subject matter jurisdiction
Plaintiff, a citizen of Rhode Island, sues
Defendant, a citizens of Massachusetts, in
Hawaii federal court. Is there complete
diversity jurisdiction?
Yes. It does not matter that neither of the
parties is a citizen of Hawaii.
Plaintiff, a New York citizen, files suit in New York state court against
Defendant, a Connecticut citizen, for negligence; amount in
controversy is $50,000.
Defendant counterclaims against Plaintiff for breach of contract,
with the amount in controversy $100,000.
May the defendant remove this action to federal court in light of its
counterclaim?
No. Plaintiff’s lawsuit does not meet the amount in
controversy requirement, and the counterclaim is irrelevant for
purposes of removal.
When a court has general jurisdiction over a corporation, which of the following is
true?
A. The court needs specific jurisdiction over the corporation.
B. The court does not need specific jurisdiction over the corporation.
C. The court needs to consider if the exercise of general jurisdiction is reasonable.
D. The court needs to allow the defendant to conduct jurisdictional discovery to
challenge the assertion of general jurisdiction.
B. The court does not need specific jurisdiction over the corporation.
A judicial district:
A. Is the same thing as a state.
B. Can extend beyond the borders of a state.
C. Might be contained within part of a state.
D. Is always smaller than a state
C. A judicial district might be contained within part of a state.
In a civil lawsuit, a complaint is considered legally sufficient
if it:
A. Establishes an affirmative defense that enables the
defendant to win even if the facts are true.
B. Contains sufficient factual allegations to show that the plaintiff is entitled to some form of legal relief.
C. Proves the absolute truth of every statement through attached documentary evidence.
D. Anticipates and refutes all potential counterclaims by thedefendant.
B. Contains sufficient factual allegations to show that the plaintiff is entitled to some form of legal relief.
Plaintiff is a citizen of Rhode Island;
Defendant is a citizen of Rhode Island. After
the lawsuit is filed, Plaintiff moves to
Massachusetts and establishes citizenship
there. Is there complete diversity?
No. Complete diversity must be established
from the outset of the lawsuit.
Plaintiff, a Florida citizen, files suit in Arizona state court against
Defendant, an Arizona citizen, for violating a federal civil rights
law. The amount in controversy is $50,000.
Can the defendant remove the action to federal court?
Yes. Plaintiff’s lawsuit raises a federal question. The amount in
controversy is irrelevant in a federal question case.
When a court has “tag” jurisdiction over a natural person, which of the following is
true?
A. The court needs specific jurisdiction over the individual.
B. The court needs general jurisdiction over the individual.
C. The court does not need specific or general jurisdiction over the individual.
D. The court needs to consider if the exercise of “tag” general jurisdiction is reasonable.
C. The court does not need specific or general jurisdiction over the individual
Plaintiff sues two defendants in one case. Defendant 1 resides in the Eastern District of Virginia, while Defendant 2 resides in the District of Maryland. For the case, is venue proper under
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) in the Eastern District of Virginia?
No, because both defendants must be residents of the State in which the district is located under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).
Plaintiff alleges that the Acme Coffee Company manufactured and sold
“Hazelnut Crème” coffee, as advertised on the label, and that she bought the product in early June 2025, only to find out the coffee lacked any hazelnut. She brings a lawsuit against Acme for fraud.
Does the complaint satisfy Rule 9(b)?
- Yes
• Acme Coffee Company is the “who”; the “Hazelnut Crème” statement is the “what”; the label is the “where”; and the occasion on which Plaintiff
purchased the coffee is the “when.”
• “The core purposes of Rule 9(b) are “to place the defendants on notice and enable them to prepare meaningful responses,” “to preclude the use of a
groundless fraud claim as pretext for discovering a wrong,” and “to safeguard defendants from frivolous charges [that] might damage their reputation.”
Tom and Ted, from Texas, jointly own an obligation against Osamu, from Oklahoma, by virtue of a promissory note signed by Osamu payable to “Tom and Ted” in the amount of $100,000. Between themselves, Tom and Ted each own a one-half interest in the $100,000 note. If Tom and Ted file suit on the obligation in federal court, what is the amount in controversy?
a. $100,000 for Ted and Tom
b. $50,000 for Tom
c. $50,000 for Ted
d. $50,000 each for Ted and Tom
Answer (A) is correct. Although the general rule is that the claims of multiple plaintiffs cannot be aggregated, there is an exception for claims that are jointly held by multiple claimants. The exception is based on the concept that joint claims are brought by the joint claimants collectively, not as individuals
Plaintiff, a Florida citizen, files suit in Florida state court against
Defendant, a Florida citizen, for violating a federal civil rights law and negligence.
Here, the Plaintiff has added a state law claim that would not come within the federal court’s diversity jurisdiction.
How would that affect removal?
If action is filed initially in state court asserting a federal law claim AND a state law claim that would not fall within a federal court's original or supplemental jurisdiction, the case is removable to federal court.
See § 1441(c)(1)
John, a CA citizen who formerly attended college in MA, published a salacious blog post about his former
English professor whom he despised, asking the college president to “wake up” to the professor’s misconduct. When the blog post went viral, the professor was temporarily suspended. After an internal investigation, it was determined that the blog post was false, and the professor was reinstated. He sued John in MA for defamation even though John had not been in MA for many years. Would a MA court have personal jurisdiction over John?
A. Yes, the court would have general jurisdiction over John because he once lived in MA.
B. Yes, the court would have specific jurisdiction over John because he formerly lived in MA.
C. Yes, the court would have specific jurisdiction due to the effect John’s blog post had on the professor.
D. No, the court would not have specific jurisdiction over John given he has not been in MA for years
C. Yes, the court would have specific jurisdiction due to the effect John’s blog post had on the professor.
A plaintiff from State A sues a defendant from State B in the District of
New Mexico for a breach of contract that occurred in Arizona. The
defendant resides in the District of New Mexico, but the contract was
not negotiated or performed there. Is venue proper in the District of
New Mexico?
A. Yes, because the defendant resides in that district.
B. No, because the events occurred in Arizona.
C. Yes, if the defendant waives personal jurisdiction.
D. No, because the plaintiff is not from New Mexico.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in a district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located. Here,the only defendant resides in the District of New Mexico.
A neurologist, librarian, and engineer are involved in a skiing accident. Do the Federal Rules permit the neurologist in a single lawsuit to assert a negligence claim against the librarian and a negligence claim against the engineer?
a. No, because only one person could have caused the accident.
b. No, because claims against both the librarian and the engineer are inconsistent.
c. Yes, because Rule 8(d)(2) allows it.
d. Yes, because Rule 8(d)(3) allows it
• C is correct
• Alternative possibilities for neurologist’s claims -- librarian
could solely be liable, engineer could be solely liable, or both
could be liable.
Plaintiff, a RI citizen, files suit against a limited liability company registered
to do business in MA and whose principal place of business is MA. Is there
diversity jurisdiction?
Yes
Plaintiff, an Arizona citizen, files suit in Arizona state court against Defendant, an Arizona citizen, for negligence and violating a federal civil rights law.
After Defendant removes the case to federal court, Plaintiff amends her complaint to remove the federal civil rights claim,leaving only the state law claim.
Should the case be remanded to state court?
Yes.
Post-removal amendment of complaint to remove all federal questions– and the absence of diversity jurisdiction – deprives federal district court of supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.
Pam sues Donna in federal court in Wisconsin. Donna is from Pennsylvania, and she does not think the Wisconsin court has the power to make her defend herself there, so she does not respond. Pam takes a default judgment against Donna. Because Donna has no assets in Wisconsin, Pam brings her Wisconsin judgment to Pennsylvania to try to collect from Donna. What defenses can Donna raise?
(A) None. When Donna failed to respond to the lawsuit, she lost the right to complain about jurisdiction or defend on the merits.
(B) Donna can still complain about the Wisconsin court's lack of jurisdiction over her. If she is right, the judgment is not enforceable.
(C) Donna can still complain about the Wisconsin court's lack of jurisdiction over her. If she is wrong, then she can still assert her defense on the merits.
(D) Donna can assert her defenses on the merits, but she has lost the right to complain about personal jurisdiction by failing to make a special appearance.
Answer (B) is correct. Because she did not participate in the Wisconsin case, Donna retains the right to raise the issue of personal jurisdiction as a defense to enforcement of the judgment against her. If she is correct, and the Wisconsin court lacked personal jurisdiction over her, then the judgment is not enforceable. Had she appeared in Wisconsin and challenged personal jurisdiction, she would not be allowed to re-raise this issue when enforcement was sought in Pennsylvania
For venue purposes, a corporation is deemed to reside in any
judicial district in which:
A. It is incorporated.
B. It has its principal place of business.
C. It is subject to personal jurisdiction regarding the action.
D. It has a registered agent.
C. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2), where the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction regarding the action.
In a breach of contract case, do the Federal Rules allow the defendant
in good faith to deny that a contract was formed (because there is a question as to whether the contract was legally formed) and also assert a counterclaim against the plaintiff for breaching the contract?
a. No, because Rule 8(d)(2) does not allow it.
b. No, because Rule 8(d)(3) does not allow it.
c. Yes, because Rule 8(d)(2) allows it.
d. Yes, because Rule 8(d)(3) allows it.
Correct answer is D because defendant would be pleading inconsistently.
Dorothy's husband Cyrus, a law professor at SMU in Dallas, Texas, also has a legally cognizable claim against National Clinic for loss of society and companionship under either Texas or Minnesota law. Because Cyrus and Dorothy do not live together, nor do they spend much time together, there is a real question whether Cyrus' claim exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Does the federal court have supplemental jurisdiction over Cyrus' claim?
A) Yes, but only if Cyrus joins Dorothy as an original plaintiff under Rule 20.
(B) Yes, even if Cyrus intervenes in the action brought by Dorothy against National Clinic.
(C) Yes, Cyrus is a person needed for just adjudication under Rule 19.
(D) No, Cyrus' claim is not part of the same constitutional case as Dorothy's claim.
Answer (D) is probably the best
Assume that Martin sued Blue Hat, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oregon, for $85,000 for breach of contract in state court in Michigan. Martin also sued Marty, the former boss who fired him, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Marty [120/121] is a citizen of Michigan. Eighteen months after the suit was filed, Martin amended his complaint to drop the claim against Marty. Can Blue Hat remove the case to federal court now?
(A) Yes. With Marty removed, there is complete diversity, sufficient amount in controversy, and no in-state defendant.
(B) Yes, if Blue Hat files the proper removal papers within 30 days after it receives a copy of the amended complaint.
(C) No. Removability is based on the status of the lawsuit when it is first filed.
(D) No. Diversity jurisdiction cases must be removed within one year of commencement of the action unless the district court finds that Martin acted in bad faith in order to prevent Blue Hat from removing the action.
Answer (D) is correct. This situation calls into play the exception to the rule in the previous question. In most cases, when an amendment makes a case removable for the first time, the defendant may still remove the case. This is not true in diversity cases. The remainder of §1446(c) creates an exception: “a case may not be removed ... on the basis of jurisdiction conferred by §1332 of this title [diversity jurisdiction] more than 1 year after commencement of the action unless the district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.” Because Martin's case has been pending for 18 months, dropping the non-diverse in-state defendant at this time does not allow removal
Airplane Corporation is a worldwide manufacturer of commercial jetliners. It is incorporated in Delaware, and its principal place of business is in Chicago, Illinois. Airplane Corporation has most of its manufacturing plants in the State of Washington, where it employs hundreds of thousands of people and manufactures thousands of planes. Moshe, a resident of Washington State, was visiting Airplane Corporation's home offices in Chicago while on vacation there. Moshe was in the company swag store when he slipped and fell, suffering significant injuries. When Moshe returned to his home in Washington, he filed suit in a Washington state court against Airplane Corporation, seeking relief for his injuries. Can a Washington court constitutionally assert jurisdiction over Airplane Corporation?
(A) No, Airplane Corporation's contacts with the State of Washington are not sufficient to meet the requirements for specific jurisdiction.
(B) No, Airplane Corporation is not subject to general jurisdiction in the State of Washington.
(C) Yes, Airplane Corporation's substantial manufacturing presence in theState of Washington is sufficient to subject it to general jurisdiction there.
(D) Yes, Airplane Corporation is a worldwide corporation, so it is fair to subject it to personal jurisdiction in the State of Washington.
Answer (B) is correct. A fair reading of Goodyear and Daimler demonstrate that a corporation is subject to general jurisdiction in its place of incorporation and its principal place of business. In this question, that would mean that Airplane Corporation is subject to general jurisdiction in Illinois and Delaware. While its contacts in the State of Washington are large, Goodyear and Daimler also teach us that in order to subject a corporation to general jurisdiction in a place other than its state of incorporation or principal place of business, the corporation must have substantial continuous and systematic contacts that make it essentially “at home” in that state. Airplane's contacts with Washington, while large, do not meet this high-water mark.
Fredo (resident of the District of Nevada) and Johnny (resident of the
Southern District of Florida) are sued by Michael (resident of the
Southern District of New York) for breach of contract. The contract was
negotiated and was to be performed in New Jersey. Fredo and Johnny
never showed up to do the work they were hired to do. Venue against
Fredo and Johnny would be appropriate in which federal district?
A. In the District of New Jersey only.
B. In the District of New Jersey, the Southern District of Florida, or the District of Nevada.
C. In the Southern District of Florida or the District of Nevada.
D. No venue exists for a suit over both Johnny and Fredo. Michael will have to file two suits.
Subsection 1391(b)(1) does not apply because all
Defendants do not reside in the same state. However,subsection 1391(b)(2) applies because the contract was negotiated and to be performed (and arguably was breached) in New Jersey.
Gladys, a citizen of New York, sued Brightstar in New York federal court, alleging that she had been subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisor
throughout her employment at the company. Gladys served the company with process by hiring a process server who personally delivered a copy of
the summons and complaint to the company’s chief executive officer at its California headquarters. Brightstar’s only facility is located in New York, but
its headquarters are located in California, where it is incorporated and where its chief executive officer has her offices. Assume New York and California
each authorize service of process on corporations only by personal delivery of a summons and complaint to the corporation’s secretary. Brightstar moves to dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process. How should the court rule?
The company was properly served. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)provides that service of process may be made on a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to a corporate officer
or to a general or managing agent. Because the Federal Rules explicitly authorized this manner of service, it does not matter that it did not comply with NY or CA state law