Civ Pro FINAL

In International Shoe, the Supreme Court: a. Rejected prior analyses of IPJ based on the traditional bases of physical presence, domicile, voluntary appearance; or consent, and instead created an entirely new analysis based on "minimum contacts" and "reasonableness." b. Retained prior analyses of IPJ based on the traditional bases of physical presence, domicile, voluntary appearance; or consent, but added a new analysis applicable to cases where a non-consenting, out-of-state defendant has "contacts" with the form state. c. Derived the "contacts" portion of its new analysis by re-examining and re-classifying prior cases, and constructing a new theory that would account for the results in those cases. d. Derived the "reasonableness" part of its analysis from the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, and cases interpreting that Amendment. (E.g., Milliken). e. Two of answers a-d. f. Three of .answers a-d g. All of answers a-d

F. Three of answers a-d (b,c,d)

Alternate universe. Based on the same accident described above, Healy brings suit against Austin in Minnesota. Assuming appropriate statutory authorization, would a Minnesota court be allowed to assert IPJ over Austin? a. Yes, because this claim arose out of Austin's activities in Minnesota. b. Yes, because Austin regularly visits Minnesota. c. Yes, if but only if Austin is served with process while physically present in Minnesota. d.Yes because, by driving in Minnesota, Austin has "impliedly consented" to the jurisdiction of Minnesota courts for any cause of action arising out of that driving

a. yes, because this claim arose out of Austin's activities in Minnesota

Taken together, Pennoyer v. Neff and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A), establish the basic rules for a federal court's power to assert IPJ over persons within the US. Together, these sources of law establish that: a. Federal courts, like state courts, are only permitted to assert jurisdiction over persons or things that are found within or who has otherwise associated herself with - i.e, by citizenship, voluntary appearance or consent - the state in which the particular federal court sits. b. Federal courts can assert power over any person who can be found anywhere within the United States. c. Federal courts must seek approval from state courts to assert power over persons or things within a particular state. d. None of the above.

A. Federal courts, like state courts, are only permitted to assert jurisdiction over persons or things that are found within or who has otherwise associated herself with-- i.e. citizenship, voluntary appearance on consent-- the state in which the particular federal court sits.

Oscar sues the Under Mifflin Company for bad faith discharge, a state tort claim that allows damages if the defendant discharges an employee for reasons that violate certain public policies. Oscar claims that Under Mifflin fired him because he refused to engage in accounting practices that violate federal statutory accounting requirements for government contractors. Oscar brings suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Under Mifflin moves to dismiss for lack of SMJ. What is the result? A. Grant the motion, because Pennsylvania employment law, not federal law, creates the claim that plaintiff asserts. B. Grant the motion, because the federal law does not enter the case as part of plaintiff's complaint, as required by Mottley. C. Grant the motion, because this case would be better handled in state court where the fact finder better understand the public policies. D. Grant the motion because the federal law is not even an "ingredient" of the case, and therefore the case does not "arise under" federal law, as interpreted by Chief Justice Marshall in Osborn v. Bank of the United States.

A. Grant the motion because Pennsylvania employment law, not federal law, creates the claim that the plaintiff asserts.

Aaron B (NY) shoots and kills Eliza's husband in a duel. at the time of the duel, both were officers in the US army. Eliza (NY) wants to bring a tort action against Aaron for wrongful death and loss of consortium. Both causes of action are state law torts. She seeks a total of $1 million from Aaron as part of her allegation that the death was indeed "wrongful" Eliza's Complaint cites to Art. 114 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 US Code 914, which defines dueling as an offense punishable by court martial, and sentence for a term of years to a military brig. Eliza comes to you for advice about where to file her claim. you should tell her: A. She can file the action only in state court, because only a state court would have general subject matter jurisdiction over claims of this sort. B. She can choose to file either in state court or federal court because her claim clearly meets the required threshold for the "amount in controversy." C. She can choose to file either in state court or federal court because she cites to federal law in her complaint, thus satisfying Mottley. D. She can choose to file either in state court or federal court, because her claim "arises under" the anti-dueling statute, 10 U.S.C. §914. E. She can only file in federal court, because only federal tribunals have authority to try claims against U.S. military officers.

A. She can file the action only in state court because only a state court would have general SMJ over claims of this sort.

Same facts as question 5. Issue that Paula (rightfully or wrongfully) filed suit in state trial court. The state judge dismissed Paula's claim. Paula is convinced that the trial court ruled as it did because of its fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning and application of the relevant federal statutes. She wants to appeal. She should file that appeal in: A. In the appropriate Louisiana Circuit Court of Appeals, because that is the court that has supervisory authority over a Louisiana trial Court B. In the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, because federal courts are the ultimate authority over the meaning and application of federal law. C. In the United States Supreme Court, because that Court is the ultimate authority over the meaning and application of federal law. D. In either the appropriate Louisiana Circuit Court of Appeals or the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, at Paula=s option.

A. the appropriate LA Circuit Court of Appeals, because that is the court that has supervisory authority over a LA trial court

To say that a particular court can assert "general IPJ" over a particular out-of-state business entity means that: A. the court's power is "dispute blind" in the sense that it the court's power does not depend on what the dispute is about, or where that dispute arose. B. the court's power could potentially extend to any dispute that is in any way connected to the forum state. C. the defendant's contacts with the forum state must be equivalent to those that a citizen or resident of that state would have. D. the court's authority can be asserted regardless of whether there is statutory or common-law authority for the court to do so.

A. the court's power is "dispute blind" in the sense that the court's power does not depend on what the dispute is about or where that dispute arose.

Gaston, a citizen of Belgium, wants to join with Lev, a citizen of LA, as plaintiffs, to bring a tort suit against McFee Co. (a corp. organized under the laws of the U.K. with its PPB in Scotland). They seek $200,000 in damages against the defendants, jointly and severally. Gaston and Lev would like to bring this action in federal court. There is also a 2nd potential defendant--Austin, a citizen of TX-- against whom Gaston and Lev have good faith arising out of the same transaction and who could be joined as a 2nd defendant in the same suit. They come to you for advice regarding how the joinder of Austin (or failure to join Austin) would affect the diversity SMJ in federal court. A. A federal court likely would have diversity subject matter jurisdiction over this suit regardless of whether Austin is joined as a defendant. B. A federal court likely would have diversity subject matter jurisdiction if Austin is joined as a defendant, but would nothave SMJ if Austin is not joined. C. A federal court likely would not have diversity subject matter jurisdiction if Austin is joined as a defendant, but wouldhave SMJ if Austin is not joined. D. A federal court likely would not have diversity subject matter jurisdiction over this suit regardless of whether Austin is joined as a defendant.

B. A federal court likely would have diversity SMJ if Austin is joined as a defendant, but would not have SMJ is Austin is not joined

The SEC is a federal administrative agency created by Congress. It is authorized to and does issue regulations which have the force of law. One of the most important of these is SEC "Rule 10(b)(5), which prohibits fraud in the purchase and sale of stocks and bonds. A Nevada state provides that that it shall be a violation of Nevada law for any person in Nevada to engage in "any violation of SEC Rule 10 (B)(5) involving short selling of securities," and provides that any person injured by such a short sale by a person in Nevada can assert a claim for damages against that person. Priscilla brings an action against Dennis who "short sold" stocks to Priscilla in Nevada in a manner that alleges she violates SEC Rule 10(b)(5). She alleges that this sale therefore violated the Nevada statute and seeks the damages provided for by the Nevada statute. Priscilla brings the action in the US District Court for the District of Nevada. Dennis moves to dismiss for lack of SMJ. The federal judge should: A. Deny the motion because federal law creates plaintiff's cause of action. B. Deny the motion because plaintiff's claim will rise or fall depending on whether federal law (here Rule 10(b)(5) is construed to prohibit or not prohibit Dennis' actions. C. Grant the motion because Priscilla's claim is created by Nevada state law. D. Grant the motion because Priscilla's claim fails Mottley's "well pleaded complaint" rule

B. Deny the motion because plaintiff's claim will rise or fall depending on whether federal law (here Rule 10(b)(5) is construed to prohibit or not prohibit Dennis' Actions

Targaryen Associates is a partnership organized under the laws of NY. It is in the business of providing management services for commercial real estate throughout the NE parts of US. Targaryen's headquarters is, and its officers are, all located in NYC. Targaryen operates in and has individual partners who are citizens of NY, PA, NJ, DE, CT, and MA. "Lannister Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company organized according to the laws of DE, with its headquarters in CA. Lannister owns commercial buildings located throughout the US. Its sole managing partner, cersei, is also domiciled in CA. Lanister Holdings has limited partners located in CA, WA, AZ, and TX. Some years ago, Targaryen entered into a contract to manage the Westeros Arms, a building owned by Lannister in Boston, MA. A dispute has developed between Lannister and Targaryen: Targaryen accuses Lannister of failing to pay their debts (i.e. to pay what was owed under the contract) and Lannister accuses Targaryen of failure to properly manage the Westeros Amos. Targaryen Associates brings suit against Lannister in federal court, seeking $100,000 in damages for breach of the parties contract. Lannister Holdings moves to dismiss for lack of federal SMJ. As judge you should: A. Deny the motion to dismiss, because the parties are completely diverse. Targaryen is considered a citizen of New York (where it was created, and where its headquarters are located). Lannister is a citizen of Delaware (by the laws of which it was created) and California, where its corporate headquarters is located. Hertz v. Friend. B. Deny the motion to dismiss, because the parties are completely diverse Because Targaryen is a partnership, it is treated as a citizen of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut and Massachusetts (i.e., all of the states in which its partners are domiciled). Though an LLC, Lannister is also treated as if it were a partnership, with its citizenship defined by the domiciles of its partners - here, California, Washington State, Arizona and Texas. C. Grant the motion to dismiss, because the parties are not completely diverse. Targaryen is deemed a citizen of Massachusetts because it has a partner domiciled there. Lannister is also deemed a citizen of Massachusetts aa substantial asset (the Westeros Arms) in Massachusetts. Carden v. Arkoma Associates. D. Grant the motion to dismiss, because the parties are not completely diverse. As a partnership, Targaryen is considered a citizen of Delaware (among other states) because it has partners domiciled in that state. Lannister, an LLC, is also deemed a citizen of Delaware because that is the state according to whose laws it was created. 28 USC §1332(c)(1).

B. Deny the motion to dismiss, because the parties are completely diverse. because Targaryen is a partnership, it is treated as a citizen of NY, PA, NJ, DE, CT, and MA. Though an LLC, Lannister is also treated as if it were a partnership defined by the domiciles of its partners-- here CA, WA, AZ, and TX

Cora Crawley was born and raised in Washington D.C. At the age of 20 she married Hugh, a British citizen residing in Hampshire, England. Though the couple established their domicile in Hampshire, Cora retained her American citizenship. Gowns, Inc. is a DE corp. with its principle place of business in D.C. Recently, Gowns, Inc. brought an action against Cora in a U.S. District Court, alleging that she owed the company $80,000 for fancy dresses which she had purchased but not paid for. Cora makes a motion to dismiss the action for lack of SMJ. You are the judge, you should... A. Grant the motion, because citizens of D.C. are not citizens of any "State." B. Grant the motion because Cora is not a citizen of any state of the United States, nor is she a citizen or subject of any foreign state. C. Deny the motion, because §1332(a)(2) authorizes federal courts to hear claims between citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign states, and because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. D. Deny the motion because 1) the amount on controversy requirement is met; and 2) the parties are diverse. A human being retains one's former state citizenship until one establishes citizenship in a different state. Thus defendant Cora thus retains her D.C. citizenship and plaintiff Edwardian Gowns, Inc.'s Delaware citizenship makes it diverse from plaintiff.

B. Grant the motion because Cora is not a citizen of any state of the U.S., nor is she a citizen or subject of any foreign state

Petunia, a citizen of LA, was out walking. She was hit by a car driven by Desdemona, a citizen of TX. Later on the way to the hospital, one of the EMTs, Douglas, also a citizen of TX, negligently gave Petunia a transfusion using the wrong type of blood, causing further injuries to Petunia. Petunia thereafter brought a single action in a federal court against both Desdemona and Douglas (as co-defendants). Petunia's claim against Desdemona lists the following items of damage: 1.) $25,000 for medical expenses resulting from the initial accident and 2.) $30,000 for her pain and suffering. Petunia's claim against Douglas lists the following items of damages: 3.) $20,000 for additional medical expenses resulting from the initial accident and 4.) $20,000 for additional pain and suffering caused thereby. Defendants move to dismiss for lack of SMJ. You are the judge. How would you rule? A. Grant the motion because a plaintiff may not sue more than one defendant in a single action. B. Grant the motion because Petunia's claims do not "exceed the sum or value of $75,000," as required by §1332. C. Deny the motion because the parties are diverse and the claims for damages may be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount. D. Deny the motion for now, but grant it if the amounts awarded by the jury fail to add to more than $75,000.

B. Grant the motion because Petunia's claims do not exceed the sum or value of $75,000 as required by §1332

Prentiss, a citizen of NY, sues Food Corp., a corp. created under the laws of NY, with its principle place of business in FL. Prentiss became sick after drinking a bottle of orange juice bottled by Food Corp. which turned out to contain toxins. Prentiss brought suit in the U.S. District court for the middle district of FL (which included Tampa). Prentiss brings suit on 2 theories. 1). She seeks $50,000 from Food Corp. on the theory that the company was negligent in allowing its product to be contaminated by toxins. 2.) She seeks to recover $50,000 based on the same events, asserting in the alternate that Foods Corp. is strictly liable under a product liability theory. Defendant moves to dismiss. You are the judge. How would you rule? A. Grant the motion because a plaintiff may not sue more than one defendant in a single action. B. Grant the motion because Petunia's claims do not "exceed the sum or value of $75,000," as required by §1332. C. Deny the motion because the parties are diverse and the claims for damages may be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount. D. Deny the motion for now, but grant it if the amounts awarded by the jury fail to add to more than $75,000.

B. Grant the motion because Petunia's claims do not exceed the sum or value of $75,000 as required by §1332

As you may know, the Mal-Mart retail giant (a DE corp. w/ its PPB in Ark) owns many stores and employs many hundreds of people in every state. Assume that a dispute arose between Walmart and a large number of its employees at its stores in TX. Those TX employees alleged that Walmart wrongly interfered with the employees' efforts to organize a union, in violation of the federal labor laws. Those employees are concerned that the federal 5th circuit is hostile toward enforcement of federal labor laws, so they instead file the suit in California. Under the line of cases typified by the LA decision in Aguilera de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, LTD: A. Suit could be brought in a federal court in California because Wal-Mart has "continuous and systematic" contacts in that state. B. Suit in a federal court in California might be possible, based on the defendant's continuous and systematic contacts in that state, but the ultimate result would depend on whether the court considered bring suit in that location "fair" and "reasonable." C. Suit in a federal court in California would be posible because any federal court can assert IPJ over any defendant located within the United States. D. Suit could not be brought in California, as the defendant lacks sufficient contacts in that state.

B. Suit in federal court in CA might be possible, based on the defendant's continuous and systematic contacts in that state, but the ultimate result would depend on whether the court considered bring suit in that location fair and reasonable.

Which of the following statements most accurately states the degree of deference that federal courts of appeals usually use when reviewing the decisions of the United States trial courts? A. The appellate court usually gives deference both to the trail court=s findings of fact and to the trial court=s conclusions of law. The trial court saw the witnesses and knows local customs and laws of her state better than an appellate court, and its decisions should be respected. B. The appellate court usually gives deference to the trial court=s findings of fact, but little deference to the trial court=s conclusions of law. The trail court=s finding of fact should be left undisturbed (unless they are clearly erroneous) because the trial court was able to see the witnesses= testimony, while the appellate court sees only a written transcript. In contrast, the appellate court review the trial court=s conclusions of law Ade novo@ (i.e., by making its own independent decision, not limited by any deference to the trial court). Panels of appellate judges are more reliable interpreters of law than a single trial judge, acting alone. C. The appellate court usually give deference to the trial court=s conclusions of law, particularly in diversity cases. A federal trial judge sitting in Mississippi will be more familiar with Mississippi law than will be a 5th Circuit judge who may be from Texas, and who sits in New Orleans. In contrast, the appellate court should give little deference to the trial court=s findings of fact. The trial transcript contains all of the information presented at trial, and appellate judges are usually more experienced in interpreting that evidence. D. The appellate court should determine all issues for itself, without deferring to the trial court=s decision. The whole reason that appellate courts exist is to correct the errors of trial courts.

B. The appellate court usually gives deference to the trial court's finding of facts, but little deference to the trial court's conclusions of law. The trial court's finding of fact should be left undisturbed (unless they are clearly erroneous) because the trial court was able to see witness's testimony, while the appellate court sees only a written transcript. In contrast, the appellate court reviews the trial court's conclusions of law de novo (i.e. by making its own independent decision, not limited to any deference to the trial court). Panels of appellate judges are more reliable interpreters of law than a single trial judge acting alone.

Suppose that the Motley's' case arose after Grable was decided. Once again they sue in federal court for their passes and allege that the railroad will likely rely on the federal anti-trust statute as its reason for refusing to renew the passes. The motley's complaint goes on to assert that this defense is insufficient: 1) because the statute does not apply to passes granted before its enactment; and if the state were so interpreted, the statute would violate the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. How would the result in the Mottley case differ if it were brought today? A. The result would be the same, because the Fifth Amendment is federal law and is a "necessary ingredient" of the Mottley's complaint. B. The result would be the same because the federal statute and Constitutional provision cited do not form any necessary element of the Mottley's claim and therefore their claim does not "arise out of" federal law. C. The result would differ, and the case would not be dismissed, because the claim raises substantial, important disputed issues of federal law. D. The result would differ, and the case would not be dismissed, because by rewording their complaint, the federal statute is now a necessary ingredient of the Mottley's claim.

B. The result would be the same because the federal statute and constitutional provision cited do not form any necessary element of the Mottley's claim and therefore their claim does not arise out of federal law.

Walter white, citizen of AZ, hired a lawyer Saul Goodman, citizen of NM, to sure Jesse Pinkman, citizen of NM, for breach of contract. Both the hiring of Goodman and the work on the suit took place in NM, Walter agreed to pay Saul $1000 for his services. Saul did the work but Walter returned to AZ without paying Saul's fee. Saul sues Walter for his fee in an NM state court. Walter is served with process in NM while Walter was visiting there on unrelated business. Walter promptly departed once more for AZ and has not returned to the state since. According to Pennoyer, the NM court: a. Would have personal jurisdiction over Walter because the event giving rise to the action took place in New Mexico; b. Would have personal jurisdiction over Walter because he was served in New Mexico; c. Would not have personal jurisdiction over Walter, because he was served while he was there for a purpose unrelated to the fees claim; d. Would not have jurisdiction over Walter, because at the time the action was heard he is no longer physically present in New Mexico; e. Would have jurisdiction over Walter for the fees claim, but would not have jurisdiction over him if Saul had sued him for a claim that arose in another state.

B. would have IPJ over Walter because he was served in NM.

28 U.S.C. § 1338 provides that federal courts have exclusive SMJ over claims alleging violation of the federal patent and copyright laws, (note this is one of the rare cases for which state courts do not have concurrent jurisdiction over claims "arising under" federal law.) Acme Corp. (incorporated in DE with its PPB in NY) manufactures and sells ceiling fans. Widgets, Inc. (incorporated in DE with its PPB in OH) also mandators and sells ceiling fans. Acme believed that Widget's products improperly copied Acme's patented "force multiplier" design for the blades of its ceiling fans-- a patented design for the shape of the blades which increased the amount of air in circulation and the cooling effect of Acme's fans. Acme wrote letters to Widgets, to widgets' customers (mostly large retail outlets) and to the newspapers, all accusing widgets of stealing Acme's intellectual property. In response, widgets brought a defamation action against Acme in state court. Acme responded to widgets complaint by filing an answer and counterclaim alleging that widgets had infringed Acme's patent rights (a claim that arises under federal patent law, and thus falls within ^1331 and also under ^1338's definition of exclusive federal SMJ over patent claims). Acme then removed the case to the appropriate federal court. Widgets made a timely motion to remand the whole case (including both its original claim and Acme's counterclaim) back to state court, on the ground that the federal court lacked SMJ over the action. The federal judge should: A. grant the motion to remand the case to state court, on the ground that neither Widgets' original claim nor Acme's counterclaim falls within the subject matter of the federal courts. B. grant the motion to remand, on the ground that Widget's original claim does not fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court. C. deny the motion to remand, on the ground that Acme's counterclaim falls within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court (indeed, can only be heard in federal court). D. Deny the motion to dismiss, on the ground that both Widgets' claim for defamation and Acme's claim for patent infringement fall withing the federal court's original subject matter jurisdiction.

B. grant the motion to remand, on the ground that Widget's original claim does not fall within SMJ of the federal court.

The Rule articulated in Louisville & Nashville RR. Co. v. Mottley is sometimes referred to as the well pleaded complaint rule. This concept is best understood as: A. requiring that plaintiff's complaint adhere to the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10, which prescribe the required content and form of federal pleadings B. requiring that the federal law relied on for the assertion of U.S. District Court's federal question subject matter jurisdiction must make up part of the logic of plaintiff's claim. C. requiring that the plaintiff draft her complaint in proper English. D. requiring that, in order to assert federal question subject matter jurisdiction, there must be a citation to federal Constitutional, statutory or treaty law somewhere within the body of plaintiff's complaint.

B. requiring that the federal law relied on for assertion of the U.S. District Court's federal question SMJ must make up part of the logic of plaintiff's claim.

Some years ago, Jessica was involved in a car accident. The other party involved brought suit against Jessica in a Maine state court. Process was served on Jessica in NY. Jessica believes that the Maine action should be dismissed for two reasons: 1) because the Maine court lacks IPJ over her; and 2) because the suit is now barred by the applicable statute of limitations. She makes was she calls a "special appearance" (allowed by Maine law) and moves to dismiss the case on both of the asserted grounds. Did Jessica's appearance in the Maine court give the court IPJ over her? a. Yes. Jessica's presence in the Maine court is sufficient to give them jurisdiction over her. b. Yes. Special appearance protection only applies when the defendant appears solely for the purpose of dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction. Jessica has also pleaded the affirmative defense of statute of limitations, giving Maine jurisdiction over her. c. No. Jessica went to Maine to contest personal jurisdiction which is allowed by special appearance without having to submit yourself to the jurisdiction of Maine. d. No. Jessica's assertion that Maine lacks personal jurisdiction is correct so Maine therefore does not have basis for jurisdiction against her.

B. yes. Special appearance protection only applies when the defendant appears solely for the purpose of

Which of the following statement or statements contains the core principle of Grable and Sons? [1] Federal courts may have federal question jurisdiction over claims created by state law, if the meaning or application of some point of federal law is actually disputed, and is a substantial part of litigation [2] Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over a claim if but only if there is a "well pleaded complaint." [3] Federal court has federal question jurisdiction over state law claims as long as the federal court can hear without disrupting the federal-state balance, as set by Congress. A. Statement [1] B. Statement [2] C. Statement [3] D. Statements [1] and [2] E. Statements [1] and [3] F. Statements [2] and [3]

E. Statements 1 and 3

Allie, a citizen of LA, works at LSU as a professor. Allie believes that LSU is treating her differently and not giving her the same opportunities as other professors of similar accomplishment because she is a woman. Indeed she is the only woman in her department. Allie has heard that federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender. She is also convinced that the university's treatment of her violates the terms of her employment contract. She wants to sue LSU for breach of contract, and to do so in federal court if possible. She comes to you for advice. You would tell her that a federal court would A. Hear the case because federal law does have something to do with the claim she asserts. B. Hear the case because federal law as the primary source of her right to relief. C Dismiss the claim because Allie is relying on state law as the source of her right to relief. D. Dismiss the claim because federal courts can never hear a breach of contract claim since that is exclusively a state claim.

C. Dismiss the claim because Allie is relying on state law as the source of her right to relief.

Both Art. III of the US Constitution and 28 U.S.C 1332 permit federal trial courts to assert SMJ over suits between citizens of different states. Which statement correctly describes how the US Supreme Court has interpreted this phrase? A. The phrase has ben interpreted to require only Aminimal diversity@ B i.e., that federal courts may assert diversity SMJ whenever any plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than any defendant. B. The phrase has been interpreted to require Acomplete diversity@ B i.e., that federal courts may assert diversity SMJ only if all defendants are citizens of different states than all defendants. C. As used in Art. III, the phrase has been interpreted to require only minimal diversity, but as used in '1332, the phrase has been interpreted to require complete diversity. D. As used in Art. III, the phrase has been interpreted to require complete diversity, but as used in '1332 the phrase has been interpreted to require only minimal diversity.

C. as used in Art III, the phrase has been interpreted to require only minimal diversity, but as used in 1332, the phrase has been interpreted to require complete diversity

Leni Riefenstahl is a citizen of Germany. However, she is also a permanent resident of US with her domicile in CA. Kelly Conway is a citizen of US, also domiciled in CA. James Carville is a US citizen domiciled in LA. Lena brought a defamation suit against Kelly and James, in the U.S. District Court, alleging a good faith claim for more than &75,000 in damages against each. defendants move to dismiss the action for lack of federal SMJ. You would expect the judge to: A. Deny the motion, because the plaintiff is completely diverse from both defendants and the amount in controversy requirement is met. B. Deny the motion because this is a suit between a citizen of the United States and a "citizen or subject of a foreign state," as required by 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(2). C. Grant the motion because Riefenstahl, as a "permanent resident" is treated as if she were a citizen of the state in which she is domiciled - here, California. Thus she is not diverse from Conway. D. Grant the motion because ordinary state law tort actions should are better dealt with in state court.

C. grant the motion because Leni, as a permanent resident is treated as if she were a citizen of the state in which she is domiciled--here CA. Thus she is not diverse from Conway.

Same facts as #20, further research has led Allie and her attorney to discover Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides that employees may not discriminate against an employee because of the employee's race, color, national origin, sex or religion. Title VII further provides that any person who believes that he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the Act may bring an action for damages against the employer. Allie now files a compliant against the LSU in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of LA, alleging that the university's treatment of her violated Title VII. Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of SMJ. You would expect the federal judge to: A. Grant the motion to dismiss because the parties are non-diverse. B. Grant the motion to dismiss because the dispute between the parties is essentially one for breach of contract, and a plaintiff cannot create federal SMJ where it does not exist by "dressing up" the complaint with references to federal law C. Deny the motion because federal law has something to do with plaintiff's claim D. Deny the motion because federal law "creates" Allie's claim.

D. Deny the motion because federal law creates allies claim

Tim Cook, holder of a patent on a new cell phone, licenses the idea to Steve Jobs, an entrepreneur. Both Cook and Jobs are citizens of CA. The contract between Cook and Jobs requires Jobs to pay a license fee to Cook for every phone sold. Jobs sells over one million cell phones, but Tim claims that Jobs has only paid him licensing fees for half of those phones. Cook sues Jobs in the Central District of California to recover for the difference in amounts paid for the licensing of the patent, and Jobs moves to dismiss for lack of SMJ. What is the result? A. Deny the motion, because plaintiff's complaint will necessarily have to refer to federal patent law in order to lay out his claim against defendant Jobs, and thus meets the requirement of Mottley. B. Deny the motion, because federal patent law is the ultimate source of the rights that plaintiff seeks to vindicate in this suit. C. Deny the motion, for the claim turns on the question of whether the patent is enforceable under federal law. Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust. D. Grant the motion, because the plaintiff's claim does not "arise under" federal law, under either the "creation" or the current understanding of the "necessary ingredient" test. E. Grant the motion,, because contact law is state law, and state courts are the best forum in which to resolve disputes over contract claims.

D. Grant the motion because the plaintiff's claim does not arise under federal law, under either the creation or the current understanding of the necessary ingredient test.

P, a citizen of LA, sues D Corp, her employer, for an alleged violation of LA law. D Corp. is a corp created under DE law with its principle place of business in BR, LA. Plaintiff seeks exactly $75,000 in damages. Plaintiff brings the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of LA. Defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of SMJ. You are the judge. You should... A. Deny to motion because the suit is between a citizen of Louisiana and a citizen of Delaware and the requisite amount in controversy has been alleged B. Grant the motion to dismiss because the parties are not diverse. C. Grant the motion because the amount in controversy requirement has not been met. D. Grant the motion for both of the reasons set forth in answers "B" and "C" above.

D. Grant the motion for both of the reasons set forth in answers B and C above.

Mas v. Perry stands for the principle that: A. The state citizenship of a U.S. citizen is determined by the state in which that citizen is domiciled B. A party=s domicile is the place where that party intends to remain indefinitely C. A married couple are presumed to share a common domicile and citizenship, but what that domicile will be must be decided on the totality of the circumstances. D. Two if the above E. All of the above.

D. Two of the above (A and B)

In Smith v. Kansas City Title and Trust the Supreme Court held that a federal court had SMJ over plaintiff's claim that the bank's officers and directors had breached their fiduciary duties, even through that claim was created by state rather than federal law. It did so because: A. Article III of the Constitution requires only that federal law have something to do with plaintiff's claim, even if that federal law is undisputed or a mere matter of background. B. Plaintiff's claim would necessarily turn on the question of how federal law - here, the federal constitutional limits on Congress' authority to issue bonds - was interpreted. C. The fact that plaintiff's claim would turn on the interpretation of federal law was apparent from the face of the complaint. D. Two of the above. E. All of the above. E. is arguable because A. could be right but B and C are definitely right.

D. Two of the above (B & C)

Both Art. III of the US Constitution and 28 U.S.C § 1331 permit federal trial courts to assert SMJ over claims arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the US. Which statement correctly describes how the US Supreme Court has interpreted this phrase? A. The phrase has been interpreted to require only that federal law have something to do with the claims - i.e., that it is sufficient that some point of federal law be relevant to plaintiff's claim, even if that point is not in dispute or only arises as a matter of background law. B. The phrase has been interpreted to require that federal law "create" (or at least be a "necessary element" of) plaintiff's claim. C. As used in Art. III, the phrase has been interpreted to require that federal law "create" (or at least be a "necessary element" of) plaintiff' claims, but as used in §1331 the phrase has been interpreted to require only the federal law have something to do with plaintiff's claim. D. As used in Art. III, the phrase has been interpreted to require only the federal law have something to do with plaintiff's claim, but as used in §1331, the phrase has been interpreted to require that federal law "create" (or at least be a "necessary element" of) plaintiff' claims.

D. as used in Art. III, the phrase has been interpreted to require only the federal law have something to do with the plaintiff's claim, but as used in § 1331, the phrase has been interpreted to require that federal law "create" or at least be a necessary element of plaintiff's claims

Peter (a citizen of LA) wants to sue David (a citizen of TX), alleging a claim for breach of contract. he asserts that defendant's breach has cost him (plaintiff) $90,000. Peter can bring that suit: A. Only in state trial court, because the matters involved (tort law and contract law ) are issues of state law. B. In federal district court, regardless of the amount in controversy, because the suit is Abetween citizens of different states@as required by '1332(a)(1), as interpreted in Strawbridge. C. In federal district court because his good faith claims aggregate to more than $75,000. D. In either state court or federal district court, at Peter=s option.

D. in either state court or federal district court, at Peter's option

Ringling Brothers, Inc. is a corp. created under the laws of WI, with its corporate central offices in NYC. Ringling is in the business of operating a circus. During the months from March through November, the circus travels, primarily ) to and performs in cities up and down the eastern portion of the United States. The nly real property owned by Ringling is near Sarasota, Florida, where the circus maintains its "winter quarters" - i.e., where they store their equipment for the wimter, where performers train and where those performers who do not have homes elsewhere can live in barracks-type quarters provided by the company. Investigation has revealed that the particular employee whose negligence caused the lion to escape was Emmett Kelly, a citizen of Florida. A few months ago, Barnum, a citizen of Maine, was injured when a lion escaped from its cage while the circus train was stopped for refueling at the railroad yard in Bangor, Maine. Plaintiff wants to bring suit against Ringling Bros. and Kelly, and would like to get both defendants into the same courtroom. Barnum comes to you for advice. The time is today. You would tell him: A. that he likely could not get IPJ over both defendants in the same court. After Daimler, Ringling Bros. Is subject to suit only in Delaware or New York, and over Kelly only in Florida or Maine. B. that he could likely get IPJ over both defendants only in Maine. C. that he could almost certainly get IPJ over both defendants in either Florida or Maine. D. that he could certainly get IPJ over both defendants in Maine, and may be able to get IPJ over both defendants in Florida as well.

D. that he could certainly get IPJ over both defendants in Maine, and may be able to get IPJ over both defendants in Florida as well.

Peggy and Donal got into a car accident in Georgia. Peggy wants to sue Donald, but he left the state before he could be served with process. His present whereabouts is unknown. Peggys investigator learned that Donald is a citizen of Florida, where his aged mother still lives, Peggy arranged to have her investigator send a Facebook message to Donald stating, untruthfully, that Donald's mother was gravely ill. Unsurprisingly, Donald rushed home where he was met with a process server who served Peggy's summons and complaint on him. Would a Florid court likely assert IPJ over Donald in this case? a. No, because while this was service on Donald when he was physically present in Florida, courts generally refuse to assert personal jurisdiction, if that jurisdiction was obtained by fraud. b. No, because the accident took place in Georgia. c. Yes, because Donald was served with process while physically present in Florida; the circumstances that led to his presence are irrelevant. d. Yes, because Donald is a citizen of Florida. e. Yes, for both the reasons given in answer "c" and "d."

D. yes, because Donald is a citizen of Florida

The function of the trial court, either those within the federal court system or those within the various state court systems, is to? A. Make a determination as to the facts of a dispute-- who did what, when, where, how and why. B. Make a determination as to the law regarding a dispute-- deciding what legal rules govern the particular dispute and how those legal rules should be interpreted. C. Come to a final judgment that resolves the dispute, by applying the appropriate legal rules to the facts found. D. Two of functions set out in A-C E. All of the functions set out in A-C

E. all the functions set out in A-C

Paula, a citizen of LA, brings an action against Darlene, a citizen of LA, alleging a claim arising out of Darlene's alleged violation of federal statutes prohibiting race discrimination in employment. Paula can bring that action: A. Only in state trial court, because the plaintiff and defendant are not diverse from one another. B. Only in federal district court, because only federal courts are authorized to hear claims arising under federal law. C. In federal district court, if but only if Paula can assert a good faith claim for more than $75,000. D. In the United States Circuit Court for the 5th Circuit, which covers the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. E. In either state trial court or federal district court, at Paula=s option

E. in either state trial court or federal district court, at Paula's option

Plaintiff (LA Citizen) sued Defendant (TX citizen) in a LA state court. After winning $100,000 judgment in her favor, Plaintiff sought to enforce that judgment against Defendant's assets in TX. The TX state court refused to enforce (i.e. to give full faith and credit to) the LA court judgment, on the ground that it was an unreasonable interpretation of the applicable law. She comes to you for advice. You should tell her: a. To file an appeal in the appropriate federal court in Texas, on the ground that the parties are completely diverse and there is a sufficient amount in controversy. However, the appeal would likely be unsuccessful, as the Texas court may refuse full faith and credit if the prior decision is manifestly erroneous. b. To file an appeal in the appropriate federal court in Texas, on the ground that the parties are completely diverse and there is a sufficient amount in controversy. However, the appeal would likely be unsuccessful because the defendant is a Texas citizen and Texas courts have authority over persons within their territory, and thus final say in what judgements can be rendered against their citizens. c. To file an appeal in the appropriate federal court in Texas, on the ground that the parties are completely diverse and that there is a sufficient amount in controversy. The appeal will likely be successful because, under Full Faith and Credit clause, the Texas court is required to enforce valid judgments by a Louisiana regardless of whether the Texas Court agrees with the decision or reasoning. d. To file the appeal in the appropriate Texas state appellate court. The appeal would likely be successful, because the appellate court will likely rule that the Texas courts do not sufficiently understand Louisiana's Civil Law of Obligations, to be able to determine whether the Louisiana judgment was erroneous. e. To file the appeal in the appropriate Texas state appellate court. The appeal will likely be successful because, under Full Faith and Credit clause, the Texas court is required to enforce valid judgments by a Louisiana regardless of whether the Texas Court agrees with the decision or reasoning.

E. to file the appeal in the appropriate TX state appellate court. the appeal will likely be successful because, under full faith and credit clause, the TX court is required to enforce valid judgments by a LA court regardless of whether the TX Court agrees with the decision or reasoning.

Which of the following are required in order for a court to successfully assert a court's power over particular persons? a. Statutory authorization for the court to assert that jurisdiction. b. That the assertion of jurisdiction fall within the limits imposed by the Constitution. c. That the summons and complaint were properly served. d. All of the above. e. Two of the above.

E. two of the above

Peggy Olson (NY Citizen) Sues Don Draper (NJ citizen) in NY state court alleging employee discrimination due to her gender. Under which of the following circumstances would the NY court have IPJ over Don based on traditional basis? a. Don was served with process in his New York office-- pennoyer b. Don appoints his secretary at his New York office as agent for service of process—consent to agent c. Don makes a special appearance in New York state court to file motion for dismissal d. Peggy proves that Don's has 'minimal contacts' at his office in New York e. Two of the above f. Three of the above g. All of the above

E. two of the above (a + b)

The most common form of express consent to IPJ in the business world is by contract. Both parties may agree to add a forum selection clause identifying a certain forum as the agreed place to litigate should any conflict arise. Generally, courts may... a. Enforce such clauses if but only if they were expressly negotiated by the parties. b. Enforce such clauses regardless of whether they were expressly negotiated by the parties.-- carnival c. Enforce such clauses only if the forum selected has some relation to the events of the dispute. d. Enforce such clauses only in the context of contracts among business entities, but not in the context of consumer contracts.

b. Enforce such clauses regardless of whether they were expressly negotiated by the parties

In International Shoe, the Supreme Court ultimately found that the State of Washington and its courts could constitutionally assert jurisdiction over the International Shoe Corp. because: a. The company's activities in Washington were sufficient to meet the "solicitation plus" definition of what it means for a corporation to be "doing business" in that state. b. International Shoe had continuous and systematic contacts in the state of Washington and this cause of action arose out of those contacts. c. Service of process on International Shoe's sales representative in Washington was sufficient in itself to establish jurisdiction according to Pennoyer - he company's agent was served with process while physically present in the state. d.. None of the above

b. International Shoe had continuous and systematic contacts in the state of Washington and this cause of action arose out of those contacts

The Vesting clause of Article III... A. Mandates the existence of federal appellate courts and a federal Supreme Court, in order to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes about the meaning and application of federal law B. Mandates the existence of a federal Supreme Court, but gives Congress the option of deciding whether to create other federal courts and tribunals C. Gives Congress the option of deciding whether to create any federal courts or tribunals D. Sets out what sorts of cases federal courts will hear E. Sets forth the Aouter boundaries@ regarding what sorts of cases Congress may authorize federal courts to hear.

b. Mandates the existence of a federal Supreme Court, but gives Congress the option of deciding whether to create other federal courts and tribunals

Would the outcome of Hess v. Pawloski be different if it had been decided after International Shoe was decided? a. No, because defendant was properly served with process in Pennsylvania. b. No, because the facts that defendant was voluntarily driving in Massachusetts, and that the accident arose out of that driving, creates the requisite "minimum contacts between defendant and the state of Massachusetts. c.. Yes, because International Shoe directs courts to dispense with "legal fictions" like the fiction of "implied consent" that was relied on in Hess. d.. Yes, because merely passing through Massachusetts is not a sufficient "contact" to give rise to personal jurisdiction.

b. No, because the facts that defendant was voluntarily driving in Massachusetts, and that the accident arose out of that driving, creates the requisite "minimum contacts between defendant and the state of Massachusetts.

Acme Contractors, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas, with its principle place of business in Marshall TX (a city 40 miles west of Shreveport on I-20). Acme is in the business of doing the construction work necessary to renovate, expand or repair private homes. Until the facts set forth below, all of Acme's customers have been located in TX. Last Spring, Acme entered into a contract with Boudreaux, a lifelong resident of Greenwood, LA. According to that contract, Acme agreed to repair the roof of Boudreaux's home, which had been severely damaged by a tornado. Acme did the work and Boudreaux paid Acme $10,000 for its efforts... However, it swiftly became apparent that the roof was defective -- it leaked badly in every rainstorm. Boudreaux brought suit against Acme in LA state court. Assuming statutory authorization, would a LA court be able to hear this claim against Acme? a. Yes, if but only if the contract between Acme and Boudreaux specified that claims arising out of that contract could be heard in a Louisiana court, or if Acme had otherwise expressly or impliedly consented to such an assertion of jurisdiction. Consent is not necessary for specific IPJ b. Yes, because Acme ""purposefully availed" itself of the opportunity to do business i9n Louisiana c. Yes, because the contract the parties signed had significant contacts in Louisiana (look to personal parties intent) (whether the defendant has contacts) d. No, because Acme is a Texas entity and, from the facts given, there is no reason to think that it has consented to submitting itself to the jurisdiction of Louisiana courts, either in the contract or otherwise. e. No, because a single construction project in Louisiana is not enough of a contact to constitute "purposeful availment."

b. Yes, because Acme "purposefully availed" itself of the opportunity to do business in LA.

Which of the following provides statutory authority for LA courts to assert general IPJ over non-resident business entities that have "continuous and systematic" contacts in LA? A. 13 Louisiana Revised Statutes § 3201.B. B. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Art. 6.B. C. Both answer "A" and answer "B." D. Neither answer "A" nor answer "B"

c. Both answer "A" and answer "B"

Patricia was driving from AZ to her home in LA. While in TX, she suffered a flat tire. As the old tire was very worn, Patricia bought a new tire from "Don's Tires," a store located near Houston, TX. The new tire was installed at Don's, and Patricia paid in cash. Later that day, while Patricia was on the highway between Lake Charles and Lafayette the new tire had a catastrophic blowout. Because of the blowout, Patricia's car skidded off the road, rolled several times and eventually crashed into a tree. The car was destroyed and Patricia was severely injured. She is presently in a hospital in Lafayette, where she will likely remain for some time to come. Patricia brings suit against Don's tires in LA state court. Assuming statutory authorization, will a LA state court likely be able to assert IPJ over Don's tires? a. Yes, because the tire sold by Don's failed and caused an accident in Louisiana, thus creating a "contact" between Don's and Louisiana out of which this cause of action arose. b. Yes, because it would offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" to require Patricia - confined as she is to a hospital in Louisiana - to sue Don's in Texas. c. No, because Don's has not "purposefully availed" itself of the privilege of doing business in Louisiana. d. No, because it would be unduly burdensome on Don's to have to defend itself in Louisiana.

c. No, because Don's has not "purposefully availed" itself of the privilege of doing business in LA.

Pierre, a citizen of LA, gets into a car accident with Donald, a citizen of TX. Pierre brings a negligence action against Donald in federal trial court. in the "wherefore" clause of his complaint, Pierre lists the following items of damage: 1.) $35,000 for the costs to replace Pierre's car; 2.) $15,000 for Pierre's medical expenses; and 3.) $30,000 for Pierre's pain and suffering. Donald moves to dismiss for lack of SMJ. You are the judge. How would you rule? A. Grant the motion because ordinary tort claims are more properly handled in state court.. B. Grant the motion because none of Pierre's claims "exceeds the sum or value of $75,000," as required by §1332. C. Deny the motion because the parties are diverse and the claims for damages may be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount. D. Deny the motion because the plaintiff is "the master of his complaint" and is free to allege whatever amounts of damages he chooses.

c. deny the motion because the parties are diverse and the claims for damages may be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount

Austin, a citizen of North Dakota, is a traveling salesman who sells her goods in North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota. While in Minnesota, Austin is involved in a car accident with Healy, a citizen of Minnesota. Austin brings suit against Healy in the U.S. District court for the District of North Dakota, seeking $100,000 in damages for the harms suffered in the accident. Does the North Dakota federal court have personal jurisdiction over Healy? a. Yes. The parties are of diverse citizenship and the suit seeks more than $75,000 in damages. b. Yes, because plaintiff is a citizen of North Dakota. c. Yes, because defendant is physically located in Minnesota and, under Pennoyer, courts of the United States potentially could assert personal jurisdiction over any person anywhere in the United States. d. No, because defendant has not consented or voluntarily appeared, and has no apparent contacts with the state of North Dakota. e. No, because the accident took place in Minnesota, and therefore no court in any other state would have jurisdiction.

d. No, because defendant has not consented or voluntarily appeared, and has no apparent contacts with the state of North Dakota.