Academic Support
What is spaced practice?
Doing MCQs and Essays throughout the semester to periodically review topics and test understanding.
By doing MCQs/practice essays then reading explanations, you test your knowledge and review when you read over answer explanations.
A plaintiff sued four defendants in a State A court. The lawsuit asserted claims for personal injuries arising out of a multicar accident that occurred in State B.
Defendant 1 was a State B resident who had never been to State A and owned no property in State A. Defendant 2 was a State B resident who owned a vacation home in State A. Defendant 3 was a State A resident who could likely prove at trial that she was not at fault in the accident. Defendant 4 was a State A resident who had never been to State B except on the day of the accident.
Over which defendant is State A LEAST likely to have personal jurisdiction?
Defendant 1.
Answer option A is correct. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant only if it is fair and just to force the defendant to defend himself in the forum state’s courts. This requirement is sometimes phrased as a requirement of minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum. Minimum contacts, in turn, require some purposeful activity directed by the defendant toward the forum state. In another formulation of the due-process requirement, there must be a sufficient connection among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation to justify jurisdiction.
Here, Defendant 1 does not live in State A, has never been to State A, and owns no property in State A. Thus, Defendant 1 has no contacts at all with State A, let alone minimum contacts that would make it fair for her to be sued there. At the same time, each of the other defendants described here has some connection with State A. Consequently, State A is least likely to have personal jurisdiction over Defendant 1.
Answer option B is incorrect. A defendant’s minimum contacts can sometimes be based on the defendant’s ownership of property in the forum state. This form of jurisdiction is called in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction. Although Defendant 2 resides in State B, he owns a vacation home in State A. This property ownership might provide a basis for State A to exercise jurisdiction over Defendant 2. By contrast, as explained under answer option A, Defendant 1 owns no property in State A. Thus, State A is more likely to have jurisdiction over Defendant 2 than over Defendant 1.
Answer option C is incorrect. Personal jurisdiction involves a court’s power over a defendant. That power does not depend on whether that defendant is ultimately liable. Indeed, jurisdiction is what gives a court the power to adjudicate whether a defendant is or is not liable. Accordingly, jurisdiction does not depend on the merits of a case. Here, Defendant 3 resides in State A. That residence is a connection to State A that confers personal jurisdiction over Defendant 3. That jurisdiction does not depend on whether Defendant 3 will ultimately be liable to the plaintiff.
Answer option D is incorrect. Defendant 4, like Defendant 3, resides in State A. That residence is a connection to State A that confers personal jurisdiction over Defendant 4. The fact that Defendant 4 had visited State B only on the day of the accident is therefore irrelevant to State A’s jurisdiction over Defendant 4.
Key takeaway
The United States Constitution allows a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant only if it is fair and just to force the defendant to defend himself in the forum state’s courts. This requirement is sometimes phrased as a requirement of minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum.
The plaintiff and defendant in a lawsuit were in an accident in which the plaintiff was injured. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff incurred medical expenses of $100,000. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff and defendant both lived in State A. Before the action was filed, the plaintiff moved permanently to State B. The plaintiff then filed a negligence action against the defendant in federal district court, with subject matter jurisdiction being based on diversity of citizenship. After the action was filed but before the defendant was served with process, the defendant was transferred by his employer and moved permanently to State B. For purposes of evaluating the court's diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, what are the citizenships of the two parties?
The answer is B.
The plaintiff is a citizen of State B and the defendant is a citizen of State A. In addition to an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction requires complete diversity, meaning that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. Whether complete diversity exists is determined when the suit is filed, not when the cause of action arose or when the defendant is served with process. The citizenship of a natural person is the state in which he is domiciled. A new state citizenship may be established by (i) physical presence in a new place; and (ii) the intention to remain there permanently. In this question, the plaintiff was originally from State A, but then moved permanently to State B before suit was filed. After suit was filed, the defendant also moved to State B from State A. Because the plaintiff's move to State B was before he filed suit, he is considered to be a citizen of State B for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, whereas the defendant is considered to be a citizen of State A because his move did not occur until after suit was filed. Thus, complete diversity exists. Choices (A), (C), and (D) are incorrect for the reasons stated above.
A resident of State B was injured in the Southern District of State A when her car was struck by a large transport truck. At the time of the accident, the truck driver was acting in the course of his employment for a large retail corporation, which owned the truck. The plaintiff intends to file a negligence action in federal district court against both the truck driver and the retail corporation. The truck driver is domiciled in the Central District of State A. The retail corporation is a State C corporation, but has its principal place of business in a city in the District of State D. The corporation operates close to 100 stores in a number of states, including 20 stores in the Southern District of State A. In which federal district court(s) is venue proper?
B is correct.
Venue is proper in the Central District of State A and the Southern District of State A. Federal venue in civil actions is proper in (i) the district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; and (ii) the district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. If there is no district anywhere in the United States that satisfies (i) or (ii), the action may be brought in a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. A corporate defendant is deemed to reside in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action. The retail corporation thus resides, among other places, in the Southern District of State A, where it is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the action based on a specific jurisdiction theory. (Its commission of a tort there would make it subject to specific personal jurisdiction. Operating 20 stores there would be used in the "fairness and reasonableness" assessment.) The truck driver is domiciled in the Central District of State A. Given that both defendants reside in State A, any State A district where a defendant resides is proper, making (B) the correct answer choice. This also makes (A) an incorrect answer choice, in that the truck driver's domicile in the Central District is not taken into account. (C) and (D) are incorrect. Although the retail corporation, if it were a defendant alone, might be subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of State D (principal place of business) and in the District of State C based on a theory of general jurisdiction, the truck driver is not. The venue rule requires that the defendants reside in the same state, which in this case is only State A.
How long has the law school existed?
2013
What is interleaving study topics?
Mix up the type of multiple-choice questions that you are doing. You shouldn’t only do multiple choice questions on one topic because that isn’t how you will see questions on the final exam (or the bar exam).
A used car dealer in State A 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 State A state court. The newspaper's entire operation is conducted from its offices in State B, but it sells 5,000 copies in State A on an average day. In its initial pleading, the newspaper argues for dismissal based on lack of 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 State A were sufficient so it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in State A.
(b) Deny the motion, unless State A lacks a "doing business" jurisdictional provision.
(c) Grant the motion, because selling 5,000 copies of a newspaper per day is not significant business.
(d) Grant the motion, unless State A has a long arm statute covering the newspaper's conduct.
A.
The court is likely to rule that the newspaper is subject to personal jurisdiction for a libel action in State A because it has sufficient minimum contacts with the state. The publisher should reasonably anticipate causing injury wherever the newspaper is sold, and so should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in each state. [Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, 465 U.S. 770 (1984); Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)] (B) and (D) are incorrect. The exercise of jurisdiction over a particular defendant must be both authorized by statute and constitutional. These are separate requirements. The newspaper's claim of insufficient contacts goes to the constitutionality of the exercise of jurisdiction. Whether State A has a "doing business" statute or a long arm statute is irrelevant to this determination. (C) is factually incorrect; selling 5,000 newspapers per day would probably be considered sufficient contact, especially since the cause of action arose from that conduct.
A stockbroker visited a customer at the customer's office and sold her some securities. Coincidentally, three days after the sale, the stockbroker and customer were involved in a car accident on the freeway into the city. After the securities dramatically declined in value, the customer determined that the broker violated federal securities statutes when the broker sold the securities. The customer and the broker are citizens of the same state. The customer filed an action against the broker in federal district court, asserting a claim for $70,000 for the broker's violation of federal securities statutes and a claim for $4,000 for the broker's negligence in damaging the customer's car. May a federal court hear these claims together?
B is the answer.
The federal court may not hear these claims together because there is no supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim. Generally, every claim in federal court must have a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. There are two main bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction—diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. Once a claim is in federal court, supplemental jurisdiction sometimes may be used to have a claim heard. Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is available when (i) there is complete diversity of citizenship, meaning that each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from every defendant; and (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A natural person's citizenship is the state that is the person's domicile. In the instant case, the facts state that the broker and customer are from the same state. As a result, complete diversity does not exist. Furthermore, although the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, the aggregate amount ($74,000) does not meet the minimum amount in controversy requirement. For these reasons, subject matter based on diversity is not available. Federal question jurisdiction is available when the plaintiff, in his well-pleaded complaint, alleges a claim that arises under federal law. Anticipation of a federal defense or the fact that federal law is implicated by the plaintiff's claim do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction; the plaintiff's claim must arise under federal law. Here, the customer alleges that the broker violated federal securities law. That is sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction over the securities claim (which does not have an amount in controversy requirement or a complete diversity requirement). However, the claim for damages to the customer's car is a state law claim, and federal question jurisdiction is not available. Thus, to be heard, the negligence claim must invoke supplemental jurisdiction. When the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over one claim, it has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that derive from the same common nucleus of fact and are such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in a single judicial proceeding. Here, though, the customer's negligence claim is not related in any way to the customer's claim for violating federal securities law. As a result, supplemental jurisdiction is not available. Thus, (B) is the correct choice and (D) is incorrect. (C) is incorrect even though it contains a true statement of law, because there is no supplemental jurisdiction and thus no federal subject matter jurisdiction. (A) is too broad of a statement. When dealing with a single plaintiff against a single defendant, the plaintiff is allowed to join any number and type of claims against the defendant. Thus, if subject matter jurisdiction requirements could have been satisfied, the customer here could have joined all the claims he has against the broker. (When multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants are involved, it is essential only that at least one of the claims arise out of a transaction in which all were involved.)
The plaintiff, who resides in the Southern District of State A, was involved in a three-car accident in the Northern District of State A. The plaintiff intends to file a negligence action against the other two drivers in federal district court. One defendant resides in the District of State B and the other resides in the District of State C. In which federal district(s) is venue proper?
A is correct.
Venue is proper only in the Northern District of State A. Federal venue is proper in (i) the district in which any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; and (ii) the district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Here, the accident occurred in the Northern District of State A, making that district a proper venue under prong (ii). However, given that the defendants here reside in different states, venue cannot be based on the residence of the defendants. Thus, choices (B), (C), and (D) are incorrect. Choice (D) is also incorrect because venue is not based on the residence of the plaintiff.
When will the new building be ready?
2026 (maybe)
Elements of IRAQ and CRAC
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
and
Conclusion
Rule
Application
Conclusion
A car manufacturer, incorporated in State A with its principal place of business also therein, sold its cars to dealers nationwide. A buyer who resides in State B bought one of the manufacturer's cars in State B. The buyer then took the car on a cross-country trip. Halfway through the trip, the buyer was involved in an accident in State C 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 State C federal court, claiming $100,000 in damages. State C has an unlimited long arm statute that authorizes personal jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The manufacturer filed a motion to dismiss the driver's action based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Should the court grant the motion to dismiss?
(A) is correct.
The federal court should grant the motion to dismiss because the cause of action did not arise from the manufacturer's activities in State C. It is generally true that merely placing an item in the stream of commerce is an insufficient basis to establish personal jurisdiction, unless there are some additional facts showing that the defendant intends to serve the market in some way, such as by selling its product to a distributor that the defendant knows does business in a particular state and that the defendant modifies its product to conform to state requirements. Such situations would be extremely rare, and it is a fact scenario that the Supreme Court has not definitively ruled upon, and this scenario is not present in these facts. (B) is incorrect. Although it is true that a corporate defendant must be incorporated in a state or have its principal place of business in the state to be subject to general jurisdiction therein, it is also true that a corporate defendant could be subject to specific jurisdiction in a state based on the commission of a long arm act within the state. (Remember that general jurisdiction is personal jurisdiction for all causes of action, whereas specific jurisdiction is personal jurisdiction only for the cause of action stated in the plaintiff's complaint.) (C) is incorrect because, although the car manufacturer may sell cars in State C, the instant cause of action did not arise out of its activities in State C, and it is not subject to general personal jurisdiction because it is incorporated in State A and has its principal place of business in State A. Furthermore, as stated, the cause of action did not arise from the manufacturer's activities in State C. (D) is incorrect because, as to the question of whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer, it is irrelevant that the buyer is subject to personal jurisdiction in State C.
A wealthy married couple living in State A mutually agreed that the marriage was not working out. The wife subsequently moved to State B. Approximately two years after moving to State B, the wife filed a divorce action in the United States District Court for the District of State A. As stated in the complaint filed in the matter, the marital estate that will be divided in the divorce is worth over $5 million. The husband filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Should the motion to dismiss be granted?
D is the answer.
The motion to dismiss should be granted. Ordinarily, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is available when (i) there is complete diversity of citizenship, meaning that each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from every defendant; and (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. However, even if the requirements for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction technically exist, a federal court will not take jurisdiction over actions involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. Given that the action here involves the issuance of a divorce decree, a federal court will not exercise diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over it. For this reason, (A) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect because it does not address whether a federal court would have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Although most states would allow a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on living as a married couple in the state (and a federal court must analyze any personal jurisdiction question as if it were a state court), the fact that the federal court has personal jurisdiction over the parties does not give the federal court subject matter jurisdiction. The fact that the case could be heard in state court does not, by itself, deprive the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction. (C) contains an incorrect statement of the law. The citizenship rules are not changed in divorce actions. Rather, federal courts do not exercise jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance of a divorce decree.
The plaintiff, a resident of the Northern District of State A, sues the defendant, a resident of the Southern District of State B, for personal injuries he suffered when the defendant pushed him off a ski lift in State C, which has only one federal court district. In which of the three districts mentioned is venue proper?
The answer is D.
Venue is proper in the district in which the defendant resides (here, the Southern District of State B) or in the district in which the events giving rise to the claim occurred (here, the District of State C). (A) is incorrect because the district in which plaintiff resides is not, without more, a basis for venue in federal court. (B) is incorrect because venue is also proper in the district in which the events occurred. (C) is incorrect because venue is also proper in the district in which the defendant resides.
Name 3 Deans
What do they do?
Dean Helge (academic affairs), Ahdieh (students), Cook (associate dean of student affairs).
Where do we find practice questions?
Quimbee
Barbari 1L Success
West Academic
MEE Bank
Academic Support Canvas
Professor provided
Studicata
Bonus if you name one I did not list
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 state court, 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?
D is the answer
The condemnation is not valid because the property owner should have been mailed notice of the proceeding. In an in rem action, persons whose interests are known to be affected and whose addresses are known must be notified at least by ordinary mail. The town should at least have sent notice to the property owner at the address it had for him, even if it seemed unlikely that he would still be there. (B) is thus incorrect. (A) is incorrect because, although the statement is true, it does not address the notice requirement. (C) is incorrect. It is well established that service by mail meets the due process requirement of notice in certain cases (i.e., a summons is not always required).
A woman who resided in State A was visited by a friend at a lakeside cottage she owned in State B. While climbing the stairs to the front porch of the residence, a loose floorboard gave way, and the friend fell and broke her ankle, kneecap, and arm. The friend, who resided in State B, brought a negligence action against the woman in State B federal court for $80,000 to cover her medical bills and lost wages from work. During a deposition, the woman stated that she did not know the floorboard was loose. State B follows traditional common law rules for possessors of land. State A has modified these rules by statute and applies a reasonable person standard to dangerous conditions on the land. What law should the federal court apply?
B is correct.
(B) is correct. The federal court should apply State B's choice of law rules to determine whether State A's reasonable person standard or State B's common law rule governs. In an Erie type of question, there are two questions. The first question is whether state law or federal law applied. The second question is, if state law applies, which state law applies. Here, in a diversity action based on tort law, state substantive tort law will apply. (Remember that there is no federal common law in such situations.) However, once it is determined that some state law applies, it still must be determined which state law to apply. It is well-settled that the choice-of-law rules are substantive and that a federal court must apply the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it is sitting. (Think of it this way: It should not matter here whether the friend files in a state or federal court of State B; the basic outcome should be the same.) (A) is incorrect. The answer illustrates a frequently committed mistake. Although it is true that the standard as to the duties owed by landowners and possessors of land is "outcome determinative," the outcome determinative test is used to determine whether to apply state law or federal law. (And here, it's very obvious that state law applies.) It does not mean that a certain state's law automatically applies. The federal court must use the state choice-of-law rules to determine which state's law applies, using the choice-of-law rules of the state in which the federal court sits. If State B's common law rule applies, it will be because State B's choice-of-law rules dictate the result, not because the subject is "outcome determinative." (C) is incorrect. The fact that the friend is from State A would only be relevant in the choice-of-law analysis using State B's choice-of-law rules. It is in theory possible that State A would apply (but unlikely, given that the property is located in and the accident occurred in State B); if it does, it will be because State B's choice-of-law rules dictate the result. (D) is incorrect because the federal court must use the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it is sitting; here, State B.
The plaintiff is a resident of City A, located in the Northern District of State A. The defendant is a resident of City B, located in the Eastern District of State B. The defendant negligently ran a red light in City B, resulting in a collision between his car and the delivery van that the plaintiff was driving. The result: 100 pounds of cork that the plaintiff was delivering wound up striking him in the back of the head, causing severe injuries. The plaintiff sued the defendant in the Northern District of State A. The defendant moves to dismiss based on improper venue. How should the court rule on the defendant's motion to dismiss?
The answer is C.
The court should deny the motion to dismiss and transfer the case. Venue in this case (a diversity case) would be proper in a judicial district in which (i) any defendant resides, if all reside in the same state or (ii) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Thus, venue would be proper in the Eastern District of State B because that venue is both the defendant's residence and the place where a substantial part of the events took place. The plaintiff's choice of venue in the Northern District of State A must be corrected. To correct improper venue, a court will usually transfer the case to a place of proper venue, not dismiss the case, with the standard being whether transfer would be in the interests of justice. There are no facts here to indicate that an injustice would be worked by transferring the case; as a result, the case should be transferred rather than dismissed. Thus, (A) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect because an objection to personal jurisdiction may be waived by failing to timely raise the issue. Here, the defendant has not raised the issue, thus waiving it. (D) is incorrect, because the Northern District of State A is not a place of proper venue.
What kind of dog is Rev?
American Rough Collie
When are the Academic Support Practice Exams?
Civ Pro 10/22
Torts 10/29
Leg Reg 11/3
A snowmobiler, who lives in State A, hit a skier with a snowmobile while on vacation in the skier's home state of State B, causing damages in excess of $80,000. Although the skier has never been to State A, he sued the snowmobiler in State A federal court. Which of the following statements is true regarding the skier's State A lawsuit?
C is the answer.
The federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties because the skier consented to personal jurisdiction. Either party may consent to personal jurisdiction of local courts as a sufficient statutory basis for in personam jurisdiction. Here, the skier filed the lawsuit in State A, thereby consenting to in personam jurisdiction. Moreover, the State A federal court has general personal jurisdiction over the snowmobiler because it is where the snowmobiler is domiciled. Therefore, the State A federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties. (A) is wrong because although the skier did not have any contact with State A prior to filing the lawsuit, he consented to in personam jurisdiction, making a minimum contacts evaluation irrelevant. Moreover, the constitutional limitations focus on the defendant, not the plaintiff, in terms of whether sufficient minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum so that maintenance of the suit against the defendant does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." State A has general in personam jurisdiction for any cause of action against a defendant in the defendant's home state, even for actions arising from an out of state activity. In general jurisdiction cases, the claim need not arise out of the contacts. Here, State A is the snowmobiler's domicile, and as such State A has general jurisdiction. Moreover, it is fair and convenient for him to defend the lawsuit in his home state. (B) is wrong because venue in State A federal court is proper because a judicial district in which any defendant resides (so long as all defendants reside in the same state) is a proper venue in civil actions in federal court. (D) is wrong because the skier did not file in the wrong forum for all the reasons previously stated.
A products liability action for damages was brought in federal court on behalf of a 12-year-old child against the manufacturer of a can of tuna. The child sliced open her finger while opening a tuna can, causing severe injury to her hand. The complaint, brought by the parents on the child's behalf, properly alleges complete diversity of citizenship and seeks $100,000. In addition, the child's parents joined in the lawsuit seeking additional damages of $50,000 for emotional distress and medical expenses. The manufacturer filed a motion to dismiss the parents' claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Should the court grant the defendant's motion?
D is correct.
(D) is correct. The defendant's motion to dismiss should not be granted because the court may invoke supplemental jurisdiction given that complete diversity of citizenship is satisfied. Where additional plaintiffs wish to join an action but are unable to satisfy the minimum amount in controversy requirement, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims arise from a common nucleus of operative fact, provided complete diversity of citizenship exists. Since the parents' claim for emotional distress and medical expenses arose from the same injury as the child's products liability action, a common nucleus of operative facts exists. Therefore, the court may invoke supplemental jurisdiction to hear both claims, even though the parents' claim itself is not "in excess of $75,000." For this reason, (A) is incorrect. (C) is factually incorrect. It applies the wrong rule for aggregation because the parents are not regarded as plaintiffs in both actions. (B) reaches the wrong conclusion and is incorrect. Multiple plaintiffs may aggregate their claims only where they are seeking to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common or undivided interest, such as in a real property quiet title action brought by concurrent landowners.
A woman, a resident of State B, brought a tort action in a state court of State B seeking $200,000 in damages. She alleged that a doctor damaged several nerves in her ankle during a surgical procedure, resulting in a permanent loss of 50% of the feeling in her foot. The procedure was performed at a clinic in State B, where the doctor performed surgery once a week. The doctor is a citizen of State A, which has only one federal district court. The doctor claims that the woman contributed to the nerve damage by starting back to her marathon training five days after the surgery without allowing time for the tissues and nerves in her ankle to heal properly. A State B statute bars evidence of contributory negligence by plaintiffs in malpractice cases to ensure that recovery against negligent doctors is not reduced. State A has no comparable provision. The doctor wants to remove the case to a federal court in State A. Will the doctor be successful?
C is correct
(C) is correct. When a case is removed from state court to federal court, venue lies in the federal district court "embracing the place where such [state] action is pending." Thus, since the woman filed in a state court of State B, venue would lie in a federal court in State B, not in State A. This also makes (A) incorrect. Even though venue would have been proper had the case been filed in State A because the doctor resides there, the removal statute overrides the general venue statute, making venue in State A improper under these facts. (B) is incorrect. Removal would be to the federal court in State B even if there was no personal jurisdiction over the doctor in State B. But note also that specific personal jurisdiction exists here—the doctor committed a tort in State B, thus subjecting him to specific personal jurisdiction in State B for that cause of action. (D) is also incorrect. Removal from state court is prohibited when the defendant resides in the state in which suit was filed. Here, the doctor, the defendant, resides in State A, so the in-state removal restriction would not bar removal.
When do you get your Aggie ring, and what is the tradition?
45 hours
Ring Dunk