JDX
Spouse A moved from Illinois to Arizona with the couple’s two children after separating from Spouse B, who remained in Illinois. Spouse A filed a support action against Spouse B in Arizona state court. Spouse B argued that Arizona lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Days before the jurisdiction hearing, Spouse A called Spouse B and claimed that their son had been hospitalized and might not survive. Alarmed, Spouse B immediately flew to Arizona. In fact, the child was healthy. When Spouse B arrived at the hospital, he was served with a process.
Does Arizona have personal jurisdiction over Spouse B?
A) Yes, because service in the forum state establishes personal jurisdiction.
B) Yes, because Spouse B voluntarily traveled to Arizona and was served there.
C) No, because Spouse B lacks sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona.
D) No, because personal jurisdiction cannot be obtained through fraud or deceit.
Correct Answer: D
A local journalist sued a business owner in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, alleging defamation under state law. The business owner argued that the statements were constitutionally protected speech because the journalist regularly appeared on national television and was therefore a limited-purpose public figure. Which law governs the determination of liability?
Federal law applies. The First Amendment is valid federal constitutional law and directly governs whether the speech is protected, even in a diversity case.
P files a complaint in federal court alleging that D was “extremely rude and dismissive” during a business meeting, causing P emotional distress and reputational harm. The complaint alleges no physical injury, threats, or conduct beyond verbal insults. D moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
How should the court rule?
Grant the motion, because the law does not recognize a remedy for mere rudeness
Legal sufficiency. Even assuming all facts are true, no cause of action exists for mere rudeness. A claim fails under 12(b)(6) if the law provides no remedy.
Alex, a citizen of Arizona, sued Blake, a citizen of New Mexico, in federal court for negligence arising out of a car accident, alleging $90,000 in damages. After the accident, Blake posted false statements online accusing Alex of being intoxicated while driving, allegedly causing Alex $40,000 in reputational harm. Alex wants to add a defamation claim in the same lawsuit.
Should the court allow Alex to add the defamation claim?
No, because plaintiffs may not use supplemental jurisdiction when the anchor claim is based on diversity.
Although the defamation claim is related to the car accident, plaintiffs may not use supplemental jurisdiction when the anchor claim is based solely on diversity. Because the defamation claim does not independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, it cannot be added.
A bicyclist was struck by a delivery van. The bicyclist sued the van driver for negligence, seeking compensation for damage to the bicycle. After trial, the jury returned a verdict for the driver, expressly finding that the driver was not negligent, and judgment was entered. The bicyclist later filed a second lawsuit in the same court against the delivery company that employed the driver and owned the van, seeking damages for bodily injuries from the collision. The company moved for summary judgment based on preclusion.
If the court grants the company’s motion, what is the most likely explanation?
The issue of the company’s negligence is precluded because the driver’s lack of negligence was conclusively determined in the first action.
A software company files a state-court action against a former employee for misappropriation of trade secrets under state law. The employee files an answer asserting that the information is protected by federal copyright law. Two days later, the employee files a notice of removal to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction. The employer moves to remand.
Should the federal court grant the motion to remand?
Yes, the motion to remand should be granted
Federal-question jurisdiction must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. A federal defense (copyright) does not create federal-question jurisdiction and cannot support removal.
Lena, a citizen of Utah, and Mark, a citizen of Nevada, sued Theo, a citizen of Colorado, for breach of a construction contract that was performed entirely in Colorado. The plaintiffs filed the action in the U.S. District Court for Nevada. Theo was improperly served. After learning of the lawsuit, Theo moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for Colorado, where the contract was performed. The motion was granted.
Which of the following is true?
(A) The federal court properly transferred the action to Colorado.
(B) The federal court in Nevada should have dismissed the action because venue was improper.
(C) The federal court should have denied the transfer because service was improper.
(D) The federal court improperly transferred the action.
(A) The federal court properly transferred the action to Colorado.
P alleges that D ran a red light at a specific intersection on a specific date and struck P’s vehicle, causing injuries. D moves to dismiss, arguing the complaint lacks detailed evidence.
How should the court rule?
Deny the motion, because the complaint plausibly states a claim
Pleading need only contain enough facts to state a plausible claim and put D on notice.
An insurance company filed a diversity action in federal court against a warehouse tenant, alleging negligence caused a fire. A second tenant sought to intervene, asserting its own property-damage claim against the first tenant arising from the same fire. The second tenant and the defendant tenant are citizens of the same state, and the second tenant seeks $150,000 in damages.
Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over the intervenor’s claim?
No, because allowing the claim would destroy complete diversity.
Although the intervenor’s claim arises from the same fire, allowing it would destroy complete diversity because the intervenor and defendant are citizens of the same state. Supplemental jurisdiction does not override the diversity requirement in this context.
sued the railroad for negligence and lost after a full trial. Several weeks later, another passenger from the same train, Priya from Illinois, filed her own negligence suit against the railroad based on the same derailment. The railroad moved for summary judgment, arguing that the issue of its negligence had already been decided.
What result?
Motion denied, because Priya was not a party to the prior action and is not in privity with Alan.
A Utah-based company manufactures a wearable electronic device and sells it nationwide through an online store. The company has no offices, employees, or advertising targeted at State Y. A resident of State Y purchased the device online and later discovered it caused serious medical complications. He sued the company in federal court in State Y under the state’s long-arm statute.
Which of the following factors will not be considered when determining whether exercising personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable?
A) Whether the company has continuous and systematic contacts with State Y.
B) The burden on the company to litigate in State Y.
C) State Y’s interest in adjudicating injuries to its residents.
D) The plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief.
A) Whether the company has continuous and systematic contacts with State Y.
A man who was later exonerated filed a civil rights action in state court in the Western District of State M, where he was arrested originally, against a sheriff and a district attorney, alleging constitutional violations in connection with his arrest and prosecution. The sheriff resided in State N, and the district attorney resided in the Eastern District of State M. The sheriff initially wanted to remove the case to federal court, but the district attorney objected.
Six weeks later, the plaintiff amended the complaint to add the county as a defendant. After discussions among counsel, all defendants agreed to remove the case. Can the defendants remove the case, and if so, to what court?
The defendants may remove the case to the federal Western district court embracing the state court where the action was filed.
P sues D for negligence, alleging: “D acted negligently, breached their duty of care, and caused P serious harm.” The complaint contains no factual allegations describing what D did or how the injury occurred. D moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
How should the court rule?
Grant the motion, because the complaint contains only conclusory statements
Factual sufficiency. Under Twiqbal, courts disregard threadbare conclusory statements and require factual allegations that make the claim plausible.
An employee, a citizen of Washington, sued her employer in federal court for retaliation in violation of a federal whistleblower statute. The employer is incorporated in New York with its principal place of business in Illinois. The employer wants to assert two counterclaims:
(1) that the employee stole confidential client files after the alleged retaliation, and
(2) that the employee posted false statements online accusing the employer of retaliatory conduct.
Which of the following is correct?
A. The employer may bring both counterclaims because they are compulsory.
B. The employer may bring both counterclaims only if the employee first asserts defamation.
C. The employer may bring the defamation counterclaim but not the theft claim.
D. The employer may not bring either counterclaim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
C. The employer may bring the defamation counterclaim but not the theft claim.
The defamation counterclaim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the discrimination claim because it concerns statements about the alleged retaliation. That makes it a compulsory counterclaim entitled to supplemental jurisdiction.
The theft claim is unrelated to the discrimination and lacks an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, so it cannot be brought.
A traveler was injured when luggage fell on her during a ferry ride. She sued the ferry operator for bodily injuries and lost after trial. She later filed a second lawsuit against the same operator for damage to a rare violin that was destroyed in the same incident.
Is the second lawsuit barred by claim preclusion?
Yes, under the majority (transactional) approach.
No, under the minority (primary rights) approach.
Residents of State M purchased a motorcycle in State N and later relocated to State O, where a defect caused the motorcycle to malfunction and injure them. They sued the manufacturer in State O. The manufacturer was served on March 1. It filed an answer on March 25 without raising any jurisdictional defenses. On April 10, the manufacturer filed a Rule 12(b)(2) motion challenging personal jurisdiction.
What is the proper result?
The motion is denied because the manufacturer waived the personal jurisdiction defense.
A resident of New Mexico traveled to the Southern District of Texas to purchase a commercial espresso machine from a retailer operating there. The machine was manufactured by a company based in the Western District of Texas. After returning home, the buyer suffered severe injuries due to a defect in the machine. She filed a federal diversity action in the Northern District of Texas against both the retailer and the manufacturer, seeking $400,000 in damages.
Neither defendant had offices, employees, sales, or any other contacts with the Northern District of Texas. The defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue. The court granted the motion. Was the dismissal proper?
Yes; Venue is improper because neither defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District if that district were treated as its own “mini-state.”
P sued D for negligence after slipping in D’s grocery store. After discovery closed, D moved for summary judgment and submitted affidavits from employees stating the floor had been inspected minutes before the fall and was dry. P responded by arguing that “a jury could disbelieve D’s witnesses,” but submitted no evidence.
How should the court rule?
Grant summary judgment because P failed to produce evidence creating a genuine dispute
The non-moving party must produce evidence, not speculation. Allegations and arguments are insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.
A beneficiary sued a regional bank in federal court seeking payment of $120,000 from an account allegedly payable on death. The bank refused to pay, claiming that another individual had asserted ownership of the same account based on a later-executed assignment. The beneficiary and the second claimant are citizens of the same state. The bank is a citizen of a different state.
The bank moved to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party. Is the second claimant a necessary party?
Yes, because the bank faces a risk of inconsistent obligations.
The second claimant is a necessary party because, if excluded, the bank faces a risk of inconsistent obligations (having to pay both claimants for the same account). That satisfies Rule 19(a), regardless of whether joinder would defeat diversity.
A pedestrian sued a taxi company, alleging that the taxi driver’s negligence caused her injuries and that the company was vicariously liable. The jury returned a verdict for the taxi company, specifically finding that the driver was not negligent. The pedestrian then filed a second lawsuit against the driver individually. Is the second lawsuit precluded?
The pedestrian is precluded from relitigating the driver’s negligence because the issue was actually litigated, essential to the judgment, resulted in a final judgment on the merits, and is being asserted defensively against the same plaintiff.
A citizen of State A sues a citizen of State B in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The defendant impleads a third-party defendant who is a citizen of State A. The plaintiff then amends the complaint to assert a negligence claim directly against the third-party defendant.
Should the third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted?
Yes, the motion to dismiss should be granted.
A plaintiff may not use supplemental jurisdiction in a diversity case to assert a claim against a third-party defendant when doing so would destroy diversity
A plaintiff brought a state-law breach of contract action in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Before trial, the plaintiff requested that the federal judge follow a state statute requiring judges to open trial by reading a ceremonial oath aloud to the jury. There is no federal statute or rule addressing this practice. Is the plaintiff correct that state law must apply?
No. Although no federal rule is directly on point, the ceremonial practice does not affect the outcome of the case, encourage forum shopping, or create unfairness. Federal practice applies.
P sued D for excessive force. D moved for summary judgment, submitting evidence that P posed a threat. P submitted testimony disputing that he was armed or aggressive. The court credited D’s evidence and granted summary judgment.
Was this proper?
No, because evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to P
At summary judgment, courts must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Paula, a citizen of California, sued Driver, a citizen of Nevada, in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, seeking $200,000 for personal injuries arising from a car accident in California.
Driver timely impleaded AutoFix, Inc., a California corporation with its principal place of business in California, alleging that AutoFix negligently repaired his brakes and must indemnify Driver for any liability to Paula. AutoFix and Paula are citizens of the same state.
After AutoFix was joined as a third-party defendant:
AutoFix filed a claim against Paula, alleging that Paula’s own negligence contributed to the accident and seeking damages for harm to AutoFix’s repair equipment at the scene.
Paula filed a claim directly against AutoFix, alleging negligent brake repair and seeking $50,000 in damages.
A. Can AutoFix assert its claim against Paula?
B. Can Paula assert her claim against AutoFix?
A. AutoFix → Paula (DOWNSLOPING) Yes.
This is downsloping under Rule 14: a third-party defendant asserting a claim against the plaintiff. Downsloping claims are allowed only if they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original action. Because the claim concerns the same accident, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction, even though there is no diversity between AutoFix and Paula.
B. Paula → AutoFix (UPSLOPING) No.
This is upsloping: a plaintiff asserting a claim against a third-party defendant. Plaintiffs cannot rely on supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases to bring claims against non-diverse third-party defendants. Because Paula and AutoFix are both California citizens and the claim does not independently satisfy diversity jurisdiction, the claim must be dismissed.
A woman sued a rideshare company alleging negligence by its driver and lost on summary judgment. She then sued the driver individually for negligence arising out of the same accident.
Is the second lawsuit barred by claim preclusion?
No. Claim preclusion does not apply because the second suit is not against the same party (or a party in privity) as the first.