SMJ
A musician, a citizen of State A, sued a company in fed ct, claiming the company violated his federal copyright in a song he had written when the company used it in an advertising jingle without his permission. The company was inc. in state B, and all of its executives and other decision makers were head quartered in State C. The musician Sought $30,000 in damages. Later the woman who co wrote the song, who was a citizen of state B, was allowed to the join the lawsuit. She claimed $100,000 in damages. The company moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of SMJ, how should the court rule?
a. Deny the motion, because the woman's claim can be added to the musician's to meet the amount in controversy requirement
b. Deny the motion, because the musician is making a fed copyright claim.
c. Grant the motion, because the woman is a citizen of state B
d. Grant the motion, because the musician is only claiming $30,000 in damages.
#3
B
A man, citizen of state A, sued a co. incorp. in st b and with its primary headquarters in state C., in fed district ct in state A for $100,000 in damages after he was injured by one of the company's products. The company filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked juris based on diversity because it was unlikely a court would award the man more than $500. The court denied the motion. In its subsequent answer, the company argued the case should be dismissed because the court lacked PJ over it since it had never tried to make money in state A or use any of state A's roads. How should the court rule?
A. Dismiss the action, because the company did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state.
b. dismiss the action, because exercise of juris would not be fair and reasonable.
c. not dismiss the action, because the company did not raise the issue in its first motion.
d. not dismiss the action, because the company put a product into the stream of commerce.
#12
C
A State A brewery wanted to sue a State B
brewery for copyright infringement because
it believed that the State B brewery's name
and logo were too close to the ones used by
the State A brewery. The State A brewery
wanted to sue the State B brewery in federal
court in State A, where the State B brewery
had several billboards and sometimes sent
coupons to residents All of the State B
brewery's warehouses, employees, and
manufacturing was in State B.
Is venue appropriate in State A?
(A) Yes, because the State B brewery
advertised in State A.
( B ) Yes, because the State A brewery's
copyright is the subject of the State
A brewery's claim.
(C) No, because the State B brewery has
insufficient minimum contacts with
State A.
(D) No, because the State B brewery has all
of its operations in State B.
#16
A
An artist, a citizen of State A, sued a writer, a
citizen of State B in state court in State B for
injuries sustained during a fistfight in State
B. The artist claimed $30,000 in damages.
The writer filed a counterclaim for $80,000
in damages based on the same fight.
The artist would like to remove the action to
federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
May the artist do so?
(A) No, because the writer's counterclaim is
permissive.
(B) No, because the artist filed the action
against the writer.
(C) Yes, because the amount in controversy
is now over $75,000.
(D) Yes, because th
#53
B
A student sued a university for racial
discrimination in federal district court.
During discovery, the student asked for
"all items concerning university admission
practices." Several years earlier, a professor
at the university had written a highly critical
internal memorandum concerning the
university's admission policies. After the
receipt of the memorandum, the university
immediately turned it over to the university's
attorneys, who were now representing the
university in the student's action and used the
memorandum in preparing the university's
defense. Due to its inflammatory nature
and the amount of hearsay it contained, the
memorandum was inadmissible at trial.
Does the university have to provide the
memorandum to the student?
(A) No, because it is inadmissible evidence.
(B) No, because it is privileged work
product.
(C) Yes, because it could lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
(D) Yes, because it would likely be
impossible for the student to obtain the
information in any other way.
#51
C
A model, Citizen of State A, sued a lawyer and an accountant in state court in state A for injuries sustained during a fight at a baseball game. The lawyer was a citizen of state A, and accountant was a citizen of state B. The model claimed $100,000 in damages for cuts to his face and a broken nose that cost him several important modeling jobs. A year after filing the suit, a surveillance tape at the stadium was discovered. It showed that the lawyer was not involved in the fight at all, so the model dismissed his claim against him. 20 days after the dismissal, the accountant sought removal of the case to fed district court in state A. Can the accountant have the case removed to fed court.
a. Yes, because the lawyer's dismissal was based on newly discovered evidence.
b. Yes, because the accountant sought removal within 30 days of the lawyer's dismissal.
c. No, because the accountant sought removal more than 14 days after the lawyer's dismissal.
d. No, because the accountant sought removal more than one year after the state court case was commenced.
#41
D
A sporting goods company sued a supplier in fed district court in state A. The supplier mover to dismiss the claim for lack of juris, arguing it did not have sufficient minimum contacts with state A for state A to have PJ over it. The supplier only had one salesman in state A, and that salesman worked out of his home and was paid through commissions. Importantly, the supplier noted it owned no property in state A and derived only a small part of its total revenue from state A. The sporting goods company countered that orders and samples were subject to the suppliers approval and shipped directly from the supplier to buyers. Does the court have juris over the supplier?
a. Yes because the salesman solicitated orders for the supplier in state A.
b. Yes, Because the supplier shipped directly to buyers
c. No because the supplier only had one salesman in the state.
d. No, because the salesman worked out of his home and was paid through commissions.
#75
A
A plane traveling from State A to State
B crashed i n State A, killing all of the
passengers. One hundred wrongful death
actions against the airline were filed in
federal district court in State A. Fifty
wrongful death actions against the airline
were filed against the airline in State
B. State A and State B had very different
laws regarding the amount of damages
available in wrongful death actions. The
airline requested a transfer of the 50 State
B actions to State A federal district court
based on convenience, noting the crash
occurred in State A and the majority
of those killed i n the crash were State
A residents.
I f the State B actions are transferred to
federal court in State A, what law will the
federal court in State A apply to the State B
actions?
(A) State A, because the federal district
court is sitting in State A.
(B) State A, because the crash occurred in
State A.
(C) State B, because the actions originated
i n State B.
(D) Federal common law, because there
is a conflict between the laws of State
A and State B.
#44
C
A football player sued a doctor in federal
district court. If the complaint was mailed
to her and she waived formal service, how
long does the doctor have to answer the
complaint?
(A) Within 14 days after receipt of the
complaint.
(B) Within 21 days after receipt of the
complaint.
(C) Within 21 days after the complaint was
mailed.
(D) Within 60 days after the request for
waiver was mailed.
#38
D
A man sued a company for civil rights
violations. When the man's attorney failed to
comply with a discovery order, the company
moved for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(a)(4). The federal district court granted
the motion and also disqualified the attorney
as counsel. The attorney immediately
appealed the order for sanctions. The
appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.
Is the appellate court's decision correct?
(A) No, because the sanctions are
immediately appealable under the
collateral order doctrine.
(B) No, because the attorney was
disqualified as counsel.
C. yes because there has been no final decision in the case
d. Yes, because appellate review of the order for sanctions is discretionary
#54
C
A man who is a citizen of st. A sued a retailer located in state B. teh man claimed $100,000 in damages, claiming that he was injured by a coffee pot sold by the retailer. The retailer brought in as a third-party defendant a supplier that had provided the coffee pot, alleging that the supplier had a duty to indemnify the retailer for any damages recovered by the man. The supplier was incorporated in state B, with its principal place of business in state C.
The supplier asserted a $75,000 counterclaim against the retailer for breach of contract covering the coffee pots. The retailer moved to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of SMJ. Should the court grant the motion to dismiss?
a. Yes. becuasr the counterclaim was based on a seperate contract between the retailer and supplier.
b. Yes. Because the retailer and supplier are citizens of state B.
c. No, Because there is a supplemental juris over the suppliers counterclaim.
d. No, because the supplier's claim meets the required amount in controversy.
#97
C
a. No, because the corp imports and sells the subsidiary's ladders in state A.
b. No, because the court has juris over the state b corp.
c. yes, because the ladder was manufactured in Germany
d. Yes, because the subsidiary lacks sufficient contacts with State A.
D
A motoreyclist brought an action in federal
district court in the Northern District of State
A against a company after he was injured by
one of the company's trucks. The action was
filed shortly before the statute of limitations
ran out on the motorcyclist's claim. The
company moved to dismiss on the grounds
that the federal court lacked personal
jurisdiction over the company and that the
venue was incorrect. The federal district
court agreed with both of the company's
claims. However, because the statute of
limitations on the claim has run out, the
district court believed it would be unfair to
the motorcyclist to dismiss the claim.
What can the court do in regard to the
motorcyclist's claim?
(A) The court can only dismiss the case,
because it lacks personal jurisdiction.
(B) The court can only dismiss the case,
because venue is incorrect.
(C) The court does not have to dismiss the
case because it will lead to an unfair
result.
(D) The court can transfer the case to a
proper venue.
#59
D
Which of the following motions is lost if a
party fails to make it before filing an answer
to a complaint?
(A) Motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
(B) Motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
(C) Motion for a more definite statement.
(D) Motion to dismiss for insufficient
service of process.
#37
C
A fireman sued a landlord for negligence in federal district court in state A based on diversity jurisdiction. The fireman wanted to depose one of the landlord's former tenants as a witness because he was the only witness to some of the landlord's allegedly negligent actions. However, the tenant, who was not a party to the lawsuit, now lived 500 miles away in State B. The fireman's attorney served a notice of deposition at the tenant's residence, which stated that the deposition would take place in State A and that the attorney would pay the tenant's travel expenses. The tenant refused to travel to State A. Can the fireman's attorney subpoena the witness to compel him to attend the deposition in State A?
(A) No, because there is no indication
the fireman's attorney is licensed in
State B.
(B) No, because the tenant now lives
500 miles away.
(C) Yes, because the tenant was the only
witness.
(D) Yes, because the attorney is willing to
pay the tenant's travel expenses.
#60
B
After a couple was injured in a railway accident, the railroad settled the couple's claims by signing a contract giving them a lifetime pass for free transportation. Several years later, congress passed an act that forbid interstate railroads from giving free transportation passes. Based on the act, the railroad refused to honor the contract and renew the couples passes. The couple sued the railroad company in fed district ct. arguing that the railroad's refusal to honor the contract was based on an erroneous understanding of the new act. In response the railroad argued that the federal district court did not have juris over the couples claim. Does the federal district court have juris over the couples claim?
a. Yes, because the federal ct has federal question juris over the claim.
b. Yes, because the fed court would have juris over the interstate railroad under the commerce act.
c. No, because the federal issue is merely an anticipation of the railroad's defense.
d. No, because the federal court would not have supplemental juris over the contractual issue.
#136
C
A man who was a citizen of state a, was injured by a fan made by a fan manu. the manu sole office was in state B, and the fan had been shipped to a store in state A where the man bought it. The man sued the manu in state A fed district court. Neither A nor state B had statutes that would have allowed the man to serve process on a D outside of that particular state. State B was over 300 miles away from state A. consequently the man hired a licensed process server to travel to state B and personally serve the summons and complain to the manu's pres. Does the State A fed ct have PJ over the manu?
A. yes because congress has expressly allowed for nationwide service of process in all claims based on diversity
b. yes, because the man bought the fan and was injured in state A
c. No, because such service of process was not allowed under state A law.
d. No because State B was over 300 miles away from state A.
#109
C
6. A man was injured when a train hit his truck
at a railroad crossing in State A. Under the
applicable federal statute, venue for the
claim was proper in the judicial district
where the railroad company's board of
directors was located. In this case, the
board of directors was located i n State
B. Consequently, the man filed his suit in
federal court in State B. During discovery,
the man discovered that the accident was
likely caused by a faulty track switch. The
company that built the track switch was
located and incorporated in State C. The
man added the track switch company as
a defendant. The track switch company
moved to dismiss the man's claim against it,
correctly noting that it did no business and
had no contacts at all with State B.
Should the court grant the track switch
company's motion?
(A) No, because the claim against the
track switch company arose from the
same accident.
(B) No, because the track switch company
consented to State B jurisdiction
when it provided track switches to the
railroad company.
(C) Yes, because the track switch company
had no contacts with State B.
D ) Yes, because the track switch company
did not consent to State B jurisdiction.
#116
A
A farmer filed a negligence claim against
a paint factory in federal court. The farmer
alleged that chemical runoff from the factory
was poisoning his crops. After discovery, the
factory moved for summary judgment. In
support of its motion, the factory submitted
a memorandum identifying facts that it
claimed were not in dispute. It also cited
and attached a report from a hydrologist
who stated that any contamination found on
the farmer's land could not have come from
chemical runoff from the factory. What is the
best way for the farmer to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact?
(A) Submit a report from the farmer's
expert hydrologist that contradicts the
findings in the factory hydrologist's
report.
(B) Submit the farmer's records showing
the current level of pollution on the
farmer's land.
(C) Submit an affidavit from the farmer's
attorney detailing his conversations
with the factory's hydrologist.
D) Submit an affidavit from the farmer's
expert hydrologist with findings that
contradict the report of the factory's
hydrologist.
#78
D
An engineer sued an oil company for injuries
the engineer sustained during an oilfield
explosion. The engineer learned a truck
driver who was nearby was the only physical
witness to the explosion, although a security
camera recorded a video of the explosion as
well. Twenty days after filing the complaint,
the engineer served the truck driver with a
set of interrogatories asking the truck driver
to describe what he saw. The truck driver
doesn't want to answer because he wasn't
supposed to be at the oilfield that day.
Is the truck driver subject to sanctions if he
fails to answer the interrogatories?
(A) Yes, because he was the only witness to
the explosion.
(B) Yes, because he was served within
60 days of the suit being filed.
(C) No, because he is not a party to the
action.
(D) No, because the engineer can get the
same information from the security
camera.
#62
C
Dozens of homes were damaged when a dam released a large amount of water without warning and flooded a river dividing states A and B. The owner of the dam was a citizen of state A. the majority of the homeowners were citizens of state A, although almost a 3rd were citizens of state B. the homeowners filed a class action in fed ct arguing that the dam owner was negligent when it released the water. Although the homeowners in state A suffered the most damage in the flood, 2 homeowners from state B were named as class representatives. The dam owner moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal court did not have SMJ over the class action. How should the court rule?
a. grant the motion, majority of homeowners were citizens of state A
b. grant the motion, because state A homeowners suffered the most damage
c. Deny the motion, because the claim involved an occurrence on a border between 2 states.
d. Deny the motion, because the class of representatives were citizens of state b.
#145
D
A woman, State A, sued a man, state B, for $80,000 in injuries after he accidentally his her with his car while the man was visiting state A for a conference. The woman brought suit in state A fed ct. The man argued that he was not subject to personal juris in State A. His only contacts with the state had been attending the conference, whihch was paid for by his company; a semester of college in state A 20 years ago, where he lived on campus; and a bank account from his college days that he has forgotten to close with had $110 in it. Does state A federal court have juris over the man?
a. yes because the man his the woman in state A
b. Yes because the man had a bank account with sufficient funds to bring him under state a juris.
c. No because the man had insufficient personal contacts with state A
d. no, because the woman is a citizen of state A
#141
A
A man from State A sued a woman from State B for an Automobile accident that occured in state B. The man filed suit in state A federal court for $150,000 in damages. The man served the woman himself by leaving notice of the lawsuit at her home. The woman moved to transfer the case to state B fed ct. May the court grant the woman's motion?
a. Yes, because the court has authority to transfer the action to state B fed ct
b. yes because the service was proper
c. No, because the court may only dismiss the claim and require the man to refile.
d. No, because the venue is proper in state A fed crt.
#49
A
A man sued a company for negligence in fed ct. The company moved for summary judgement on the ground that the man had lost an identical claim against it the
year before. The court denied the motion.
May the company appeal the court's
decision?
A) No, because the company may not
appeal until after a trial on the merits
or other deposition resulting in a final
judgment.
(B) No, because the court's decision is an
interlocutory order.
(C) Yes, because a trial will result in
undue delay.
(D) Yes, because the company's original
motion was based solely on a legal
question.
#94
A
A man sued his employer for injuries
caused by exposure to toxic chemicals.
The man's suit was in federal district
court based on diversity. Because of
the complicated nature of the case, the
employer believed that the man was likely
to call several expert witnesses at trial. The
employer was very concerned about certain
experts in the field and wanted to know who
was likely to testify on the man's behalf.
How can the employer discover the identities of the expert witnesses?
a. file a discovery request asking for names of expert witnesses
b. file a discovery request asking to see the mans trial plans
c. file a request with the court to learn the names of approved trial witnesses
d. wait until the man tells the employer the names of his expert witnesses
#108
D