civil procedure final exam review fall 2020

T/F Adele buys a 25-foot Pursuit motor boat from Snug Harbor Yacht Co. in Massachusetts. Adele tells the salesperson that she plans to take the boat to visit her son in Newport, Rhode Island. On route to Newport, the motor on the boat fails while she is in Rhode Island waters and Adele has to be rescued at sea. Adele sues Snug Harbor Yacht Co. in Rhode Island state court. (Snug Harbor Yacht Co. is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Massachusetts.) The court will find that the company purposefully availed itself of Rhode Island when it sold the boat to Adele because the salesperson knew that Adele planned to take the boat to Rhode Island.

False

T/F According to the "Stream of Commerce" theory/approach to personal jurisdiction in stream of commerce cases, it is critical to establish intent to target the forum market, which should be coupled with some action, such as advertising or operating a business-related facility in the forum.

False

T/F To establish general jurisdiction, the requirements/tests to be met are 1) minimum contacts and 2) reasonableness/fairness

False

Subject-matter jurisdiction

the power of a court to hear a particular type of case

T/F For Quasi in Rem actions, property IS the subject of the action

False

P1 & P2 v D each on claims for personal injury arising from the same automobile accident - $70,000 for P1 - $12,000 for P2 amount in controversy met? a. yes b. no

b. no

Hypothetical: Plaintiff files a removable case, naming three defendants. She serves process on D1 and D2 on July 1. They do not remove. On September 1 she serves D3. 1. Can D3 remove by herself? 2. Can she do so if D1 and D2 join the notice? Or is it too late from them to seek removal?

1. No D3 cannot remove by herself (§ 1446(b)(2)(A) "all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent" 2. Yes D3 can remove if all join notice. - generally, there is a 30-day time limit (§ 1446(b)(1) - but D3 was served separately, but removal IS allowed even though the 30-day period is expired for D1 and D2 under § 1446(b)(2)(C) "if defendants are served at different times, and a later-served defendant file a notice of removal, any earlier-served defendant may consent to the removal even though that earlier-served defendant did not previously initiate or consent to removal

The plaintiff of Missouri sues Defendant of California in Missouri state court for a tort claim of $100,000 how long does the Defendant have to do so?

30 days (§ 1446(b)(1))

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, the following methods of service are acceptable: a. Service by certified mail. b. Service by first class mail. c. Service methods provided by the state where service is performed. d. Substituted service on D's employer.

c. Service methods provided by the state where service is performed.

domiciliary of a state

person with a domicile within that state

Diversity? yes or no plaintiff- texas v defendant- canada

yes

An international Shoe truck leaves Missouri for Washington and while driving through Colorado, hits a pedestrian. Can the pedestrian properly sue International Shoe in Missouri, where International Shoe's headquarters are located? a. yes b. no c. maybe

a. yes (headquarters= general jurisdiction)

notice by publication in a newspaper is considered unconstitutional

false

Mitchell leared that Neff was vacationing in Arizona; sued Neff in Arizona state court and Neff was served with process in Arizona Jurisdiction? a. yes b. no

a. yes jurisdiction

Jenny, citizen of Texas, sues Sam, citizen of Illinois, for $30,000 on a loan and also for $74,000 for an unrelated negligence claim in federal court. Choose the most correct statement: a.Amount of controversy requirement is met under diversity because damages can be aggregated by a single plaintiff against a single defendant even when the claims are unrelated. b.Amount of controversy requirement is not met under diversity because damages cannot be aggregated when the claims are unrelated. b.Amount of controversy requirement would not be met under diversity if Jenny ends up recovering only $36,000. c. Amount of controversy requirement is met under diversity because damages can always be aggregated when parties are of diverse citizenship.

a.Amount of controversy requirement is met under diversity because damages can be aggregated by a single plaintiff against a single defendant even when the claims are unrelated.

A used car dealer located in California is profiled in an article in a newspaper with national circulation. The article states that the dealer never sells a car without rolling the odometer back at least 25,000 miles. In fact, the dealer is an honest businessperson who never changes odometers, so he sued the newspaper for libel in California district court. The newspaper's entire operation is conducted from its offices in New Jersey, but it sells 5,000 copies in California on an average day. In its initial pleading, the newspaper argues for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction over the newspaper because of insufficient contacts. What is the likely ruling of the court on this issue? a.Deny the motion because the newspaper's contacts with California were sufficient so it should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there. b.Deny the motion because it was likely someone in California could read that article that ruined the dealer's reputation. c. Grant the motion, because selling 5,000 copies of a newspaper per day is not significant enough to meet the minimum contacts test. d.Grant the motion because the newspaper operates out of New Jersey, not California.

a.Deny the motion because the newspaper's contacts with California were sufficient so it should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court there.

in rem

-proceeding concerns the OWNERSHIP of ATTACHED PROPERTY -binds the whole world as to that property

in personam

power over the person

venue

where within a court system a case can be brought

Ace Kayak Co. makes inflatable kayaks in Michigan. It markets the kayaks as "unsinkable" and sells them to Cedar River Kayak, a wholesaler in Iowa, with no restrictions or requirements regarding where Cedar River Kayak may resell the kayaks. Cedar River resells to stores in Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota. Cade buys an Ace inflatable kayak from a store in Minnesota, and he brings it to Iowa where it sinks after hitting a rock. Cade files suit against Ace in Iowa to recover for his injuries. Which of the following statements is most accurate? (A) Ace has purposefully availed itself of Iowa, and this lawsuit arises out of the contact. (B) Ace has purposefully availed itself of Iowa, but this lawsuit does not arise out of the contact. (C) Ace has purposefully availed itself of Iowa, and most courts would hold that this lawsuit is related to those contacts because the same type of kayak that injured Cade is also sold in Iowa. (D) Ace did not purposefully avail itself of Iowa because the negligent act that caused the product defect must have occurred in Michigan where the kayak was manufactured.

(A) Ace has purposefully availed itself of Iowa, and this lawsuit arises out of the contact.

Ace Kayak Co. makes inflatable kayaks in Michigan. It markets the kayaks as "unsinkable" and sells them to Cedar River Kayak, a wholesaler in Iowa, with no restrictions or requirements regarding where Cedar River Kayak may resell the kayaks. Cedar River resells to stores in Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota. Cade buys an Ace inflatable kayak from a store in Minnesota, and it sinks after hitting a rock in Minnesota, injuring Cade. If Cade files suit against Ace in Iowa, a court will find that: (A) Ace has purposefully availed itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Iowa. (B) Ace did not purposefully avail itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Iowa because Cedar River sold the kayaks in Iowa, not Ace. (C) Ace did not purposefully avail itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Iowa because Cade purchased the kayak in Minnesota, not Iowa. (D) Ace did not purposefully avail itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Iowa because the alleged negligence by Ace occurred in Michigan where Ace manufactured the kayak, not Iowa.

(A) Ace has purposefully availed itself of the opportunity to engage in activities in Iowa.

Due Process Clause (14th amendment)

No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

t/f Every defendant is subject to general in personam jurisdiction in at least one U.S. state.

false

Collapse Dipping Donuts, Corp. is a company with a chain of donut shops around the country. It is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Manhattan (in the Southern District of New York). Dipping Donuts has 50 donut shops in New York State, but they are all in Manhattan. Assume that a New York State citizen, Martha, visits Massachusetts and while visiting a Dipping Donuts location there, falls on the floor and suffers injuries. Martha returns to her home in Albany (in the Northern District of New York) and files a claim against Dipping Donuts in the federal district court for the Northern District of New York. She alleges damages in excess of $75,000. Dipping Donuts files a timely motion to dismiss, claiming that the Northern District of New York lacks personal jurisdiction over Dipping Donuts. Which of the following statements is most accurate? The motion should be: (A) Denied. Because Dipping Donuts has its principal place of business in New York State, the federal court in the Northern District of New York has general in personam jurisdiction over Dipping Donuts. (B) Denied. Because Dipping Donuts has 50 stores in New York, the company is at home there and is therefore subject to general in personam jurisdiction in New York. (C) Granted because, although Dipping Donuts is subject to general in personam jurisdiction in New York State, it has no presence in the Northern District of New York. (D) Granted because Martha's claim does not arise out of Dipping Donuts's contacts with New York. (E) Granted for the reasons set out in both C and D.

(A) Denied. Because Dipping Donuts has its principal place of business in New York State, the federal court in the Northern District of New York has general in personam jurisdiction over Dipping Donuts.

Yellen is a financial advisor who works out of her Vermont home. She advises clients about how to invest their money and charges them a fee for her services. Mostly, she conducts her business by phone, but sometimes her clients come to her house and occasionally she visits them at theirs. Since she has just started her business, she has only fifteen clients, mostly from the New England states. Four of her clients are from Maine. Over the past year, she has twice visited clients in Maine to meet with them about investments. Rockefeller, a New Yorker, calls Yellen from Rockefeller's office in New York, asking about some investments. Rockefeller later sues Yellen, claiming that, during the call, Yellen advised Rockefeller to make a large investment in a company without checking its latest earnings report, which showed drastic losses. Rockefeller, who has a second home in Maine, sues Yellen there. Assuming Yellen makes a timely motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds, which of the following statements is the most accurate? (A) The Maine court will not have personal jurisdiction over Yellen in this action. (B) The Maine court will have general in personam jurisdiction over Yellen, since a significant percentage of her clients are from Maine. (C) The Maine court will have personal jurisdiction over Yellen if Yellen knew that Rockefeller had a home in Maine. (D) The Maine court will have personal jurisdiction over Yellen because she has minimum contacts with Maine.

(A) The Maine court will not have personal jurisdiction over Yellen in this action.

Abbie, a citizen of Massachusetts, buys a used Harley Davidson from Chaz, another citizen of Massachusetts. Abbie tells Chaz that she plans to take the cycle to Portland, Maine. The handlebars fall off while she is on a highway in Maine. Abbie is injured in the accident and she is taken by ambulance to a Maine hospital. The police come to the scene, speak with several witnesses to the accident (Maine citizens) and write a report. The motorcycle is taken to a local repair shop in Maine. Abbie sues Chaz in Maine state court. Which of the following statements is most accurate? (A) The court will not be able to exercise specific personal jurisdiction in this case. (B) Specific jurisdiction can be exercised here. Chaz has minimum contacts because he knew that Abbie intended to bring the motorcycle into Maine and the lawsuit arises out of her trip to Maine. Moreover, the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable because the state has an interest in ensuring the safety of its highways and substantial evidence is located in Maine. (C) Although Chaz has not aimed any conduct at Maine, the court may exercise jurisdiction because it is fair and reasonable because the state has an interest in ensuring the safety of its highways and there is substantial evidence related to the lawsuit in the state. (D) Since the accident occurred in Maine, minimum contacts are satisfied. Moreover, the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable since the state has an interest in ensuring the safety of its highways and substantial evidence is located in the state.

(A) The court will not be able to exercise specific personal jurisdiction in this case.

Compania is a Spanish corporation that is incorporated in Spain and has its principal place of business in Madrid, Spain. Compania sells a defective cell phone case to Leena in Oklahoma at a store that Compania operates there. Leena's cell phone is destroyed as a result of the defect. Assume that Compania's only stores in the U.S. are in Oklahoma and that the company's U.S. offices are located there. Is personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible in Oklahoma? (A) Yes because there is specific jurisdiction there. (B) Yes because there is general in personam jurisdiction there. (C) Yes because there is both specific and general in personam jurisdiction there. (D) No because Compania is not a U.S. company and is not "at home" in the U.S.

(A) Yes because there is specific jurisdiction there

Daria repairs the brakes on Perry's car in Mississippi. Shortly thereafter, Daria moves to Florida. Six months later, Perry's brakes fail while Perry is driving in Mississippi. If Perry sues Daria in Mississippi state court, the court will (A) find that Daria had purposeful contacts with Mississippi for purposes of this case, even though Daria lives in Florida at the time of the lawsuit. (B) find that Daria has no purposeful contact with Mississippi because Daria no longer lives in Mississippi. (C) find that Daria had purposeful contact with Mississippi because she previously lived in Mississippi. (D) find that Daria had no purposeful contact with Mississippi because Daria had no control over where Perry chose to drive the car.

(A) find that Daria had purposeful contacts with Mississippi for purposes of this case, even though Daria lives in Florida at the time of the lawsuit.

Terra Corp. has its principal place of business in Arizona and is incorporated in Delaware. Terra has a store in Nebraska, where it sells skateboards. Angel, domiciled in Nebraska, buys a Terra Skateboard there and is subsequently injured when the skateboard's wheel disconnects from the skateboard. Where is personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible? (A) Arizona and Delaware only (B) Nebraska only. (C) Arizona, Delaware, and Nebraska. (D) None of the above.

(C) Arizona, Delaware, and Nebraska.

Acme Corporation, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Arizona, makes electric hedge clippers in Arizona and sells them to Regional Distributors, Inc., a company incorporated in Colorado with its principal place of business in Colorado. Regional resells a single pair of Acme hedge clippers to a hardware store in Utah, which sells them to Montez, a Utah citizen. Montez is injured using the clippers and wants to sue Acme Corporation in Utah for her injury. A Utah court will probably (A) not have personal jurisdiction over Acme for this claim. (B) have personal jurisdiction over Acme for this claim, because (unlike in the Asahi and McIntyre cases) Acme is an American manufacturer. (C) have personal jurisdiction over Acme if she sues for this claim in a federal court in Utah. (D) have personal jurisdiction over Acme for this claim because it could foresee that Regional would resell into Utah, a neighboring state.

(A) not have personal jurisdiction over Acme for this claim.

Acme Company, a company incorporated in Arizona with its principal place of business in the state, has a claim against Terrence, a citizen of Nevada. Terrence wrote a computer program for Acme, but after Acme sold the program to clients in Arizona, Acme learned that the program was infected with a virus. Terrence negotiated the contract with an Acme representative located in Nevada, wrote the program at his home and personally delivered it to Acme's Nevada office. The contract provided that Nevada law would apply to any disputes. Acme files suit against Terrence in Arizona alleging that Terrence negligently planted the virus in the program that caused harm in Arizona. Terrence denies the allegation that he planted the virus, objects to personal jurisdiction and files a motion to dismiss. The Arizona court: (A) should grant the motion. Terrence lacks minimum contacts with Arizona. (B) should deny the motion. Terrence is subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona because he entered a contract with Acme, an Arizona company, and this lawsuit arises out of the contract. (C) should deny the motion. Terrence is subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona because the program was sold to clients in Arizona and caused injury there. (D) should grant the motion. Terrence denies that he planted the virus and therefore he is not responsible for any injury caused in Arizona.

(A) should grant the motion. Terrence lacks minimum contacts with Arizona.

Acme Corporation, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Arizona, makes electric hedge clippers in Arizona and sells them to Regional Distributors, Inc., a separate company incorporated in Colorado with its principal place of business in Colorado. Acme is trying to increase its sales in Utah, so it offers Regional a ten percent price break on all clippers that Regional resells into Utah. Regional begins selling Acme hedge clippers regularly into Utah. It resells a batch of Acme hedge clippers to Harry's Hardware in Utah. Jenkins buys a pair at Harry's and is injured in Utah when they suffer a short circuit and he is shocked. The courts of Utah (A) would probably have personal jurisdiction over both Acme and Regional Distributors for Jenkins' claim. (B) would not have personal jurisdiction over either Acme or Regional Distributors for Jenkins' claim. (C) would have personal jurisdiction over Acme but jurisdiction over Regional Distributors for Jenkins' claim is questionable. (D) would clearly have personal jurisdiction over Acme, but not over Regional Distributors for Jenkins' claim.

(A) would probably have personal jurisdiction over both Acme and Regional Distributors for Jenkins' claim.

Bama, a citizen of North Dakota, repairs antique cars for a living. In 2017, he placed an advertisement to attract new clients in a car trader's magazine that circulates in North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. Bama gets a call from Althea in Wyoming asking Bama to repair Althea's 1910 Ford Model T. (Althea was referred to Bama by one of Althea's friends who hired Bama to repair his antique car in 2013). Althea brings the car to North Dakota, and Bama completes the repair at his garage there. Althea is dissatisfied with the work and decides to file suit. Which of the following statements is most accurate? (A) Bama is likely to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Wyoming because the advertisement in the car trader's magazine is a purposeful contact with Wyoming. (B) Bama is unlikely to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Wyoming. Although Bama placed an advertisement in a magazine that circulates in Wyoming, this lawsuit does not arise out of that advertisement. (C) Bama is likely to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Wyoming, because Bama has minimum contacts with Wyoming and the exercise of jurisdiction there is fair and reasonable. (D) Bama is unlikely to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Wyoming because Bama performed the repair work that is the subject of the litigation in North Dakota, not Wyoming.

(B) Bama is unlikely to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Wyoming. Although Bama placed an advertisement in a magazine that circulates in Wyoming, this lawsuit does not arise out of that advertisement.

Louis, a citizen of Texas, repairs antique watches. In 2017, he placed an advertisement in a magazine that circulates in Texas and Oklahoma. At around that time, Louis received a call from Bertha, a citizen of Oklahoma, asking Louis to repair Bertha's 1950 Rolex watch. (Bertha had not seen Louis's ad, but Bertha's local jeweler recommended Louis to Bertha because the two jewelers had been friends for years.) Bertha drove to Louis's shop in Texas, and Louis repaired Bertha's watch. When Bertha brought the watch home to Oklahoma, she suspected that Louis had switched the expensive watch for a cheap replica. Bertha filed suit against Louis in Oklahoma. Which of the following statements is most accurate? (A) The court should exercise specific jurisdiction because Louis has minimum contacts with Oklahoma and the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable in this case. (B) The court should not exercise specific jurisdiction. Even though the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable, Louis does not meet the minimum contacts portion of the test. (C) The court should exercise specific jurisdiction because it is fair and reasonable. (D) The court should not exercise specific jurisdiction because the repair and alleged wrongful conduct occurred in Texas, not Oklahoma.

(B) The court should not exercise specific jurisdiction. Even though the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable, Louis does not meet the minimum contacts portion of the test.

Ralph (domiciled in Virginia) sues Greta (domiciled in North Carolina) after Greta injures Ralph in a car accident in Virginia while Greta is visiting there. Is personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible in North Carolina in this case? (A) No, because this case arose out of events that occurred in Virginia, not North Carolina. (B) Yes, because Greta is domiciled in North Carolina. (C) Yes, because Greta reached into Virginia from North Carolina and is therefore subject to specific jurisdiction in North Carolina. (D) Both B and C are true.

(B) Yes, because Greta is domiciled in North Carolina.

DigiPlex Computers makes computers in Michigan. It sells its computers to Nationwide Distributors, a Wisconsin wholesaler of computers, in Wisconsin. Nationwide resells to stores in Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota. Jackie buys a DigiPlex computer from a store in Iowa and it explodes, injuring Jackie. (A) Jackie could not sue DigiPlex in Iowa for her injury, because DigiPlex did not require Nationwide to resell its computers in Iowa. (B) Jackie could sue DigiPlex in Iowa if DigiPlex knew that Nationwide resold DigiPlex computers in Iowa. (C) Jackie could sue DigiPlex in Wisconsin for her injury, and might be able to sue DigiPlex in Iowa for her injury as well. (D) Jackie could not sue DigiPlex in Iowa or Wisconsin for her injury.

(C) Jackie could sue DigiPlex in Wisconsin for her injury, and might be able to sue DigiPlex in Iowa for her injury as well.

Giesel is domiciled in Alabama and is in a car accident while visiting Louisiana. She sues the driver of the other car, Hank, who is also domiciled in Alabama and happens to have been visiting Louisiana at the same time as Giesel. Which of the following statements is most accurate? (A) Because this claim arose of Hank's contacts in Louisiana, Giesel must file her claim there. (B) Because general in personam jurisdiction is available in Alabama, she must file here claim there. (C) Personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible in either Alabama or Louisiana, so Giesel can choose either state as a matter of personal jurisdiction.

(C) Personal jurisdiction is constitutionally permissible in either Alabama or Louisiana, so Giesel can choose either state as a matter of personal jurisdiction.

Brady, a citizen of Massachusetts, sells his car to Romeo, a fellow citizen of Massachusetts. The sale takes place in Massachusetts, but shortly thereafter, Brady moves to Oregon. Six months later, the engine explodes while Romeo is driving the car on a rural road in New Hampshire. If Romeo sues Brady in Massachusetts state court, the court will likely A (A) not have personal jurisdiction because Brady no longer lives in Massachusetts. (B) not have personal jurisdiction because the events that gave rise to this suit occurred in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts. (C) have personal jurisdiction because Romeo bought the car from Brady in Massachusetts and this litigation arises out of the sale. (D) have personal jurisdiction because Brady lived in Massachusetts at the time he sold the car to Romeo and therefore is subject to general jurisdiction.

(C) have personal jurisdiction because Romeo bought the car from Brady in Massachusetts and this litigation arises out of the sale.

Charlie repairs Shakeel's car in Montana. Shortly thereafter, Charlie moves to Oregon. Three months later, when Shakeel is driving the car on a rural road in Montana, it starts to smoke and suddenly explodes, injuring Shakeel. If Shakeel sues Charlie in Montana state court, the court will (A) not have personal jurisdiction over Charlie for this claim because Charlie no longer lives in Montana. (B) not have personal jurisdiction over Charlie for this claim because Charlie cannot be served with process in Montana. (C) have personal jurisdiction over Charlie even though he no longer lives in Montana as long as the additional factors suggest that the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. (D) have personal jurisdiction over Charlie because he was subject to general jurisdiction there at the time the suit arose.

(C) have personal jurisdiction over Charlie even though he no longer lives in Montana as long as the additional factors suggest that the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable.

Honshu Motors makes all-terrain vehicles in Japan and imports them to a Texas dealership, El Paso Motors, and a few to an Oklahoma dealership as well. Tuoni comes to the Texas dealership and explains that she needs a sturdy ATV that will work on the sand hills of Oklahoma, where she lives and plans to use the ATV. El Paso sells a Honshu ATV off the lot to Tuoni. She is injured using it in Oklahoma and sues both Honshu and El Paso in Oklahoma for her injury. The Oklahoma court will (A) have personal jurisdiction over El Paso and Honshu for this claim (B) have personal jurisdiction over El Paso only for this claim. (C) have personal jurisdiction over neither defendant. (D) have personal jurisdiction over Honshu Motors based on stream of commerce jurisdiction.

(C) have personal jurisdiction over neither defendant.

Timothy, domiciled in Arizona, purchases a MacBook Air at an Apple store in Nevada. He takes the computer to his home in Arizona. Several months later, Timothy's house burns down. Timothy is interviewed on the evening News and states that the computer caused the fire that burned down his house and encourages others "who have had similar trouble" to contact him to file a class action suit against Apple. The News station broadcasts in Arizona and Nevada. Before a class action is filed, Apple files suit against Timothy in Nevada seeking to prove that the fire was not caused by the computer. The Nevada court will (A) likely not have personal jurisdiction because the minimum contacts test is not satisfied. (B) likely not have personal jurisdiction because the exercise of jurisdiction is unfair and unreasonable. (C) likely have personal jurisdiction because Timothy satisfies minimum contacts and the exercise of jurisdiction is not so inconvenient to the defendant that personal jurisdiction would be unfair or unreasonable in Nevada. (D) likely have personal jurisdiction because the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable, regardless of whether the minimum contacts test is satisfied.

(C) likely have personal jurisdiction because Timothy satisfies minimum contacts and the exercise of jurisdiction is not so inconvenient to the defendant that personal jurisdiction would be unfair or unreasonable in Nevada.

Collapse Marcus, a citizen of Montana, repairs the hard drive on Mackenzie's computer in Montana. Shortly thereafter, Marcus moves to Oregon. Three months later, Mackenzie's computer explodes, injuring Mackenzie. If Mackenzie sues Marcus in Montana state court, that court will (A) not have personal jurisdiction over Marcus for this claim because Marcus no longer lives in Montana. (B) not have personal jurisdiction over Marcus for this claim because Marcus cannot be served with process in Montana. (C) will have personal jurisdiction over Marcus even though Montana is no longer Marcus's domicile. (D) will have personal jurisdiction over Marcus because he was a citizen of Montana and therefore subject to general jurisdiction there at the time the suit arose.

(C) will have personal jurisdiction over Marcus even though Montana is no longer Marcus's domicile.

Roshini sues Rascal Corp. for manufacturing a defective product that injured Roshini. Rascal is incorporated in Florida and has its principal place of business in Ohio. Roshini purchased the product at a Rascal store in New Jersey, where Roshini is domiciled and was injured. Where is personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible in this case? (A) Florida and Ohio only. (B) Florida and Ohio, and perhaps New Jersey if Rascal has numerous stores there. (C) Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio; there is general in personam jurisdiction over Rascal in all three states. (D) Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio; there is general in personam jurisdiction over Rascal in Florida and Ohio, and there is specific jurisdiction over Rascal in New Jersey. (E) C and D are both accurate.

(D) Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio; there is general in personam jurisdiction over Rascal in Florida and Ohio, and there is specific jurisdiction over Rascal in New Jersey.

DigiPlex Computers makes computers in Michigan. It sells its computers to Magna Sales, a wholesaler in Iowa, with no restrictions or requirements regarding where Magna may resell the computers. Magna resells to stores in Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota. Jackie buys a DigiPlex computer from a store in Iowa, and it explodes in her Iowa home, injuring Jackie. (A) Jackie could not sue DigiPlex in Iowa for her injury, because DigiPlex did not require Magna to resell its computers in Iowa. (B) Jackie could sue DigiPlex in Iowa only if Magna informed DigiPlex that it was reselling DigiPlex computers in Iowa. (C) Jackie would have to sue DigiPlex in Michigan, since the negligent act that caused the explosion must have taken place there during manufacture. (D) Jackie may sue DigiPlex in Iowa for her injury based on the minimum contacts theory of International Shoe.

(D) Jackie may sue DigiPlex in Iowa for her injury based on the minimum contacts theory of International Shoe.

You can't answer this question, but it is worth considering. Asahi Metal Works makes valves for motorcycle tires in Japan, which it sells to Cheng Shin Corporation in Taiwan. Anxious to serve the market for tire valves in the United States, Asahi designs its valves to comply with United States regulations on the design of tire valves. Cheng Shin incorporates Asahi valves into its tire tubes and imports them in quantity into California. One ends up on Zurcher's motorcycle and fails, causing an accident. Zurcher sues Asahi in California for his injury. Asahi will (A) be subject to personal jurisdiction in California for Zurcher's claim, because its valves were resold in quantity into the United States. (B) be subject to personal jurisdiction in California for Zurcher's claim, because it designed its valves to meet United States regulations for tire valves. (C) be subject to personal jurisdiction in California for Zurcher's claim if it knew that Cheng Shin served the United States market for tire valves. (D) The answer to this example is not clear.

(D) The answer to this example is not clear.

Collapse Jerry, a citizen of France, wrote a manuscript for an original Netflix TV series. Shortly after the series aired, Netflix discovered that substantial portions of the work were plagiarized. Jerry wrote the manuscript at his home in Paris and negotiated the contract with an agent for Netflix located in Paris. If Netflix files suit in New York and serves Jerry with process while he is vacationing in New York, the New York court will: (A) have to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction because Jerry lacks minimum contacts with New York. (B) have to dismiss the suit because the lawsuit is unrelated to Jerry's conduct in New York. (C) have to dismiss the suit because Jerry is not subject to general or specific personal jurisdiction in New York since he is not "at home" in the state and his conduct in the state has nothing to do with the lawsuit. (D) exercise personal jurisdiction over Jerry to adjudicate this suit.

(D) exercise personal jurisdiction over Jerry to adjudicate this suit.

Lucy sues Chipotle after she ate a burrito in a Chipotle restaurant in Massachusetts and then suffered food poisoning after returning home to New Hampshire. Chipotle is incorporated in Delaware, has its principal place of business in California, and operates more than 20 restaurants in New Hampshire. Lucy sues Chipotle in a New Hampshire state court. If Chipotle challenged personal jurisdiction, the New Hampshire court will conclude that it does: (A) have personal jurisdiction over Chipotle because it has extensive facilities and business in New Hampshire. (B) not have personal jurisdiction over Chipotle unless Lucy brings the action in a New Hampshire federal district court. (C) have personal jurisdiction over Chipotle because Lucy got sick in New Hampshire. (D) not have personal jurisdiction over Chipotle

(D) not have personal jurisdiction over Chipotle

Timothy, domiciled in Louisiana, sues Walmart Corporation (incorporated in Arkansas with its principal place of business in Little Rock, Arkansas) after a telephone that he purchased at a Walmart store in Texas caused a fire and burned down his home in Louisiana. Timothy sues in a Louisiana state court. Walmart has 15 stores in Louisiana and Timothy regularly shops at a store in Louisiana that is located about 10 minutes from his home. The Louisiana court will (A) have personal jurisdiction over Walmart because it has extensive facilities and business in Louisiana. (B) have personal jurisdiction over Walmart because Timothy regularly shops in the Walmart store that is 10 minutes from his home in Louisiana, the plaintiff suffered the damage that is the subject of the lawsuit in Louisiana and the state has an interest in protecting its citizens. (C) have personal jurisdiction over Walmart because it has minimum contacts with Louisiana and the additional factors suggest that the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. (D) not have personal jurisdiction over Walmart.

(D) not have personal jurisdiction over Walmart.

Zena, domiciled in Louisiana, sues Walmart Corporation (incorporated in Arkansas with its principal place of business in Little Rock, Arkansas) after the handlebars fell off the bicycle she bought in a Walmart store in Texas. At the time of the accident, Zena was riding on a coastal trail in Louisiana. Walmart has 15 stores in Louisiana and Zena regularly shops in a store that is located about 10 minutes from her home in Louisiana. If Zena sues in a Louisiana state court, the court will (A) have personal jurisdiction over Walmart, because it has extensive facilities and conducts substantial business in Louisiana. (B) have personal jurisdiction over Walmart because Zena regularly shops in the Walmart store that is 10 minutes from her home in Louisiana. (C) have personal jurisdiction over Walmart because the accident that is the subject of the lawsuit occurred in Louisiana. (D) not have personal jurisdiction over Walmart.

(D) not have personal jurisdiction over Walmart.

Zen, a citizen of New York, rented skis from Arnie's Ski and Snowboard Shop in Montana. While he was in the shop, Zen asked about cross-country ski trails and Arnie told Zen that he could find extensive trails in West Yellowstone, Montana. Zen took his advice and went to West Yellowstone, Montana. Unknown to Zen, some of the trails crossed into Wyoming and Idaho and Zen accidentally fell into a ravine in Idaho after crossing the state border. Zen was taken to a hospital in Idaho. Zen filed suit against Arnie's Ski and Snowboard Shop in Idaho federal court. Since most of the evidence for the case is located in Idaho, including the medical providers, documents and the allegedly faulty skis, the court will: (A) have personal jurisdiction because the defendant advised Zen to go to the trail where he was injured and the lawsuit arises out of this advice. (B) have personal jurisdiction even though the defendant did not purposefully avail itself of the opportunity to engage in conduct in Idaho because the additional factors suggest that the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. (C) have personal jurisdiction because a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that has purposefully availed itself of the opportunity to engage in conduct in any one of the 50 states as long as the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable (which it is here). (D) not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the defendant did not purposefully avail itself of the opportunity to engage in conduct in Idaho.

(D) not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the defendant did not purposefully avail itself of the opportunity to engage in conduct in Idaho.

Dave drives his motorcycle from his home in Florida to a concert in Georgia. While in Georgia, Dave has a serious accident and is hospitalized in Atlanta. Dave wants to bring a products liability action against the dealership where he purchased the motorcycle, Harley Cycles. Harley Cycles is incorporated in Florida and has its principal place of business there; Dave also purchased the motorcycle there. Dave wants to file the suit in federal court in Georgia, claiming that a defect in the brakes caused the crash. The Atlanta Police responded to the accident, took photos and filed a report on the accident. The police report names several witnesses to the accident, all of whom live in Georgia. The motorcycle was towed to a garage in Georgia and has remained there. Dave is in an Atlanta hospital; his doctors and medical records are there. The federal court is likely to find (A) purposeful availment satisfied because Dave purposefully drove his motorcycle on Georgia roads and is being treated at a Georgia hospital. (B) purposeful availment satisfied if Dave told Harley Cycle that he planned to drive the motorcycle into Georgia. (C) purposeful availment satisfied because a defendant need only avail itself of the opportunity to engage in conduct in any state to meet the requirements for personal jurisdiction in federal court. (D) purposeful availment not satisfied.

(D) purposeful availment not satisfied.

Bishop purchases a motorcycle from Honda Cycles (incorporated in Rhode Island with its principal place of business in Rhode Island) and drives it from his home in Rhode Island to a concert in Massachusetts. While in Massachusetts, Bishop has a serious accident with Bria when she cuts Bishop off at an intersection. The Boston Police respond to the accident, take photos and file a report on the accident. The police report the names of several witnesses to the accident, all of whom live in Massachusetts. The motorcycle is towed to a garage in Massachusetts. Bishop is in a Boston hospital, and his doctors and medical records are there. Bishop files a lawsuit in Massachusetts against Bria alleging that her negligence caused the accident and against Honda alleging that a defect in the brakes caused the accident.The Massachusetts court is likely to find (A) purposeful availment satisfied as to both defendants because Bishop and Bria purposefully drove on Massachusetts roads. (B) purposeful availment satisfied as to both defendants if Bishop told Honda Cycle that he planned to drive the motorcycle into Massachusetts. (C) purposeful availment satisfied as to both defendants because Bishop is hospitalized in Massachusetts, the witnesses to the accident are located in Massachusetts and the motorcycle is being repaired at a garage in Massachusetts making Massachusetts a fair and reasonable jurisdiction to litigate the case. (D) purposeful availment satisfied for Bria but not Honda.

(D) purposeful availment satisfied for Bria but not Honda

what does the defendant do to effectuate the removal?

-File a notice in federal district court stating grounds for removal with copies of the state-court process served on him (§ 1446(a)) --then file a copy of the notice in state court and serve plaintiff with (§ 1446(d))

After settlement negotiations failed. Nelson brought a diversity action against Duds and Rios, seeking personal injury damages in excess of $75,000. Duds and Rios would prefer to wait and see what happens in the federal case and file suit in Texas state court against Nelson for damages. Are there any problems presented by such a choice? a. Yes, because Duds' and Rios' damages claim arise from the same occurrence as the claim made by Nelson, their counterclaims are compulsory, which could ultimately preclude prosecution of the claims in state court b. Yes, because Nelson is an "opposing party" as provided in Rule 13(a) c. Yes, because when Nelson sued, Duds and Rios hadn't already asserted their claims in another action d. A, B, and C are all correct

-Yes, because Duds' and Rios' damages claim arise from the same occurrence as the claim made by Nelson, their counterclaims are compulsory, which could ultimately preclude prosecution of the claims in state court -Yes, because Nelson is an "opposing party" as provided in Rule 13(a) -Yes, because when Nelson sued, Duds and Rios hadn't already asserted their claims in another action

Quasi in rem

-binds only a particular person as to property ownership two: type 1: proceeding concerns the ownership of attached property type 2: proceeding NOT related to the attached property

T/F "Process" consists of the summons and a copy of the complaint

True

T/F Campbell, a citizen of Wisconsin, was boating on Lake Superior. The border between Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan runs right down the middle of the lake. Campbell entered the lake on the Michigan side and while driving around the lake, he unknowingly crossed the invisible border in and out of Minnesota all day. As he was heading back to the dock, he collided with Abner who was driving another boat while Abner and Campbell were both in Michigan. If Abner sues for his injury in a Minnesota court, the court will likely find that Campbell is not subject to personal jurisdiction.

True

T/F Long-arm statutes serve two main functions: to assert the power to reach the non-resident defendants and to provide service methods.

True

T/F Sister States must recognize each other's judgments under the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution.

True

International Shoe operates retail shoe outlets in Washington. A customer buys a pair of shoes there but the shoes are defective. Can the pedestrian properly sue International Shoe in Washinton? a. yes b. no c. maybe

Yes (related= arose out of specific jurisdiction)

personal jurisdiction

a courts power over over a party = authority to make decisions with the respect to person(s)/defendant(s)= defendant can be compelled to show up in court and answer P's claim OR may face a default judgment (possibly sanctions)

Rule 4

a federal court has personal jurisdiction where a state court in the state in which the federal court is located would have personal jursidiction

Andrew has a website from which he sells baseball shirts with the names of major league baseball teams. Andrew operates this website in Alaska, makes all of the shirts in Alaska, and has no physical operations anywhere else in the U.S. he sells the shirts over his website to people who live in all 50 states, including New York. He then mails the shirts to the customers where they live. He has recently made a significant number of shirts to NY customers and mailed them to their NY addresses. The New York Yankees sue Andrew in a NY federal district court for copyright infringement. Andrew moves to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds. His motion is likely to be: a. Denied b. Granted because he has no contracts in NY c. Granted, because the case does not arise out of any contacts Andrew might have in NY d. both B and C are true

a. Denied

A company sells camping supplies in a retail store in Sacramento, California. Pete buys a tent at the store and brings it with him on a camping trip in Oregon. He uses the company in Oregon. Other than through the sale, the company has no connections to the state of Oregon. Is jurisdiction over the company proper in Oregon? a. NO, because the company lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Oregon such that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Oregon b. NO, but only if the company failed to consent in advance to the appointment of an agent in Oregon to accept service of process on its behalf c. YES, if the fair-play factors are strong enough to indicate that jurisdiction over the company in Oregon would be rasonable d. YES, because it foreseeable that a customer would take camping supplies sold in northern California on a camping trip in Oregon

a. NO, because the company lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Oregon such that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Oregon

4. Unincorporated businesses, such as partnerships, are citizens (for SMJ purposes): a. Of every state in which they have partners. b. Only in states where the principal place of business is located. c. Only in states where the partnership has its "nerve center." d. Of every state.

a. Of every state in which they have partners.

Which of the following cases, originally filed in state court in Texas, is most likely to be successfully removed to federal court? a.P (a domiciliary of Texas) sues D (a domiciliary of Oklahoma) for a breach of contract. P asks for $75,999 in damages. b.P (a domiciliary of Texas) sues D (a domiciliary of Oklahoma) for divorce and child custody under Texas state law. The marital assets to be distributed under the divorce decree are more than $500,000. c.P (a domiciliary of Oklahoma) sues D (a domiciliary of Texas) for state law negligence in connection with a car accident in Texas. P asks for $100,000 in compensation for the damages that D caused P due to P's injuries and damage to his vehicle. d.P (a domiciliary of Texas) sues D (a domiciliary of Oklahoma) for breach of contract. P asks for $50,000.

a. P (a domiciliary of Texas) sues D (a domiciliary of Oklahoma) for a breach of contract. P asks for $75,999 in damages.

P. initially tried to serve D. in person but was unable to locate him. As such, the process server left P's complaint and summons with D.'s 17-year old daughter, who was home at that time and opened the door. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4: a.Service would be proper if the court determined the daughter was of "suitable age." b.Service is proper because substituted service is allowed. c.Service is not proper because personal in-hand service on D. is required. d.Service is not proper because P. had to also mail the complaint and summons to D.

a. Service would be proper if the court determined the daughter was of "suitable age."

Imagine P sues 50 different manufacturers of asbestos, asserting that P has developed asbestosis because of asbestos exposure while he was moving large shipments of asbestos from each of the manufacturers over many years. P sues in state court and notifies all of the defendants of the lawsuit by using a state notice procedure, which permits registered mailing of a copy of the summons and complaint to each company's corporate headquarters with the address line: "legal department" on the envelope. this state procedure is: a. constitutional because the companies are reasonably certain to become appraised of the lawsuit using this procedure b. Unconstitutional, because hand delivery, rather than mail service is required in a case like this c. Unconstitutional, because a more effective method of service is available d. B and C are both correct

a. constitutional because the companies are reasonably certain to become appraised of the lawsuit using this procedure

Assume further that Nelson files an amended complaint in federal court and joins Big Motors as a co-defendant with Duds and Rios, claiming that the car was defectively designed and that the defect caused Nelson to be more seriously injured than he would have been if his car had been properly designed. Must Duds and Rios file their negligence and contribution claims against Big Motors in the same action? a. no, cross-claims between co-parties are permissive, not compulsory b. yes, Duds' and Rios' claims are compulsory because they arise from the same occurrence as Nelson's claims against them c. no, nelson's claims against Big Motors are about his own injuries d. a and c are both correct

a. no, cross-claims between co-parties are permissive, not compulsory

Pete Campbell sued Don Draper in the Central District of California for a federally created cause of action. Pete personally served Don while he was temporarily present in LA on business. Don is a resident of NYC, which is located in the Eastern district of NY. Which of the following statements is true? a. the judge can properly transfer the case to E.D.N.Y under §1406 b. the judge can properly transfer the case to E.D.N.Y under the doctrine of forum non conveniens c. venue is proper in the central district of California because personal jurisdiction is proper over Don there d. the judge must dismiss the case under rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue

a. the judge can properly transfer the case to E.D.N.Y under §1406

Josh was involved in a car accident with Mike, who was considered to be working at the time of the accident. Josh has sued Mike, and has also decided to sue the company Mike was working for at the time. According to Rule 20, is Josh allowed to join Mike's company in his suit? a. yes b. no

a. yes

Leslie, a citizen of Michigan, is suing Sarah, a citizen of Indiana, in federal court for negligence after an accident at work (AIC is $75,001). Leslie has also decided to bring another claim against Leslie involving breach of contract (AIC is $20,000)? Under rule 18, is this proper? a. yes b. no

a. yes

P v D on related claims - $70,000 for personal injury, $6,000 property damage amount in controversy met? a. yes b. no

a. yes

P v D on two unrelated claims - $70,000 on a promissory note and $6,000 for assault and battery amount in controversy met? a. yes b. no

a. yes

Dimensions, Inc. is a corporation that operates a chain of large retail stores in all 50 U.S. states. Which of the following, if true, would mean that Dimensions is subject to general jurisdiction in the state of Texas? a.Dimensions is incorporated in Texas. b.400 of Dimensions' 900 retail stores are located in Texas. c.Dimensions' CEO and CFO are both Texas residents. d.Between 60-65% of Dimensions' annual profits come from business transacted at its Texas stores.

a.Dimensions is incorporated in Texas.

Which of the following statements is correct? Choose the best answer. a.Non-resident defendants can be subject to personal jurisdiction in a State for causes of action that arose from their activities in that State. b.General jurisdiction is determined based on the fairness/reasonableness factors. c.Consent is the preferred way to establish personal jurisdiction. d.To establish jurisdiction via Quasi in Rem, all that is needed is to attach property in the state in the beginning of the lawsuit.

a.Non-resident defendants can be subject to personal jurisdiction in a State for causes of action that arose from their activities in that State.

P sues D for breach of fiduciary duty in federal court. Assume there is no issue with PJ or SMJ. Which of the following constitutes acceptable service of process? (assume for purposes of this question that all incorrect answers are also unauthorized under the relevant state law). a.The process server serves D in-hand in the parking lot near her fitness club. b.The process server serves D's husband at his office, where he is distracted while on zoom with his colleagues. c.The process server serves D at her daughter's after school program, leaving the summons and complaint with D's twelve-year-old daughter. d.The process server serves D by taping the summons and complaint to her office door and letting D's assistant know that he has left some important papers for her.

a.The process server serves D in-hand in the parking lot near her fitness club.

Plaintiff, a citizen of Illinois, wants to sue John, a citizen of China, in federal court, claiming invasion of privacy and alleging $170,000. Will the diversity of citizenship requirement be satisfied? a.Yes, because it is a suit between a citizen and an alien. b. Yes, because this scenario meets the complete diversity rule. c.No, because this scenario falls within a specific exception and thus does not meet the requirement. d. No because foreign country is not the plaintiff here.

a.Yes, because it is a suit between a citizen and an alien.

A car manufacturer, incorporated in Arkansas with its principal place of business also therein, sold its cars to dealers nationwide. A buyer who resides in California bought one of the manufacturer's cars in California. The buyer then took the car on a cross-country trip. Halfway through the trip, the buyer was involved in an accident in Nevada with a driver who resided in that state. The accident investigator concluded that the cause of the accident arose from a steering defect in the car. The driver filed an action against the buyer and the manufacturer in Nevada federal court, claiming $100,000 in damages. Nevada has an unlimited long-arm statute that authorizes personal jurisdiction over non-residents to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The manufacturer filed a motion to dismiss the action based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Should the court grant the manufacturer's motion to dismiss? a.Yes, because the cause of action did not arise out of the manufacturer's activities in Nevada. b. Yes, because a corporate defendant must be incorporated in a state or have its principal place of business in a state to be subject to personal jurisdiction therein. c.No, because the manufacturer purposely availed itself of the benefits and protections of State of Nevada when it sold the car. d. No because the driver established the required minimum contacts with Nevada.

a.Yes, because the cause of action did not arise out of the manufacturer's activities in Nevada.

Jean from Fargo, North Dakota wants to sue Eric from Madison, Wisconsin, for personal injuries resulting from a car accident in Duluth, Minnesota. Jean is a traveling salesperson and Eric is a federal Marshall who was on his way back to Madison, Wisconsin to serve a federal summons after visiting his college roommate, who lives in Duluth. The alleged injuries are for $150,000. In what court(s) may Jean file her lawsuit? a.State court only because there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. b.Either state or federal court. c.Federal court only because there is a sufficient basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction under diversity. d.Federal court only because Eric is a federal Marshall and thus the case arises under federal law.

b.Either state or federal court.

A gasoline dealer brought a diversity action in Colorado federal court against a distributor for willfully and knowingly overcharging for the price of fuel over a two-year period (state law claim). The complaint alleged damages in the amount of $60,000 plus an additional $30,000 for punitive damages, which are not allowed by state law. The dealer is a citizen of Arkansas and the distributor was incorporated and had its principal place of business in Colorado. A second dealer, a citizen of Colorado, seeks to join a claim for $40,000 against the distributor in the same action based on the identical issue of overcharging for the price of fuel purchased over a similar time. The distributor seeks to dismiss both claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the federal court proceed? a. dismiss both claims because federal courts do not accept claims based on state law. b. Grant the motion to dismiss both claims. c. Deny the motion because multiple plaintiffs may aggregate claims arising from the same factual issues against a single defendant. d. Deny the motion because the court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the claims under these facts.

b. Grant the motion to dismiss both claims

after settlement negotiations failed, Duds brought a property damage claim in federal district court in San Antonio, Texas, against Nelson for damages to its laundry truck in the amount of $100,000. Nelson brought a third-party action impleading Rios to recover for Nelson's personal injury damages in the amount of $500,000. Was the third-party action appropriate method for joining Rios in the action? a. Yes, Rios' potential liability to nelson for personal injury damages could be the basis for a third-party action b. No, third-party actions are available for derivative claims like contribution and indemnity claims, not as a basis for the defendant's individual tort claims against nonparties c. Yes, impleader must be permitted to avoid a multiplicity of suits d. Both A and C are correct

b. No, third-party actions are available for derivative claims like contribution and indemnity claims, not as a basis for the defendant's individual tort claims against nonparties

An Illinois resident drives to Michigan, where he causes an accident with a Michigan resident. The Michigan resident sues the Illinois resident in Michigan district court. The court decides PJ is proper using: a.Federal Diversity Jurisdiction. b. Specific Jurisdiction. c. Removal. d. Complete Diversity Rule.

b. Specific Jurisdiction.

Which of the following best expresses the Constitutional Due Process standard, as declared by the United States Supreme Court, for the method of service of process? a.Publication is the best way to ensure satisfying due process. b.The constitutional validity of any method of service is based on whether the method chosen is reasonably certain to inform those affected. c.Personal notice is the only method that will comport with Due Process. d.Personal notice is the only method that will comport with Due Process, but if the defendant is a corporation, then publication will be sufficient.

b. The constitutional validity of any method of service is based on whether the method chosen is reasonably certain to inform those affected.

An international Shoe truck leaves Missouri for Washington and while driving through Colorado, hits a pedestrian. Can the pedestrian properly sue International Shoe in Illinois, which is right across the river from International Shoe's headquarters, for the injuries he suffered in the accident? a. yes b. no c. maybe

b. no

Kelly, a citizen of Louisiana, files a complaint against her boss John, a citizen of Louisiana, in federal court. The complaint consists of two counts: violation of a federal labor law and negligence. The negligence claim is from a separate incident than the violation of the labor law. Knowing the federal labor law invokes federal question jurisdiction, is there supplemental jurisdiction regarding the negligence claim a. yes b. no

b. no

At Mitchell's request, Oregon sheriff went to California, where he knocked Neff unconscious, took him back to Oregon, and then served him with process Jurisdiction? a. yes b. no

b. no jurisdiction

Suit brought in Oregon state court; Neff personally served in California Jurisdiction? a. yes b. no

b. no jurisdiction

Pete Campbell (CA resident) sued Don Draper in the E.D.N.Y. where Don resides for a federally created cause of action. Also assume that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Pete's claim occurred in the Western District of New York. Don wishes to transfer the case to W.D.N.Y Which of the following statements is true? a. the judge can properly transfer the case to W.D.N.Y. under § 1406 b. the judge may have discretion to transfer the case to W.D.N.Y under § 1404 c. venue is proper in W.D.N.Y. because Don is a New York domiciliary d. both B and C are correct e. none of the above

b. the judge may have discretion to transfer the case to W.D.N.Y under § 1404

A professor who is a citizen of Texas wants to bring an action against his employer, a community college, also located in Texas. The case involves federal patent infringement. The professor alleged that the college had improperly marketed a medical device for which the professor had obtained a patent. The professor claims $100,000 in damages for the patent infringement claim. If the college wants to have the case heard in federal court, it will have SMJ under... a.Diversity of Citizenship b.Federal Question c.General Jurisdiction d.Specific Jurisdiction

b.Federal Question

A community college student, a citizen of Ohio, believes that the college violated her civil rights when it denied her the opportunity to audition for a major role in the musical produced by the theater department. She sued the community college, a nonprofit corporation, located and incorporated in Alabama, and its theater director, a citizen of Alabama, in state court in Alabama. What would be the proper method(s) of serving the defendants? a.The student must personally deliver complaint and summons on the defendants. b.Service as required by the Alabama Rules Civil of Procedure. c.Service by email to the defendants. d.Service by leaving complaint and summons with the secretary of the college's theater department.

b.Service as required by the Alabama Rules Civil of Procedure.

Paul enters into a contract with Dieter in which Dieter promised to supply Paul with 1000 copies of a book. Dieter did not supply any books to Paul, so Paul sued Dieter for breach of contract in federal court. In his complaint, Paul alleged the breach of contract. Paul's complaints also alleged that Dieter was likely to raise a defense that performance of the contract was impossible because it turned out that the material was copyright-protected under federal statutes, and that his defense would not succeed. Both Paul and Dieter were citizens of Texas, and the amount in controversy was $75,000. Is SMJ proper? a. YES, because Paul's well-pleaded complaint properly raises a federal issue b. NO, because Paul's well-pleaded complaint does not properly raise a federal issue c. NO, because Paul and Dieter were both from Texas, and the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 d. BOTH B and C are correct

both B and C are correct b. NO, because Paul's well-pleaded complaint does not properly raise a federal issue c. NO, because Paul and Dieter were both from Texas, and the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000

A snowmobiler, who lives in Alabama, hit a skier with a snowmobile while on vacation in the skier's home state of State Colorado, causing more than $80,000 in damages. Although the skier has never been to Alabama, he sued the snowmobiler in federal court in Alabama. Which of the following statements is true regarding the skier's attempted lawsuit? a.A federal court in Alabama lacks personal jurisdiction over the parties because the skier has insufficient contacts with the State Alabama. b.A federal court in Alabama lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the claim did not arise there. c. A federal court in Alabama may exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties because the skier consented to such personal jurisdiction. d.The skier waived his claim against the snowmobiler by filing it in the wrong forum.

c. A federal court in Alabama may exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties because the skier consented to such personal jurisdiction.

Paul enters into a contract with Dieter in which Dieter promised to supply Paul with 1000 copies of a book. Dieter did not supply any books to Paul, so Paul sued Dieter for breach of contract in federal court. In his complaint, Paul alleged the breach of contract. Paul's complaints also alleged that Dieter was likely to raise a defense that performance of the contract was impossible because it turned out that the material was copyright-protected under federal statutes, and that his defense would not succeed. Both Paul and Dieter were citizens of Texas, and the amount in controversy was $75,000. BUT this time, Dieter brings a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that he did not breach the contract because the books in questions were, in fact, copyright-protected under federal statutes. Is federal-question SMJ proper? a. YES, because Dieter's well-pleaded complaint properly raises a federal issue b. YES, because the Declaratory Judgment Act is a federal statute c. NO because there would not have been proper federal-question subject matter jurisdiction if Paul had sued Dieter for breach of contract d. NONE of the above

c. NO because there would not have been proper federal-question subject matter jurisdiction if Paul had sued Dieter for breach of contract

Jamie (TX) was driving down the street (in TX) when she lost control of her car and veered into another lane. An oncoming car driven by Alec (OK) collided with Jamie causing Jamie $100,000. Jamie brought a claim against Alec for damages caused in the accident. Alec subsequently filed a counter-claim against Jamie for negligence. Jamie wants to bring in a third party action against the car company (MO), claiming the accident was a result of defective breaks. Is Jamie's third party action appropriate? a. no, she must file the action against the car company separately b. yes, because complete diversity is satisfied c. yes, because rule 14 allows the third party action d. no, because minimum contacts is not satisfied

c. yes, because rule 14 allows this third party action

Plaintiff sues Defendant in federal court. Plaintiff serves the Defendant by leaving process at Defendant's home with the Defendant's brother, a 27-year-old attorney. Choose the best answer: a. Plaintiff has complied with Rule 4, i.e. service is proper. b. Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 4 (service is improper!) because Plaintiff did not give the process to Defendant in-hand. c. Whether Plaintiff complied with Rule 4, i.e. whether service is proper, depends upon where the Defendant's brother lives. d. Plaintiff has complied with Rule 4, i.e. whether service is proper, so long as he makes "reasonable efforts" to notify the Defendant.

c. Whether Plaintiff complied with Rule 4, i.e. whether service is proper, depends upon where the Defendant's brother lives.

Pat, a citizen of New York, forms the intent to change her domicile to California and sets out to drive there to establish her home. On the way in Nevada she is involved in an auto wreck with Dan, a citizen of California. She suffers damages of more than $75,000 and is hospitalized in Nevada. Is diversity jurisdiction proper? a. No, because the accident happened when both Pat and Dan were located in Nevada b. No, because Pat became a California domiciliary when she formed the intent to change her domicile to California c. Yes, because Pat remained a New York citizen because she was not yet physically present in California d. Yes, because she purposefully availed herself to the benefits of Nevada

c. Yes, because Pat remained a New York citizen because she was not yet physically present in California

A large paper manufacturer is incorporated in Delaware. Its headquarters offices are in Georgia. It owns forest lands in three states. Its largest holdings, by far, are more than one million acres of forest lands in Washington. Plaintiff uses the corporation for a tort that occurred in Texas, where Defendant's truck collided with the Plaintiff. Which of the following statements is correct? a. there is jurisdiction only in Georgia b. there is jurisdiction only in Delaware c. there is jurisdiction only in Georgia and Delaware d. there is jurisdiction in Georgia, Delaware, and Washington

c. there is jurisdiction only in Georgia and Delaware

Plaintiff of Texas sues Acme Trucking, INC. which was incorporated under Delaware law, has its headquarters offices in Texas, and has its largest single asset and facility-- a trucking warehouse-- in Kansas. which of the following statements is true? a. there is SMJ because at least one of Acme's citizenships is different from Plaintiff b. there is SMJ because all of Acme's citizenships are different from Plaintiff's c. there is no SMJ because at least one of Acme's citizenships is the same as Plaintiff's d. there is no SMJ unless plaintiff sues Acme in Delaware

c. there is no SMJ because at least one of Acme's citizenships is the same as Plaintiff's

P a citizen of Delaware, sues Business, an LLC formed under the laws of Delaware with its principal (indeed, its only) place of business in Los Angeles, CA. Business' members are citizens of CA, AZ, NM, and NV. P sues for $500,000 breach of contract in state court in Los Angeles CA. Business removes of the federal court for the central district of CA, which embraces Los Angeles, based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. a.Business cannot remove because the complete diversity rule is not satisfied. b.Business cannot remove because it is a resident of the Central District of California. c.Business cannot remove because it is a citizen of California. d.Business can remove because the complete diversity rule is satisfied.

c.Business cannot remove because it is a citizen of California

P is from Texas and wants to sue D from Argentina, who is also a permanent resident of the Unites States and lives in Texas, in federal court for breach of contract, alleging $130,00 in damages. Under the circumstances, a.The court has proper jurisdiction because diversity of citizenship requirement is met. b.The court has proper jurisdiction because being from Argentina qualifies as "subject of a foreign state." c.The court does not have proper jurisdiction because diversity of citizenship requirement is not met. d.The court does not have proper jurisdiction because mere allegation of the amount of controversy does not guarantee P. will recover the amount that exceeds $75,000.

c.The court does not have proper jurisdiction because diversity of citizenship requirement is not met.

P, a resident of Nebraska, sues D, a resident of Kansas for negligence arising out a car accident that occurred in St. Louis, Missouri. P files a lawsuit in Wisconsin and serves D with process in Milwaukee, Wisconsin while D is there on a business trip. Is personal jurisdiction over D in Wisconsin constitutionally permissible? a. No, because D. had no contacts with the state of Wisconsin. b.No, because since D was in Wisconsin for business purposes, he was not In the jurisdiction voluntarily. c.Yes, because D. was served while present in the state. d.Yes, but only if D. consents to PJ there.

c.Yes, because D. was served while present in the state.

which of the following is true: a.Objection to Personal Jurisdiction cannot be waived. b."Complete Diversity" requires that no plaintiff be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. c.None of the above. d.All of the above.

complete diversity requires that no plaintiff be citizen of the same state as any defendant

International Shoe operates a retail outlet in Washington but not in Oregon. An Oregon citizen visits the Washington store and buys a pair of shoes, which she takes back to Oregon. She then discovers that the shoes are defective. Can she properly sue International Shoe in Oregon? a. YES, because by entering into a contract with the buyer, International shoe has made sufficiently significant contacts with Oregon b. YES, because International shoe could reasonably foresee that the buyer would take the shoes back to Oregon c. NO, because the buyer only had minimal contacts with the state of Washington d. NO, because International Shoe never purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the State of Oregon

d. NO, because International Shoe never purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the State of Oregon

A town planned to build a new street through a parcel of vacant land on the edge of town. The land records show a deed dated October 5, 1947, to the current property owner, for whom an address is given in the capital city of the state. The town instituted an In Rem condemnation action in federal court (assume there is no PJ or SMJ issue here), with notice to all interested parties published in the town newspaper. The property owner, who still resides at the address in the capital city, does not see the notice. The court allows the condemnation to proceed as requested by the town. Is the condemnation valid as to the property owner? a.Yes because a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. b.Yes if the property owned actually learned about the action from his neighbor. c. No because the property owner was required to be served at his usual place of abode. d. No because notice by publication here is in violation of due process.

d. No because notice by publication here is in violation of due process.

P needs to serve ABC Company, Inc. for a lawsuit that he has filed in federal court. The process server serves Peter, who is a shareholder of ABC Company, Inc. Is service proper? (assume for purposes of this question that all incorrect answers are also unauthorized under the relevant state law). a.Yes, if Peter works at ABC Company, Inc. b.Yes, because a shareholder controls a company and thus has a manager status. c.No, because a shareholder is automatically a defendant in the lawsuit. d. No, because there is nothing in the facts to indicate that Peter is ABC Company Inc.'s agent for service of process

d. No, because there is nothing in the facts to indicate that Peter is ABC Company Inc.'s agent for service of process

Pete sues Donna in federal court for copyright infringement. Pete is a domiciliary of Kansas; Donna is domiciliary of Nebraska. The alleged copyright infringement took place in Kansas. NOTE: Kansas and Nebraska each have only one federal judicial district. Where would venue be proper? a. Kansas, because Pete is a resident of Kansas b. Kansas, because the infringement allegedly occurred in Kansas c. Nebraska, because Donna is a resident of Nebraska d. ONLY B and C (but not A) e. ALL of A, B, and C

d. ONLY B and C (but not A) -Kansas, because the infringement allegedly occurred in Kansas -Nebraska, because Donna is a resident of Nebraska

which of the following statements about the doctrine of forum non conveniens(FNC) is true? a. a federal-court judge can dismiss a case under FNC if the defendant shows that a federal court in a different district is a more convenient venue b. a state-court judge can dismiss a case under FNC if the defendant shows that a state court in a different state is a more convenient venue c. a state-court judge can dismiss a case under FNC if the defendant shows that a court in a foreign country is a more convenient venue d. both B and C are correct

d. both B and C are correct a state-court judge can dismiss a case under FNC if the defendant shows that a state court in a different state is a more convenient venue a state-court judge can dismiss a case under FNC if the defendant shows that a court in a foreign country is a more convenient venue

Firestone manufactures tires in Ohio. Firestone regularly markets their tires directly into many different states, including Michigan and California. In Michigan, Firestone sells tires to Ford, who puts the tires onto cars in Michigan. A Ford car is sold to Plaintiff in California. Plaintiff then drives it to Nevada and has a wreck in that state. Does Nevada have jurisdiction over Firestone? a. yes based on Stream of Commerce b. yes because it was foreseeable the car would be driven to Nevada or any state c. no due to the Stream of Commerce Plus theory d. no because the plaintiff chose to drive it there

d. no because the plaintiff chose to drive it there

Paul, a citizen of Texas, properly institutes a diversity of citizenship action against Donna, a citizen of Oklahoma. After filing, but before the case proceeds to trial, Paul becomes a citizen of Oklahoma. Donna then moves to dismiss the case for lack of SMJ. Should the court grant Donna's motion? a. yes, because diversity no longer existed once Paul became a citizen of the same state as Donna b. yes, unless Paul amends his complaint to inform the court of his new state citizenship c. no, because the trial had not yet started when Donna filed her motion d. no, because the diversity requirement was met at the time Paul filed his complaint

d. no, because the diversity requirement was met at the time Paul filed his complaint

Firestone manufactures tires in Ohio. Firestone regularly markets their tires directly into many different states, including Michigan. In Michigan. Firestone sells tires to Ford, who put the tires onto cars in Michigan. A Ford car is sold to Plaintiff in Michigan who has a wreck in that state. Does Michigan have jurisdiction over Firestone? a. No bc the Plaintiff did not buy car from Firestone b. only under Steam of Commerce View c. only under Stream of Commerce Plus View d. there is proper jurisdiction under the circumstances

d. there is proper jurisdiction under the circumstances

Substituted service requires delivering the summons and complaint to the individual defendant by hand

false

T/F Campbell was boating on Lake Superior. The border between Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan runs right down the middle of the lake. Campbell entered the lake on the Michigan side and collided with Abner, who was driving another boat. Unknown to Campbell, he unwittingly crossed the invisible border, and the collision took place in Minnesota. If Abner sues for his injury in a Minnesota court, the court will find that Campbell has not purposefully availed himself of Minnesota.

false

T/F A defendant may only be subject to personal jurisdiction for a lawsuit that arises out of, or relates to, the defendant's conduct aimed at the forum state.

false

T/F Bama, a citizen of North Dakota, repairs antique cars for a living. Most of his clients are from North Dakota, but one day Bama gets a call from Althea in Wyoming asking Bama to repair Althea's 1910 Ford Model T. Bama travels to Wyoming and does the repair there. Althea is dissatisfied with the work and decides to file suit. Althea will have to sue Bama in North Dakota since he is domiciled in North Dakota and the large majority of his work takes place there.

false

T/F Cedric, a citizen of Michigan, was boating on Lake Michigan on July 4th. The border between Michigan and Wisconsin runs down the middle of the lake and Cedric entered the lake on the Michigan side. Unknown to Cedric, he unwittingly crossed the invisible border and entered Wisconsin as he was touring close to shore around the lake. As Cedric drove past a small cottage in Wisconsin, Darby lit a firework that accidentally hit Cedric's boat. If Cedric sues Darby in Michigan state court for the damage to Cedric's boat, the court is likely to find that the purposeful availment requirement is satisfied.

false

T/F Zack has a breach of contract claim against Acme Corporation because Acme failed to pay Zack his commission on pharmaceuticals that he sold. Acme is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Hampshire. Zack was the exclusive sales representative for western Massachusetts and earned substantial commissions on sales to corporations located in Massachusetts. The courts of New Hampshire will have specific personal jurisdiction over Acme for Zack's claim.

false

t/f Honshu Motors makes an all-terrain vehicle in Japan and imports it to a Texas dealership. The dealership sells the ATV off the lot to Tuoni, from Oklahoma. This is the only one it has sold to an Oklahoma buyer. Tuoni is injured using it in Oklahoma. The witnesses to the accident are in Oklahoma; so is Tuoni. The seven medical providers who have treated Tuoni, and continue to do so, are in Oklahoma. Because the accident took place in Oklahoma, its tort law will apply to the claim. Given the weight of these factors, an Oklahoma court will have personal jurisdiction over Honshu for Tuoni s claim, even though it did not sell the vehicle into Oklahoma.

false

t/f In Asahi v. Superior Court, the California court would clearly have had jurisdiction over Asahi if Zurcher, the original plaintiff, were still a party and had sued Asahi directly for his injuries.

false

t/f In any particular case, specific jurisdiction and general in personam jurisdiction cannot be available in the same state

false

t/f Jayden is a landscape designer. She lives in Oklahoma, and most of her clients are in Oklahoma. Adio, a citizen of Kansas, visits a friend in Oklahoma and is impressed with Jayden's work. Adio calls Jayden from his home in Kansas, and Adio and Jayden discuss some landscaping work that Adio wants done at his home. Jayden agrees to do the work. When Jayden damages Adio's property, Adio seeks to file a lawsuit against Jayden. Adio will have to sue Jayden in Oklahoma since Adio reached out to Jayden by calling her in Oklahoma.

false

t/f Ramada buys a boat from Intrepid Boating Company, in Virginia Beach. Ramada specifically tells the salesperson that he plans to use the boat for charter fishing trips in Virginia in the summer and in Florida in the winter. Ramada buys the boat, but on the first trip to Florida, the engine explodes and sinks near Miami. Ramada wants to sue Intrepid Boating Co. (incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Virginia Beach, Virginia) in Florida. The Florida courts would have specific jurisdiction over the defendant.

false

t/f Sherrie has a claim against Bradbury Press, a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York, for breach of contract because Sherrie wrote a manuscript for Bradbury but did not get paid. Sherrie wrote the manuscript at her beach house in Malibu, California, and negotiated the deal with Bradbury Press representatives at corporate headquarters located in New York. The contract called for New York law to apply to any disputes that arise. If Sherrie files suit against Bradbury Press in a Delaware court, the court will dismiss the case on personal jurisdiction grounds.

false

t/f While backcountry skiing in Utah, Chichi unknowingly crosses the border into Colorado where he collides with Baxter, another skier. Baxter sues for his injury in a Colorado court. A Colorado court will not have personal jurisdiction over Chichi because Chichi did not realize that he had crossed the border into Colorado.

false

t/f Trip, a citizen of Massachusetts, has a breach of contract claim against Zenith Corporation because Zenith failed to pay Trip a commission on products that Trip sold. Zenith is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Hampshire. Trip was the exclusive sales representative for western Massachusetts and earned substantial commissions on sales to corporations located in Massachusetts. If Trip sues Zenith in New Hampshire, the courts of New Hampshire will not have personal jurisdiction over Zenith because the exercise of jurisdiction is unreasonable since Trip does not live in New Hampshire, the state of New Hampshire has no interest in the dispute, and there is little or no evidence in New Hampshire that relates to this claim.

false

the choice of law provision in a contract determines where the anticipated litigation would take place

false

the forum state will always have general jurisdicition over defendant whose contracts with the forum state are continous and systematic

false

T/F Samuel, who lives in Texas, has a claim against Addison, an Oklahoma jeweler, for breach of a contract that Samuel and Addison made in Oklahoma. That contract that called for Addison to make a diamond engagement ring at Addison's store in Oklahoma, and Samuel alleges that the ring that Addison made did not contain the gems specified in the contract. Before filing suit, Samuel discovers that Addison has another store in Houston, Texas, where Addison crafts custom-made engagement rings similar to the one Samuel contracted for Addison to make for Samuel. Samuel sues Addison in Texas state court for breach of contract. The court will have personal jurisdiction over Addison because Addison has minimum contacts with Texas.

false explanation: Although Addison purposefully avails herself of the opportunity to conduct activities in Texas by conducting business there, this claim does not arise out of that conduct.

t/f if a corporation is not incorporated in a state and does not have its principal place of business there, it cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in the state.

false explanation: could be specific

Full Faith and Credit Clause

full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. and congress may be general laws prescribe the Manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof FCC requires state courts to enforce judgments of other sister state (BUT IF D. as "due process")

An International Shoe truck leaves Missouri for Washington and while driving through Colorado, hits a pedestrian. Can the pedestrian properly sue International Shoe in Washington for the injuries he suffered in the accident? a. yes b. no c. maybe

maybe (it depends! can the pedestrian show 'systematic & continuous' contracts with WA bc injury seems unrelated/unlikely)

Diversity? yes or no plaintiff- texas v defendant 1- ohio defendant 2- texas

no

Jurisdiction? yes or no plaintiff 1 - indiana plaintiff 2 - russia v defendant 1 - indiana defendant2 - france

no

Jurisdiction? yes or no plaintiff- russia v defendant- china

no

hypothetical: - Michigan plaintiff has a claim against Michigan hospital - plaintiff dies - out-of-state uncle Fred of Montana appointed executor -Uncle Fred sues Hospital in federal court on behalf of Michigan Plaintiff using diversity diversity? a. yes b. no

no

plaintiff: U.S citizen, domiciled in California Defendant: Spanish citizen, living in California but DOES have permanent resident- alien status alienage jurisdiction? yes or no

no

Diversity? yes or no plaintiff 1- texas plaintiff 2- canada v defendant 1- texas defendant 2- france

no (need a citizen form a different US state to be yes)

hypothetical: - contract between Vermont citizen A and Vermont citizen B - A assigns his interest under the contract to a New Hampshire lawyer, who assigned 95% of any recovery back to A - the N.H. lawyer sues Vermont Citizen B in federal court diversity?

no, -the court uses citizenship of assignor not assignee (thus no diversity)

Diversity? yes or no plaintiff- texas v defendant- canada perm res. texas

no. look at rule: 1332(a)(2)

Mullane Standard

notice must be reasonably calculated, under all circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to be heard

stream of commerce (Brennan)

product in stream of commerce (large quality sales) + foreseeability that product will reach the forum state

stream of commerce plus (O'Conner)

product in stream of commerce + additional intentional/purposeful targeting of forum state

domicile=

residence + intent to live in that state for an indefinite period of time

t/f Perfecta Corporation, incorporated in New York with its principal place of business in New York, makes circuit boards for computers, in New York. It sells its circuit boards to five distributors around the United States, including Magnum Sales in Wisconsin. It sells a shipment of one thousand circuit boards to Magnum, which resells those boards to Prime Computer in Minnesota. Prime puts the boards into the computers and resells them to a store in Iowa. An Iowa buyer, Carlin, is injured when the computer overheats and catches fire. She sues Perfecta in a Wisconsin court for her injuries. Perfecta will be subject to personal jurisdiction in Carlin's Wisconsin action.

true

T/F Deutsche Co. makes industrial size snow blowers in Germany. The company sells 50 snow blowers to its distributor in Illinois with no restrictions on where they may be resold. Goodrich Elementary School in Sanford, Maine contacts the distributor in Illinois and purchases a Deutsche snow blower. This is the only Deutsche snow blower sold into Maine. The school custodian, Cedric, is seriously injured when the engine explodes during a heavy snow storm. The injury occurred in Maine; the witnesses to the accident are in Maine; the medical providers who have treated Cedric, and continue to do so, are in Maine; and Maine tort law will apply to the claim because the accident occurred there. Notwithstanding the weight of all of these factors, Deutsche Co. has not purposefully availed itself of Maine.

true

T/F Whirlpool Corporation makes toasters in Maryland and sells them to ABC Distributors, Inc., an Illinois company with its principal place of business in Illinois. ABC resells a batch of the toasters to DIY Hardware stores in Virginia. Jenkins buys a toaster at a DIY Hardware Store in Charlottesville, Virginia and brings it to his home in West Virginia. The toaster malfunctions and burns his house down. The courts of Virginia would have personal jurisdiction over ABC Distributors.

true

T/F Adele buys a motor boat from Snug Harbor Yacht Co. in Massachusetts. Adele tells the salesperson that she plans to take the boat to visit her son in Newport, Rhode Island. On her way to visit her son, the motor on the boat explodes while she is in Rhode Island waters, and Adele has to be rescued at sea. She sues Snug Harbor Yacht Co. for breach of warranty of merchantability in Rhode Island state court. (Snug Harbor Yacht Co. is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Massachusetts.) Although the injury occurred in Rhode Island, the court will not be able to exercise specific personal jurisdiction in this case.

true

T/F Bama, a citizen of North Dakota, repairs antique cars for a living. Most of his clients are from North Dakota, but one day Althea from Wyoming stops at Bama's garage in North Dakota and asks Bama to repair Althea's 1910 Ford Model T. (Althea was referred to Bama by one of Althea's friends.) Bama travels to Althea's home in Wyoming where he does the repair. Althea is dissatisfied with the work and refuses to pay him. Bama sues Althea in North Dakota state court. Althea has purposefully availed herself of North Dakota.

true

t/f Thomas, a citizen of New Jersey, was a scientist for a large pharmaceutical company, Tridelta, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York. Tridelta has laboratories in every state and Thomas worked at a laboratory in Parsippany, New Jersey. Thomas's manager, Betty, fired Thomas when she heard through the grapevine that Thomas was planning to share company trade secrets with a German pharmaceutical company. Thomas's lawyer strategically decided to file suit in Delaware because the lawyer thought the courts there would be more favorable to Thomas's case. The courts of Delaware will have personal jurisdiction over Tridelta for Thomas's claim even though the plaintiff is forum shopping for favorable law.

true

t/f Outdoor Sales Company (incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Iowa) ships its mountain climbing ropes from its Iowa factory into Colorado, among many other states. It sells $150,000 worth of ropes in Colorado each year. Golden buys an Outdoor Sales rope at an Outdoor Sales outlet in Wyoming, and is injured when it breaks while he is climbing in Colorado. If Golden sues Outdoor Sales for his injury in a Colorado court, the court will not have personal jurisdiction over Outdoor Sales for Golden's claim.

true

t/f Snapper Corporation manufactures lawnmowers in Wisconsin and sells them to Lawns-R-Us Distributors, Inc., a company incorporated in Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois. Lawns-R-Us resells the mowers to hardware stores located in every state, including Texas. Reynolds buys a Snapper lawnmower at a hardware store in Texas and takes it to his home in Oklahoma. The lawnmower malfunctions in Oklahoma and cuts his toe off. If Reynolds files a lawsuit against Lawns-R-Us in Texas court, the court would have specific jurisdiction over Lawns-R-Us unless it can show that the exercise of jurisdiction is unreasonable.

true

t/f Snapper Corporation manufactures lawnmowers in Wisconsin and sells them to Lawns-R-Us Distributors, Inc., an Illinois company with its principal place of business in Illinois. Lawns-R-Us resells the lawnmowers to hardware stores across the nation, including a batch that went to hardware stores in Virginia. Reynolds buys a lawnmower at one of these hardware stores in Richmond, Virginia. Reynolds moves to West Virginia several months later. The lawnmower malfunctions in West Virginia and cuts off his toe. If Reynolds files a lawsuit against Lawns-R-Us in Virginia federal court, the court would have jurisdiction based upon the defendant's minimum contacts in Virginia, and would only refuse to hear the case if the additional factors suggest that it would be unfair and unreasonable.

true

t/f Under the minimum contacts test, the plaintiff's interest in convenient litigation is irrelevant if the defendant has not engaged in purposeful contacts with the forum state.

true

An international shoe truck leaves Missouri for Washington and while driving through Colorado, hits a pedestrian. can the pedestrian properly sue international shoe Colorado for the injuries he suffered in the accident? a. YES b. NO c. MAYBE d. YES, but only if the Driver was not lost and was in Colorado purposefully

yes

Jurisdiction? yes or no plaintiff 1 - texas plaintiff 2 - russia v defendant 1 - hawaii defendant2 - france

yes

Jurisdiction? yes or no plaintiff- indiana plaintiff- russia v defendant- france

yes

Jurisdiction? yes or no plaintiff- russia defendant- hawaii

yes

hypothetical: -vermont citizen A changes his domicile to New Hampshire -A sues B in federal court citizen A- vermont changes domicile to New Hampshire citizen B- vermont diversity? a. yes b. no c. it depends

yes

plaintiff: U.S citizen, domiciled in California Defendant: Spanish citizen, living in California but DOES NOT have permanent resident- alien status alienage jurisdiction? yes or no

yes

The plaintiff of Missouri sues Defendant of California in Missouri state court for a tort claim of $100,000 can the defendant remove the case to federal court?

yes (§ 1441(a))

Diversity? yes or no plaintiff- texas v defendant 1- Utah defendant 2- Canada

yes, look at rule: 1332(a)(3)