appeal the preliminary injunction. Which of the following is most accurate concerning the startup company's potential appeal? A. Immediate appeal is precluded by the final judgment rule. B. Immediate appeal is precluded because the relief sought in the action is equitable. C. Immediate appeal is allowed by right. D. Immediate appeal is allowed only with the approval of the district court.

Answer choice C is correct. While most interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable, certain equitable orders are reviewable immediately as a matter of right, including an order granting an injunction. Answer choice A is incorrect. While the final judgment rule does preclude immediate appeal of most interlocutory orders, certain equitable orders are appealable as of right. Answer choice B is therefore also incorrect. Answer choice D is incorrect. Although a district court may certify for immediate appeal an order involving a controlling question of law, approval of the district court is not necessary to appeal an order granting an injunction.

A plaintiff filed a claim against a defendant, a corporation incorporated in State A in a federal district court located in State C. The complaint alleged a violation of the federal antitrust statute, which contains a provision for nationwide service of process, but did not specify any amount in controversy. The complaint asserted that the antitrust violation primarily occurred at the corporation's principal place of business, which is located in State B. Can the federal district court in State C exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant? A. Yes, because the federal antitrust statute provides for nationwide service of process. B. Yes, because the defendant is a corporation with multiple states of citizenship, not an individual. C. No, because the plaintiff failed to allege any amount in controversy. D. No, because the defendant does not have minimum contacts with State C.

Answer choice D is correct. A statute can contain a provision for nationwide service of process to attain personal jurisdiction. However, this does not mean that each federal court in every federal district would have personal jurisdiction over a defendant sued under that statute. Here, the defendant corporation is a citizen of State A or State B, and the relevant alleged unlawful conduct occurred in State B. There is no indication that the defendant has had any contacts with State C, let alone minimum contacts. Therefore, although the corporation could be served anywhere, only a federal court in States A and B would be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Accordingly, answer choice A is incorrect. Answer choice B is incorrect because even though a defendant corporation may have more than one state of citizenship, they are not subject to personal jurisdiction anywhere. The same constitutional requirements apply. Because the defendant has no apparent minimum contacts with State C, personal jurisdiction there is improper. Answer choice C is incorrect because federal question cases, such as cases brought under a federal statute like this federal antitrust statute, have no amount-in-controversy requirement.

A farmer filed an action in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction seeking damages attributable to a malfunctioning irrigation system in which four different defendants had participated in the design, manufacture, and installation. The farmer advanced three alternative theories of liability against the defendants—breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence. Prior to trial, the court required the parties to submit requests for jury instructions. Each party submitted such instructions. Prior to the close of evidence, the court held a charge conference to discuss the form of the verdict and related jury instructions. Due to the number of defendants and variety of theories of liability against each, the court determined that a special verdict form would be used. Concerned that the special verdict form failed to clearly indicate that, if the jury found for the farmer, the farmer was entitled to a single recovery of his damages, the defendants attempted to submit additional jury instructions. Is the court required to permit the defendants to submit these instructions? A. No, because the court had provided the defendants with the opportunity to submit jury instruction requests. B. No, because a court may, but is not required to, permit a party to request specific jury instructions. C. Yes, because the conference was held before the close of evidence. D. Yes, because the defendants could not reasonably have anticipated the need for such instructions prior to seeing the special verdict form.

Answer choice D is correct. Although the court may require the parties to file jury instructions at the close of evidence or at any earlier reasonable time, a party can file a request for jury instructions on issues that could not have reasonably been anticipated as of the earlier time set by the court for such requests. Here, because the defendants did not know of the special verdict form until the charge conference, it is unlikely that they could reasonably have anticipated the possible jury confusion that the defendants' requested instructions sought to address. Consequently, the defendants had a right to request jury instructions regarding the farmer's right to a single recovery. Answer choice A is incorrect. Although the court may require the parties to file jury instructions at the close of evidence or at any earlier reasonable time, a party may file a request for jury instructions on issues that could not have reasonably been anticipated as of the earlier time set by the court for such requests. Answer choice B is incorrect because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51 specifically permits a party to file requests for jury instructions with the court. Answer choice C is incorrect because Rule 51 permits the court to fix a reasonable time earlier than the close of evidence for the submission of requests for instructions. Here, the court did set an earlier time.

A plaintiff, who resides in a western state with a single federal judicial district, brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for an assault and battery committed by a federal employee in the same state. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The United States attorney did not file a pre-answer motion to dismiss. In her answer, the United States attorney asserted that venue is improper. Should the court recognize this defense? A. No, because improper venue must be raised by a pre-answer motion. B. No, because the United States is a defendant. C. Yes, because venue is proper only in the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. D. Yes, because venue is improper.

Answer choice D is correct. In an action filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, venue is proper either in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or in the judicial district where the act or omission occurred. Here, the judicial district for the western state in which the plaintiff resides is also the district in which the act or omission that gave rise to the claim arose. Consequently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is not the proper court in which to bring this suit. (Note: The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity and permits a tort action against the United States under limited circumstances.) Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the defense of improper venue may be raised in a pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b)(3), it may be raised in the answer if such a motion is not filed. Answer choice B is incorrect because the Federal Tort Claims Act specifies venue in the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or where the act or omission occurred; there is no alternate jurisdiction in the DC District Court. Answer choice C is incorrect because, while the court should recognize the improper venue defense, in a claim brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, venue is proper either in the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or in the judicial district in which the act or omission occurred.

A plaintiff filed suit against a defendant in a federal district court sitting in diversity jurisdiction, alleging state law fraud. In discovery, the plaintiff served 32 interrogatories on the defendant's bank for information regarding the defendant's banking transactions related to the subject matter of the lawsuit. How can the bank respond to the interrogatories? A. The bank may refuse to answer interrogatories 26 through 32 because they exceed the numerical limitation on interrogatories. B. The bank may refuse to answer all of the interrogatories because the plaintiff may only serve 25 interrogatories. C. The bank must move for a protective order to avoid answering the plaintiff's interrogatories. D. The bank has no obligation to answer any of the interrogatories that have been served by the plaintiff.

Answer choice D is correct. Interrogatories may only be served on a party to a lawsuit; they may not be used on nonparty witnesses. Here, the defendant's bank is not a party to the litigation and therefore has no obligation to answer any of the interrogatories served by the plaintiff. Answer choice A is incorrect. While there is a presumptive limit of 25 interrogatories, those interrogatories can only be served on a party to the litigation. The bank here is not a party to the litigation and has no obligation to respond. Answer choice B is incorrect. The bank can refuse to answer the interrogatories, not because the plaintiff exceeded the presumptive limit, but because the plaintiff cannot serve interrogatories on a nonparty. Answer choice C is incorrect. There is no need to move for a protective order because the plaintiff cannot properly serve interrogatories on the bank, a nonparty.

A plaintiff filed suit against a defendant in federal district court. On February 14, the defendant moved to dismiss the entire complaint and the trial judge granted the motion. The order of final judgment was entered on February 25. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the district clerk on April 13. Which of the following is most accurate regarding the plaintiff's appeal? A. The appeal is precluded by the final judgment rule. B. The appeal may be permitted according to the discretion of the court of appeals. C. The appeal was timely filed. D. The appeal was not timely filed.

Answer choice D is correct. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the notice of appeal required in a civil case must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered. Here, the notice of appeal was filed on April 13, more than 30 days after the order of final judgment was entered on February 25. Answer choice A is incorrect. The appeal is not precluded by the final judgment rule, which generally precludes the federal courts of appeals from jurisdiction over an appeal when there has been no final judgment entered by the district court. Rather, the appeal here is precluded by the fact that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Answer choice B is incorrect. The timely filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional for the court of appeals. The court has no discretion. Since the notice of appeal was not timely filed, the court cannot hear the appeal. Answer choice C is incorrect. The notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the order of final judgment was entered, making the appeal untimely.

A mayor sued a blogger for defamation in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction. The mayor alleged in her complaint that the blogger had published defamatory statements about her that suggested she was having an adulterous relationship. The mayor's entire case rested on her own testimony establishing the prima facie elements of her claim and a properly authenticated and admitted copy of the allegedly defamatory publication. At the end of the mayor's presentation of evidence to the jury, the blogger filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Finding that the mayor's meager evidence was insufficient for a jury reasonably to find that the publication was false, as was required by state law, the judge granted the blogger's motion and directed a judgment in favor of the blogger. The mayor immediately appealed the judgment, contending that the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard in granting the motion. On these facts, should the judgment be set aside on appeal? A. No, because the district court's ruling was not clearly erroneous. B. No, because the mayor failed to meet her burden of establishing a prima facie case as a matter of law. C. Yes, because a motion for judgment as a matter of law cannot be granted until both parties have presented their cases. D. Yes, because the district court improperly evaluated the weight of the evidence.

Answer choice D is correct. When ruling on a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the opposing party. It may not consider the credibility of witnesses or evaluate the weight of the evidence, and it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. Therefore, on these facts, the district court improperly granted the blogger's motion, and the ruling should be set aside. Answer choice A is incorrect because it states the incorrect standard to be applied when reviewing a judgment as a matter of law. Appellate review of legal rulings is de novo. The appeals court will use the trial court's record, but it reviews the evidence and law without deference to the trial court's rulings. Answer choice B is incorrect because the mayor met this burden by testifying that the publication was false. The credibility of this testimony must be assessed by the jury. Answer choice C is incorrect because a motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury.