Civil Procedure Midterm

Lakukan tugas rumah & ujian kamu dengan baik sekarang menggunakan Quizwiz!

Louisville Railroad v. Mottley

the face of the complaint must include the federal question, an anticipated or actual defense to the complaint that contains a federal question is not enough

Diefenthal v. C.A.B.

rich people wanted to smoke on a plane and were told they cannot and claimed 50,000 in damages based on the fact that they were embarrassed

FSMJ Authorization

Congress determines

Post- Trial

Judgement rendered, post trial motions

Domicile Test

1. Presence 2. Intent to stay indefinitely

At the end of the summer, Pennywise blew all his summer earnings on a very expensive motorcycle, which he purchased from Red Ballon Motors. Red Ballon Motors is a major motorcycle manufacturer. It is incorporated in Texas and has its headquarters in Michigan, with its largest manufacturing plant and 75% of all Red Balloon employees, in Maryland. Red Ballon ships motorcycles from its Maryland factory to all the states, except Michigan, New Mexico and New York. Pennywise was raised in Michigan where his parents still maintain a room for him in their house. He left Michigan to go to law school and is now a third-year law student at UDC-DCSL, located in Washington, D.C. Pennywise rents an apartment in Chevy Chase, Maryland near the law school, and this past summer worked for the Maryland firm of Nats & O's. Throughout his first year of law school, Pennywise loved living in Maryland and planned to get a job and remain in Maryland after earning his law degree. Unfortunately, he had a bad experience with a landlord and has decided to move out of the Chevy Chase area as soon as he gets his diploma. Pennywise does not know where he will end up after law school, but is currently interviewing for jobs in Michigan and New York. If those jobs do not work out, he will join a friend's law firm in Texas. One day, Pennywise is driving his motorcycle when a truck owned by Tonya's Tonkas illegally turns in front of him. Pennywise tries to brake the motorcycle, but the brakes malfunction. Pennywise hits the truck and suffers severe injuries. Pennywise wishes to file a tort lawsuit for $1,000,000 against Red Balloon Motors in federal court in the Maryland. May Pennywise's lawsuit proceed? A. Yes, Pennywise can sue in federal court because there is diversity. B. Yes, Pennywise can sue in federal court as a Michigan citizen, because Red Balloon Motors does not do any business in Michigan, and therefore there is diversity. C. No, Pennywise cannot sue in federal court in Maryland because there is no diversity as he works and resides in Maryland and therefore is domiciled there for diversity purposes. D. No, Pennywise cannot sue in federal court because the defendant is incorporated in the state in which it has its principal place of business.

Dewey, Cheatem & Howe is a law firm with its only office located in Boston (MA). Ninety-eight of the firm's one hundred partners are citizens of Massachusetts, one is a citizen of New Hampshire, and one is a citizen of Israel. Tom Magliozzi, domiciled in Rhode Island, is an unhappy former client who wants to sue the firm in federal court. May Tom sue the law firm in federal court? A. Yes, because there is complete diversity of citizenship. B. Yes, because there is minimal diversity of citizenship. C. No, because there is not complete diversity of citizenship. D. No, because there is not minimal diversity of citizenship.

Dominic and Kevin were involved in an automobile accident caused by Dominic's eating a burrito while driving. Kevin was injured seriously, and accumulated more than $130,000 in medical bills, as well as lost wages and pain and suffering. At the time of the accident, both Dominic and Kevin were citizens of South Carolina. Kevin's father was later stricken by a serious illness, and Kevin relocated indefinitely to his parent's home in Virginia to become the principal caregiver. Kevin's parent later died, and Kevin relocated back to South Carolina. Can Kevin bring a diversity action against Dominic in federal court? A. Yes, if Kevin was a citizen of Virginia at the time the lawsuit was filed. B. Yes, if Kevin was a citizen of South Carolina at the time the lawsuit was filed, so long as he had lawfully changed his citizenship to Virginia while the case was pending. C. No, if Kevin was a citizen of Virginia at the time the lawsuit was filed, but later lawfully changed to his citizenship back to South Carolina while the case was pending. D. No, because Kevin and Dominic both were citizens of South Carolina at the time the cause of action arose.

Doohickey Corp., incorporated in California with its headquarters in Idaho, fired Patrick Pater, an Idaho citizen. Pater responded by filing a claim in federal district court alleging that Doohickey violated his rights under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and seeks damages in the amount of $68,000. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? A. Yes, because the claim arises under federal law. B. Yes, because the parties are diverse. C. No, because the claim does not arise under federal law. D. No, because the plaintiff is seeking only $68,000.

Driver and Passenger were involved in an automobile accident caused by Driver's inattentive texting while driving. Passenger was injured seriously, and accumulated more than $100,000 in medical bills alone. At the time of the accident, both Driver and Passenger were citizens of Kentucky. Passenger's parent was later stricken by a serious, lingering illness, and Passenger relocated indefinitely to her parent's home in Tennessee to become the principal caregiver. Passenger's parent later died, and Passenger relocated back to Kentucky. Can Passenger bring a diversity action against Driver in Kentucky federal court? A. Yes, if Passenger was a citizen of Tennessee at the time the lawsuit was filed. B. Yes, if Passenger was a citizen of Kentucky at the time the lawsuit was filed, so long as she had lawfully changed her citizenship to Tennessee while the case was pending. C. No, if Passenger was a citizen of Tennessee at the time the lawsuit was filed, but later lawfully changed to her citizenship back to Kentucky while the case was pending. D. No, because Passenger and Driver both were citizens of Kentucky at the time the cause of action arose.

Korpics, who was living and domiciled in California, is offered a six-month contract by Watkins Construction Company to work on a construction project in Oregon. Korpics moves up to Oregon and begins the job. He would like to continue working in Oregon after the contract ends, with Watkins Construction or another company, but Watkins Construction does not promise further employment after the six months are up. Where is Korpics domiciled? A. Korpics is domiciled in Oregon because he may stay there after his contract ends. B. Korpics is domiciled in Oregon until his contract ends. C. Korpics remains domiciled in California, since he only has a contract for six months. D. Korpics is domiciled in California, because it is not clear that he will find employment in Oregon after his contract ends.

Nancy Spungeon, a citizen of Louisiana, files a suit alleging diversity jurisdiction against Sidney Dishes, a citizen of Texas, who resides in Houston, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. She claims that defendant Dishes owes her $50,000.00, on account an unpaid debt. She further claims that Dishes owes her $10,000.00, for unpaid rent. She finally claims that Defendant Dishes owes her $30,000.00, for damage caused to her car in an automobile accident. May these claims be pursued in federal court? A. Yes, because there is diversity subject-matter jurisdiction. B. No, because no claim on its own satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement. C. No, because Louisiana and Texas are both located in the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and therefore the parties do not satisfy the "complete diversity" requirement. D. No, because the aggregated claims fail to reach the jurisdictional amount.

Patrice is domiciled in Florida. She sues a former friend who is a domiciliary of Georgia in a federal district court in Florida on the grounds of a civil assault (a tort) that occurred in Florida. Patrice is a U.S. citizen and her friend is a citizen of France who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. Patrice claims damages in excess of $100,000. Does Patrice have federal diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332 in State A to bring the civil assault complaint, and why or why not? A. Yes, because her friend is a citizen of France and a permanent resident who is domiciled in another state. B. Yes, because the two live in different states and that is all that is required for diversity jurisdiction. C. No, because her friend is a citizen of another country and not subject to diversity jurisdiction. D. No, because as a permanent resident her friend is not subject to diversity jurisdiction.

Penelope (Oregon) sues her former employer, Dylan's Coffee Shops, Inc. (Oregon), in Oregon state court for state-law breach of contract due to her firing and seeks $100,000 in damages. The defendant does not remove. Six months later, Paula adds a federal-law claim for employment discrimination seeking $100,000 arising from the same firing. May Dylan's remove the case? A. Yes, even though the case was not originally removable. B. Yes, because the amount in controversy now exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. C. No, because defendant is a citizen of Oregon. D. No, because a defendant only has 30 days to remove.

Peter (citizen of Maryland) plans to sue Driver's Motor Co. ("DMC") (incorporated in Maine with principal place of business in Michigan) for injuries suffered in an auto accident in Virginia. Peter believes that problems with the DMC vehicle caused the accident. Peter files a tort claim against DMC in Maryland state court reasonably seeking $100,000 damages. DMC files a timely Notice of Removal of the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Virginia. Peter files a timely Motion to Remand. Should the judge grant the Motion? A. Yes, because DMC is not permitted to remove a case from Maryland state court to federal court in Virginia. B. Yes, because no federal question is involved. C. No, because the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over Peter's claim had Peter filed there originally. D. No, because the well-pleaded complaint rule indicates that a plaintiff is the master of his complaint.

Plaintiff was injured in an accident on an interstate highway in Tucson, Arizona, where she resides and which she has no plan to leave. The accident involved a truck and three cars in addition to plaintiff's car. Plaintiff brought suit in the federal district court in her district pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. She sued the truck driver and the truck owner, who were from Texas. She also included a driver of one of the cars who is domiciled in New Mexico, and the driver of another car who is domiciled in Arizona. The amount in damages demanded by plaintiff was over $100,000. The truck company asked the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that diversity jurisdiction was not satisfied. Will the district court judge likely dismiss the case, and why or why not? A. Yes, because the plaintiff and one of the defendants are from the same state, which destroys diversity jurisdiction. B. Yes, because there is no federal question subject matter jurisdiction, which must be present in diversity cases. C. No, because the plaintiff and the majority of the defendants are from different states, thus conferring proper diversity jurisdiction. D. No, because diversity jurisdiction is proper as long as the amount in controversy is over $75,000 and the plaintiff and at least one defendant are from different states.

Seeking $95,000, Piero (RI) files suit in NH state court against his employer, incorporated in RI with principal place of business in NH, for "wrongful discharge," a state-law claim, as well as a claim under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). May the defendant remove the case? A. Yes. This case contains a federal question. B. Yes. The state of incorporation is not considered in determining whether a corporate defendant is a citizen of the state where a case is brought. C. No. Resident defendants cannot remove a case to federal court. D. No. Defendant is a resident of both RI and NH, and since Piero is a citizen of RI, complete diversity is lacking.

Hertz Corp. v. Friend

A corporation's principal place of business, for federal diversity jurisdiction purposes, refers to the place where the corporation's high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the company's activities.

Patrick Pater, an Idaho citizen, files a claim in state court alleging that Doohickey Corp., incorporated in California and with its headquarters in Idaho, violated his rights under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and seeks damages in the amount of $55,000. Does the state court have subject matter jurisdiction? A. Yes, because there are similar state-law civil rights statutes in every state. B. Yes, because the Civil Rights Act does not provide for exclusive federal court jurisdiction. C. No, because the parties are not diverse. D. No, because the plaintiff is seeking only $55,000.

Mas v. Perry

A party's mere residence in a state, even if the party has no intention of returning to his state of citizenship, will not create citizenship for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction.

Aggregating Claims to Meet Amount-in-Controversy

A single plaintiff can aggregate seperate claims against a single defendent to meet the amount in controversy

Gordan v. Steele

A student was injured and brought suit in federal court, she went to school in Idaho, defendant claimed lack of SMJ

Peter Pratt, a citizen and resident of Maryland, is involved in a traffic accident with Dorinda Dawkins, a citizen of Peru who resides in Omaha, Nebraska, and is admitted to the United States on a work visa. Pratt files suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and pleads subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C §1332. May this case proceed as filed? A. No, the case should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Mr. Pratt is an expatriate American. B. Yes, because there is alienage jurisdiction. C. No, because you cannot sue non-U.S. citizens in U.S. courts. D. Yes, because this is a state-law tort claim.

Federal Courts Hierarchy

SCOTUS U.S. Court of Appeals U.S. District Court

1. A professional tennis player had a disagreement with his coach. Player sued the coach in federal court, asserting a claim of breach of contract asking for $66,000 and a claim for negligence seeking $166,000. Assume that there is complete diversity of citizenship. Will the federal court be able to exercise diversity jurisdiction over either or both claims? A. The court can exercise diversity jurisdiction over the negligence claim but not the breach of contract claim. B. The court can exercise diversity jurisdiction over both the negligence claim and the breach of contract claim. C. The court can exercise diversity jurisdiction over the negligence claim, and federal question jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim. D. The court can exercise federal question jurisdiction over the negligence claim, and diversity jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim.

1. Danny, a citizen of Utah, is driving carefully through town on his way home from work. Princess and Preston, both citizens of Colorado, are chit-chatting and distracted while crossing the street. They don't see Danny coming and wander into the path of his car. They are both struck by the car and badly injured. Princess sues Danny in federal court for $45,000 and Preston sues Danny in the same court for $75,000. The court should: A. exercise discretion as to whether to exercise jurisdiction. B. dismiss both claims because although the parties are diverse, neither claim meets the jurisdictional amount. C. assert diversity jurisdiction because the parties are diverse and their claims together satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy. D. dismiss Princess's claim but assert jurisdiction over Preston's claim, because Preston's claim meets the jurisdictional amount and the parties are diverse.

1. The complete diversity requirement: A. Means no defendant can be a citizen of the same state as any other defendant. B. Decreases the number of cases which potentially can come to federal court under Article III of the Constitution. C. Is required under the Constitution. D. A & B only.

A Virginia citizen filed an action in Kentucky state court against his supervisor, a Kentucky citizen, and their employer, a department store incorporated and with its principal place of business in West Virginia. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he had been a victim of racial harassment as the result of a barrage of insults and harassing conduct by the supervisor, and that the department store had inadequately trained and supervised the supervisor. On the basis of these factual allegations, the plaintiff asserted a state-law tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, credibly seeking damages in the amount of $100,000. In the complaint, the plaintiff also alleged that Defendants should not be permitted to assert as a defense that the remarks were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, since Defendants were not government workers. The defendants are both served, and agree to remove the case. The department store files a notice of removal. Plaintiff files a Motion to Remand. Should the judge grant the Motion? A. Yes, because the federal court did not have original jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim. B. Yes, because this case is not removable. C. No, because the claim is credibly in excess of $75,000. D. No, because defendants cannot remove cases.

A professional tennis player had a disagreement with his coach. Player sued the coach in federal court, asserting a claim of breach of contract asking for $66,000 and a claim for negligence seeking $166,000. Assume that there is complete diversity of citizenship. Will the federal court be able to exercise diversity jurisdiction over either or both claims? A. The court can exercise diversity jurisdiction over the negligence claim but not the breach of contract claim. B. The court can exercise diversity jurisdiction over both the negligence claim and the breach of contract claim. C. The court can exercise diversity jurisdiction over the negligence claim, and federal question jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim. D. The court can exercise federal question jurisdiction over the negligence claim, and diversity jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim.

A traffic accident involving three vehicles occurs at the intersection of Clifford and Lipincott Street in Flint, Michigan. The Michigan-domiciled driver of one car, Ava Du, and her four passengers, all citizens of Michigan who reside in Flint, file a tort claim lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the driver of one of the other vehicles, Dawn Beesly, a citizen of Indiana. Each of the five plaintiffs claims damages resulting from the accident in the amount of $94,000; Ava Du additionally claims damage to her car as a result of the accident in the amount of $5,600. Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over this action? A. Yes, because there is diversity and federal question subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims. B. Yes, because there is diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims. C. No, because Ava Du's claim for damage to her car does not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement and therefore destroys diversity. D. No, because the plaintiffs are all citizens of the same state, therefore destroying diversity.

A traffic accident involving three vehicles occurs at the intersection of Clifford and Lippincott Street in Flint, Michigan. The Michigan-domiciled driver of one car, Ava Du, and her four passengers, all citizens of Michigan who reside in Flint, file a tort claim lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the driver of one of the other vehicles, Dawn Beesly, a citizen of Indiana. Each of the five plaintiffs claims damages resulting from the accident in the amount of $94,000; Ava Du additionally claims damage to her car as a result of the accident in the amount of $5,600. Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over this entire action? A. Yes, because there is diversity and federal question subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims. B. Yes, because there is diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims. C. No, because Ava Du's claim for damage to her car does not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement and therefore destroys diversity. D. No, because the plaintiffs are all citizens of the same state, therefore destroying diversity

Alice (citizen of New York) sued John (Alaska) and Dining Corp. (principal place of business is MA) in New York state court. Believing Dining's state of incorporation to be Delaware, John removed the case within thirty days. Alice discovers one and a half years later that Dining Corp.'s real place of incorporation is not Delaware and is really New York. Alice moves to remand the case to state court. Should the motion be granted? A. Yes, because Alice can demonstrate that John intended to deceive the federal court regarding Dining Corp.'s principal place of business. B. Yes, because there is no basis for the federal court to assert subject matter jurisdiction. C. No, because Alice is domiciled in the state in which the case was filed. D. No, because delaying the motion to remand for 1 ½ years constitutes undue delay of the proceedings.

Joe, who was living and domiciled in Pennsylvania, is offered a six-month contract by Namath Construction Company to work on a construction project in New York. Joe moves up to New York and begins the job. He would like to continue working in New York after the contract ends, with Namath Construction or another company, but Namath Construction does not promise to give him further employment after the six months are up. Is Joe domiciled in New York? A. Yes, Joe is domiciled in New York until his contract ends. B. Yes, Joe is domiciled in New York because he may stay there after his contract ends. C. No, Joe is domiciled in Pennsylvania, because it is not clear that he will find employment in New York after his contract ends. D. No, Joe remains domiciled in Pennsylvania, since he only has a contract for six months.

Pinky files a state-law negligence tort claim against Dwight, from Maine. The Complaint alleges that after drinking a half-dozen alcoholic drinks, Dwight crashed his car into Pinky's car. The Complaint further alleges that Pinky, from Massachusetts, was severely injured, was hospitalized for three weeks, and missed work for nearly three months. Pinky claims $30,000 in medical expenses, $25,000 in lost wages, and also damages for the pain and suffering she has experienced from the injury over a period of six months. Which statement is most accurate? A. The judge will dismiss for failure to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, because it is not clear what the value of Pinky's pain and suffering damages is. B. The judge will find the amount requirement met if a reasonable jury might award more than $75,000 for Pinky's injury, even if the judge herself would award less. C. Pinky will not be able to bring this case in federal court unless it appears to a legal certainty that her total damages will exceed $75,000. D. If Dwight asks the judge to dismiss the case for failure to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, the judge will hold a trial and decide how much Pinky should recover altogether. The judge will dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if she finds the total damages do not exceed $75,000.

Plaintiff believes she was discriminated against in the course of her employment, and wants to file a federal employment discrimination claim. She has damages of $100,000. Where can this claim be brought? A. Federal court only. B. Both federal and state court. C. State court only. D. The court of public opinion only.

Plaintiff, domiciled in State A, is injured seriously while using a defective leaf blower. The blower was made in State B where the manufacturer has a large manufacturing plant. The manufacturer is incorporated in State C. The manufacturer does business in State A but is headquartered, controlled and has its "nerve center" in State D. Plaintiff sues the manufacturer in a federal court in State A on a products liability tort claim. The complaint alleges serious and permanent injuries, a permanent disability, and damages in excess of $75,000. Leaving aside any potential questions of venue [Note: "venue" is a topic we have not yet reached in class], is there subject matter jurisdictional authority for the case to be filed in federal court in State A, and what is the reason for or against it? A. Yes, there is federal subject matter jurisdiction in State A because the case is brought under tort law, a federal-law cause of action. B. Yes, there is diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff is domiciled in State A and the manufacturer is incorporated in State C and headquartered in State D, making them citizens of different states. C. No, the plaintiff must sue in state B where the manufacturer has a physical presence. D. No, because the plaintiff lives in State A and the manufacturer does business there, which defeats diversity jurisdiction.

Porter, a citizen of Maryland, alleged that, as a result of the negligence of Drinan (from Virginia), he had incurred $5,000 in medical expenses, lost $1,000 in wages, and experienced great pain and suffering, and he demanded judgment in the amount of $100,000. Porter brought a state-law negligence action in federal district court against Drinan. Drinan moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Should the court grant the motion? A. Yes, unless Porter can prove to a legal certainty that he will recover more than $75,000. B. Yes, if the court finds to a legal certainty that Porter cannot recover more than $75,000. C. No, if Porter's demand for judgment in the amount of $100,000 was made in good faith. D. No, because Porter's claimed damages include intangible factors that cannot be determined apart from a trial on the merits.

Penelope sues David and Damian. Penelope serves David on April 1. David does not remove. She serves Damian on May 15. Damian files a Notice of Removal, with David's consent. Penelope files a Motion to Remand, arguing that David cannot join in the removal because he has waived his right to remove. Should the Motion be granted? A. Yes, because David had "one bite at the apple" already, and failed to remove before the 30-day deadline. B. Yes, because it will be more efficient to litigate the entire case in state court. C. No, unless David revokes his consent to the removal by Damian. D. No, because David is permitted to consent to Damian's Notice of Removal, even though he missed his own chance to remove the case.

1. Plaintiff is a chemist who specializes in developing products for use by employers who wish to administer drug tests to potential employees. She was born and raised in Missouri. She wants to bring a federal antidiscrimination claim in the amount of $62,000 against her former boss, a supervisor at Missouri Chemlabs, Inc. Eighteen months ago, Plaintiff moved from Missouri to Santa Fe, New Mexico, where she currently resides, to work in a chemistry laboratory at the University of New Mexico on a two-year fellowship. She has accepted a job offer from the Dupont chemical company for a permanent position in Dupont's Delaware headquarters, which will start immediately after she completes the fellowship. The defendant is a Missouri citizen. Which courts have subject matter jurisdiction over this claim? A. Federal court only B. State court only C. Both federal and state court D. Neither federal nor state court

A Montana citizen filed a lawsuit in Montana state court asserting a $250,000 tort claim against an Idaho citizen and a $10,000 breach of contract claim against a Montana citizen. Two days after filing the complaint, the plaintiff dropped the claim against the Montana defendant. The next day, the sole remaining defendant removed the case. Plaintiff timely files a Motion to Remand. Should the judge grant the Motion? A. Yes, because the plaintiff is a citizen of the forum state. B. Yes, because there is no claim asserted that arises under federal law. C. No, because the case now falls within the court's original jurisdiction. D. No, because the tort claim satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement.

A citizen of Wyoming filed an action in Wyoming state court asserting a $300,000 breach of contract claim against another citizen of Wyoming. The defendant then filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff had infringed the defendant's patent in violation of federal patent law. Is the case properly removable by the plaintiff? A. Yes, because the federal court has original jurisdiction over the federal statutory counterclaim. B. Yes, because the plaintiff is a citizen of the forum state. C. No, because plaintiffs cannot remove cases. D. No, because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state.

After being injured in a crash of his Driver's Motor Co. ("DMC") (incorporated in Delaware with principal place of business in Michigan) automobile, Peter (citizen of California) registers the domain name DMCarsCrash.com and posts negative information about DMC. Later, Peter sues DMC in Pennsylvania state court alleging the tort of product liability and seeking $100,000 damages. DMC files a counterclaim against Peter for trademark infringement under federal law for using the initials DMC in the domain name. Peter is concerned that Pennsylvania state judges don't know anything about federal trademark law and wants to remove the case to federal court. May Peter remove the case? A. Yes, because the original claim was removable, and defendants' counterclaim is irrelevant for these purposes. B. Yes, because the counterclaim is based on a cause of action that arises under federal law (the "Holmes" test). C. No, because only defendants can remove cases. D. No, because by filing in state court, P has consented to venue in state court only.

Peter (Maryland) sues Driver's Motor Co. (Maine and Michigan) for the tort of products liability for $100,000. Peter suffered a severe brain injury when his car fell apart in Houston, Texas. Peter files suit in the federal district court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. May DMC seek removal to a Texas state court? A. Yes, because the suit could have been filed in state court. B. No, because Peter is not a citizen of Texas. C. Yes, because if DMC believes it won't be prejudiced by litigation in federal court, then state court is preferable for all parties. D. No, because removal can't be done from federal court to state court.

An Iowa citizen filed an action in Indiana state court against the police department of Des Moines, Iowa. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that she had been a victim of sexual harassment as the result of a barrage of insults directed at her by several of her supervisors. On the basis of these factual allegations, she asserted a state-law tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress for which she sought damages in the amount of $50,000. The defendant seeks to remove the case on the ground that since sexual harassment is prohibited under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal court has original jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim. Is the case properly removable? A. Yes, because the plaintiff could and should have asserted a federal statutory claim. B. Yes, because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state. C. No, because the plaintiff is not required to assert a federal claim, even if she has grounds to do so. D. No, because the parties are not citizens of different states.

As part of her employment, Patsy Pippen, a federal government employee, submitted a report to Congress detailing flaws in the disposal of nuclear waste by the U.S. military. The report contained revelations that ultimately protected public health. Unfortunately, the report also contained numerous significant factual errors which alleged that certain harms had occurred even though Pippen knew they had not. Denny Ducate, a newspaper reporter, published a story inaccurately alleging that Pippen intentionally included erroneous statements as a way to damage the head of Pippen's government agency. Pippen sues Decate and the newspaper for which he works for the state-law tort of defamation for publishing the inaccurate article, claiming that the story led to her termination from government employment. Ducate and the paper defend on the ground that their reporting is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Additionally, defendants cite a newly enacted federal statute protecting the right of the public to monitor the actions of government officers. Which of the following statements is most accurate? A. This case "arises under' federal law as that phrase has been construed in 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, but not as it is construed in the Constitution. B. This case "arises under" federal law as that phrase is construed in both 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. C. This case "arises under' federal law as that phrase has been construed in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, but not as construed in 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. D. This case does not "arise under" federal law as construed in either 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 or in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Dancer (citizen of NY) is an office manager and supervises Podner (citizen of Connecticut), a clerical worker. The two have a bad working relationship, which reaches its worst point when Dancer slams his car into Podner's car when both are trying to exit the company parking lot at the end of a long day of work. Podner is badly injured and his car is damaged. Podner spends weeks in the hospital. Podner sues Dancer in Connecticut state court, seeking $150,000 for the injuries received in the accident. Three months later, Podner amends the Complaint to add a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, a federal statute. Twenty-nine days after receiving the Amended Complaint, Dancer removes the case to federal court. Is removal proper? A. Yes, removal is proper after the amendment to add the federal claim. B. Yes, removal is proper under Mottley, because Podner seeks relief under federal law. C. No, removal is not proper, because the case could have been removed as originally filed. D. No, removal is not proper, because three months have gone by since the case was filed in state court.

Darryl Diamond is a citizen of Washington state who resides in Madison, Wisconsin. His car was hit by a car negligently driven by Priscilla Peterson, a citizen of Argentina who resides in Madison and attends the University of Wisconsin, as permitted by her student visa. Diamond did not suffer any physical damages, but he lost his BMW and his antique vase. The accident occurred at the corner of Gilman Street and Castle Place in downtown Madison. Diamond only has state-law claims against Peterson. May Diamond sue Peterson in federal court? A. No, because you cannot sue non-U.S. citizens in U.S. courts. B. No, because there is no subject matter jurisdiction over this action. C. Yes, because there is subject matter jurisdiction over this case in Wisconsin. D. Yes, because non-U.S. citizens must be sued in federal court.

Dodo, a citizen of South Dakota, was sued by Polo, a citizen of North Dakota. Polo brought a tort action in federal district court against credibly claiming $70,000 in damages. Dodo brought a counterclaim against Polo, credibly claiming $15,000 in damages. Does the court have jurisdiction? Yes, because using aggregation the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. Yes, because there is complete diversity. No, because the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. No, because there is no federal question.

Dorian did not approve of the practices of Perfumery, Inc. regarding testing new products on laboratory animals. Dorian came onto Perfumery, Inc.'s property, spray-painted animal-rights slogans on the front of Perfumery, Inc.'s new headquarters, and used a BB gun to shoot out approximately 100 windows in the building. Dorian then blogged that he was the one who broke the windows and painted the slogans. Citing a U.S. Supreme Court case allowing the burning of the U.S. flag, Dorian stated in the blog post that he believed his actions were protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because they constituted political speech. Perfumery, Inc. brought State-law trespass and property damage claims in federal court in the State where the headquarters were located, and where Dorian was domiciled. The Complaint sought $80,000 to repair the damage to the building and compensate for lost profits due to the temporary closure of the building during repairs. The complaint stated that Dorian contended that his actions were justified by the First Amendment. Will the federal court have subject-matter jurisdiction over this action? A. Yes, because the complaint discloses a constitutional issue, and thus the basis for federal jurisdiction is contained in the "well-pleaded complaint." B. Yes, because Perfumery, Inc.'s conduct is governed by federal animal-protection laws and the United States Food and Drug Administration, which elevates this action to one of national interest. C. No, because there is no diversity of citizenship and because Perfumery, Inc.'s claims do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. D. No, because Perfumery, Inc.'s claims necessarily depend on the First Amendment, which is not a federal statute enacted by The U.S. Congress.

In which of the following cases would the federal court lack diversity jurisdiction? A. Madison, from Virginia; Jefferson, from Virginia; and Gerry, from Massachusetts, sue Hamilton, from New York; and Franklin, from Pennsylvania. B. Madison, from Virginia, sues Lafayette, from Maryland; and Washington Corporation, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Maryland, and a large office in Virginia. C. Madison, from Virginia, sues Adams Corporation, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Virginia. D. The court lacks jurisdiction in choices B and C.

Michael Scott, a citizen of Washington State, files a tort lawsuit in federal court in Seattle, Washington after a traffic incident involving David Wallace, a citizen of Nevada who resides in Reno, Nevada. The incident underlying the lawsuit occurred in Reno, when Wallace drove his $2.4 million Corvette at a high rate of speed past Scott, who was driving in his 1960 Volkswagen Beetle. Scott was startled by the speed of the passing car, and felt humiliated that Wallace's car could be driven so much faster than his own. Scott filed suit against both Wallace and his insurer, Dundermiff Insurance, Inc., which is incorporated under the laws of the state of California with its principal place of business in Reno, Nevada. The Complaint states that diversity subject-matter jurisdiction is proper and that Scott's damages exceed $75,000.00 exclusive of costs and interest. May this case proceed as filed? A. Yes, there is diversity between plaintiff and defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of costs and interest. B. Yes, there is federal question jurisdiction over this case. C. No, the case should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. D. No, the case should be dismissed because there is not complete diversity, since both Wallace and his insurance company are citizens of Nevada.

Palmer (citizen of New York) intends to sue Doran (citizen of New Jersey), Dover (citizen of New York), and Dontay Corp. (incorporated in New York and principal place of business in Connecticut) for a state-law breach of contract claim. Would the U.S. Constitution permit this lawsuit to be filed in federal court? A. No, because state-law claims may not be filed in federal court. B. No, because the defendants are not completely diverse from each other. C. Yes, because the Plaintiff is diverse from one of the Defendants. D. Yes, because the Constitution creates concurrent jurisdiction between state and federal courts over all state-law claims.

Peter (California) sues Driver's Motor Co. (Delaware and Michigan) in state court in Arizona for the tort of products liability and seeks $100,000. The complaint indicates that Peter is from California and DMC is from Delaware and Michigan. It further indicates that Peter is seeking $100,000 in damages. Six months after being served, DMC removes to federal court. Six months later, Peter moves to remand to state court. Should the judge grant the Motion? A. Yes, if granting the motion would be in the interest of justice. B. Yes, because DMC waited too long to remove. C. No, because Peter waited too long to seek remand. D. No, because there is no evidence that the lateness of DMC's Notice of Removal caused harm to Peter.

Plaintiff was injured in an accident on an interstate highway in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, his lifelong county of residence. The accident involved a truck and three cars in addition to plaintiff's car. Plaintiff brought suit in the federal district court in his district pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. He sued the truck driver and the truck owner, who were from New Jersey. He also included a driver of one of the cars who resided in New York, and the driver of another car who resided in Pennsylvania. The truck company filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that plaintiff did not have diversity jurisdiction. Will the district court judge likely dismiss the complaint, and why or why not? A. Yes, because there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction, which must also be present in diversity cases. B. No, because the plaintiff and most of the defendants are from different states, thus conferring proper diversity jurisdiction. C. Yes, the plaintiff and one of the defendants are from the same state, which destroys federal diversity jurisdiction. D. No, diversity is perfectly proper as long as the plaintiff and at least one defendant are from different states.

Plaintiff, domiciled in State A, is injured seriously while using a defective lawn mower. The mower was made in State B where the manufacturer has a large manufacturing plant. The manufacturer is incorporated in State C. The manufacturer does business in State A but is headquartered, controlled and has its "nerve center" in State D. Plaintiff sues the manufacturer in a federal court in State A on a products liability tort claim. The complaint alleges serious and permanent injuries. Is there subject matter jurisdiction allowing the case to be filed in federal court in State A, and what is the reason for or against it? A. Yes, there is federal subject matter jurisdiction in State A because the case is brought under tort law, a federal-law cause of action. B. No, the plaintiff must sue in state B where the manufacturer has a physical presence. C. Yes, there is diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff is domiciled in State A and the manufacturer is incorporated in State C and headquartered in State D, making them citizens of different states. D. No, because the plaintiff lives in State A and the manufacturer does business there, which defeats diversity jurisdiction.

Which of the following cases arises under federal law as that concept is applied under 28 U.S.C. §1331? A. Nolan sues Ryan for negligence. Ryan answers, asserting that he is immune from liability under federal law because he was acting as a federal officer at the time. B. Nolan sues Ryan for breach of his employment contract with Nolan, claiming that Ryan failed to perform services required by the contract. Ryan asserts a counterclaim against Nolan claiming that Nolan had violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act by firing him before the end of his contract term. C. Nolan sues Ryan under the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, claiming that Ryan fired him based on his age. Ryan answers, denying that the Act applies because he claims that he only has eight employees, and the Act by its terms only applies to employers that employ ten or more employees. D. Nolan sues Ryan for negligence. He alleges that Ryan, his employer, exposed him to dangerous chemicals in the workplace while Nolan was working in the lab on a science experiment. The research Ryan was undertaking was funded by a federal grant.

Which of these cases is removable? A. Pablo (Michigan) sues Hawkins (Michigan) on a state law claim for negligence. Hawkins counterclaims against Pablo for violation of a federal statute. B. Pablo (Michigan) sues Dixon (Indiana), on a state-law breach of contract claim, in an Indiana state court, for $200,000. C. Pablo (Michigan) sues Dixon (Indiana), on a claim arising under federal law, in an Indiana state court. D. Pablo (Michigan) sues Dixon (Indiana) and Danton (Nevada), on a state-law breach of contract claim, in an Indiana state court, for $200,000.

Paula, a citizen of North Dakota, and Peter, also a citizen of North Dakota, are crossing the street together when Diego, a citizen of South Dakota, runs a red light and hits them. Paula sues Diego in federal court for $30,000, and Peter sues Diego in the same court for $75,000. The court should: A. Exercise discretion as to whether to exercise jurisdiction. B. Dismiss Paula's claim but assert jurisdiction over Peter's claim, because Peter's claim meets the jurisdictional amount and the parties are diverse. C. Assert diversity jurisdiction because the parties are diverse and their claims together satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy. D. Dismiss both claims because although the parties are diverse, neither claim meets the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement.

FSMJ Power

Constitution determines

28 USC 1332

Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 75,000, and is between citizens of different states

1. Plaintiff is domiciled in State A. He sues a former friend who is a domiciliary of State B in a federal district court in State A on the grounds of a civil assault (a tort) that occurred in State A. The plaintiff is a U.S. citizen and the defendant is a citizen of France who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. Does Plaintiff have federal diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332 in State A to bring the civil assault complaint, and why or why not? A. No, because the defendant is a citizen of another country and not subject to diversity jurisdiction. B. No, because as a permanent resident the defendant is not subject to diversity jurisdiction. C. Yes, because the two live in different states and that is all that is required for diversity jurisdiction. D. Yes, because the defendant is a citizen of France and a permanent resident who is domiciled in another state.

Alice (NY) sues John (AK) and Dining Corp. in NY state court. At the time, John believes Dining Corp. is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York. As a result, he does not remove. Two months later, he discovers that Dining Corp.'s principal place of business is in MA, not New York. If John now obtains Dining Corp.'s consent to remove, would removal be proper? A. Yes. Alice was required to file a Motion to Remand the case back to state court within 30 days after filing the Complaint. B. Yes. John was mistaken about the facts regarding Dining Corp.'s principal place of business, and thus is allowed an extension of time to remove. C. No. There is no basis for federal question jurisdiction. D. No. A defendant only has thirty days to remove a case after being served with the complaint that first raises the grounds for removal.

Macattack lives in Massachusetts, with no plans to leave. He works in Washington. He brings an action in federal court in New Mexico against Corcoran, a Washington citizen, and Carrie Corporation, which is incorporated in New Mexico, with its principal place of business in Washington. He seeks $200,000 in damages against each defendant. Carrie has a large sales office employing 125 people in Massachusetts. Ramirez, the president of Carrie Corporation, lives in Massachusetts. Does the federal trial court have subject mater jurisdiction over this case? A. The court lacks jurisdiction over the action, because Carrie's president is domiciled in the same state as Macattack. B. The court lacks jurisdiction, because a substantial part of Carrie's daily activities take place in Massachusetts, where Macattack is domiciled. C. The court lacks jurisdiction, because Carrie's place of business is in Washington, and Corcoran is a citizen of Washington. D. Jurisdiction is proper.

Patsy, a Florida citizen living on the border with Georgia, files an action in federal court in Florida against Drucilla, a Georgia citizen, alleging that Drucilla had violated her federally protected civil rights by refusing to rent her an apartment because of her race. Patsy seeks $50,000 in damages. Drucilla grew up in the Florida county just across the border and prefers that the case be fought in state court. She consults a lawyer, asking the lawyer to file a Notice of Removal. Is the case removable to state court? A. Yes, because the parties are of diverse citizenship. B. Yes, because the claim arises under federal law. C. No, if the plaintiff is still domiciled in the forum state. D. No, because cases may not be removed from federal court to state court.

Peter is from Connecticut and Driver's Motor Co. ("DMC") is incorporated in Massachusetts and has its principal place of business in Rhode Island. Peter's damages are for $100,000 and he wants to file a tort claim for products liability under state law. Peter wants to litigate in state court and wants to make sure that DMC can't remove. What is his best course of action? A. There is nothing Peter can do. B. File in state court in any state except Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island. C. File the claim in federal court along with a motion to remand the case to state court. D. File in Massachusetts or Rhode Island state court.

Plaintiff, a citizen of Indiana, filed suit against Defendant in an Indiana state court, alleging a claim based upon a federal statute. Defendant, also a citizen of Indiana, filed a Notice of Removal. Plaintiff files a Motion to Remand. Should the judge grant the Motion? A. Yes, because Defendant is a citizen of Indiana. B. Yes, because the action could not have originally been brought in the U.S. District Court to which removal has been requested. C. No, because state courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims. D. No, because Plaintiff's action arises under a federal statute.

Seeking $95,000, Pippi (citizen of Wisconsin) files suit in Illinois state court against his employer, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Illinois, for "wrongful discharge," a state-law claim. Plaintiff properly serves defendant, who files a Notice of Removal 32 days later. Forty-five days later, Plaintiff files a Motion to Remand the case back to state court. Should the judge grant the Motion? A. Yes, because the Defendant's Notice of Removal was filed after the 30-day deadline. B. Yes, even though Plaintiff missed the 30-day deadline for filing a Motion to Remand. C. No, because there is complete diversity and the amount-in-controversy threshold is met, so the case could have been brought in federal court by Pippi. D. No, because Plaintiff missed the 30-day deadline for filing a Motion to Remand.

Which case can be brought in a federal district court under 28 U.S.C. §1332? A. Deneen, a French citizen and lawful permanent resident residing in New Jersey, sues Ken of New Jersey for $350,000. B. Deneen of New Jersey sues Ken of New Mexico and Charles of New Jersey for $170,000. C. Deneen of Germany sues Ken of England for $76,000. D. Deneen of New Jersey sues Ken of New Mexico for $250,000.

Institutional values of civ pro system

Fairness Accuracy Efficiency Finality Participation/dignity

Amount in Controversy Requirement

Must exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs, cannot usually be supplied by defendants counterclaim, must have legal and factual basis

The Complete Diversity Rule

No Plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any Defendant.

How does someone get to court?

Personal Jurisdiction Subject Matter Jurisdiction Proper Venue

Phases of Civil Procedure

Pleading Discovery Pretrial Trial Post-Trial Appeal

requirements for federal SMJ

Power Authorization

Mottley Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

Practical rule that serves administrative convenience rather than intellectual elegance

Pre-Trial

judicial conferences and possible motions for summary judgement

Discovery Phase

Scope and methods, research

State Courts Hierarchy

State Supreme Court Appellate Court Trial Court

28 USC 1367

Supplemental Jurisdiction - Other Claims of the Same Case or Controversy Unless Destroys Diversity

Article 3 Section 2

The part of the U.S. Constitution that defines the jurisdiction of the federal courts

28 USC 1331

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Pleading Phase

a complaint is lodged, answered, amended and pleadinged

Apeal

apply to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court.

maritime law

cases involving this are automatically heard in federal courts

Domestic Relations Exception

federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over divorce, alimony, or child-custody cases even if there is diversity of citizenship among the parties, they want it handled in family court

Test for State citizenship

determined at the date of filing don't lose your old domicile until you get a new domicile

Civil Procedure Midterm

Set pelajaran terkait

COSC 1301 Practice Test for Final

Accounting Chapter 9

Gen Chem Experiment 3: Fractional Crystallization

Chapter 15 Real Estate

Sport Psychology Ch1

The Wrist and Hand Joints

FIN Final practice questions

Percy Jackson Ch. 5 Reading Comprehension

life insurance ch1

Comp sci Practice Attempt - 2020 Practice Exam 1 MCQ

Exam two

A & P 1- PRT 2 OF EXAM 4 REVIEW

Emotional Development

Chapter 3 IMT 445

Unit 1 Study Q's

IT 254 Final

OBGYN uwise

BUS LAW Quiz 1

AP Psychology Unit 7 Test; Cognition

Briefing a case LAW 3000