BCP Midterm Hypos

Traditional PJ & Minimum Contacts

100

A tech founder residing in Ohio travels to Florida on vacation to visit a theme park with his family. While standing in line for a ride inside the Florida park, he is personally handed a summons and complaint for an Ohio real estate breach of contract lawsuit filed against him in a Florida federal district court.

• Jurisdiction Status: YES, Personal Jurisdiction applies.
• Legal Analysis: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A) and traditional territorial principles, personal service of process upon a natural person while physically present within the forum state ("transient presence" or "tag jurisdiction") establishes valid in personam personal jurisdiction. Under this traditional rule, the underlying cause of action need not arise from or relate to the defendant's activities inside the forum state.
• Case Authority: Burnham v. Superior Court and Pennoyer v. Neff.

200

A commercial delivery driver domiciled in Vermont drives through New Hampshire to deliver cargo. While operating his delivery truck on a New Hampshire highway, he negligently rear-ends a local commuter. New Hampshire statutory law provides that nonresidents operating motor vehicles on state highways implicitly appoint the State Secretary of State as their agent authorized to receive service of process for suits arising out of local traffic accidents.

• Jurisdiction Status: YES, Personal Jurisdiction applies.
• Legal Analysis: A state validly exercises personal jurisdiction over a nonresident motorist for tortious conduct committed on its public highways under the doctrine of implied consent. By voluntarily utilizing state highways, the driver implicitly consents to designating a state official as an agent for process for claims arising directly out of that highway use.
• Case Authority: Hess v. Pawloski.

300

A Maryland online apparel company maintains no physical stores, offices, or property in Colorado. However, it hires six regional brand ambassadors in Colorado who host pop-up trunk shows, demonstrate clothing lines, and generate continuous, substantial customer orders from Colorado residents. Colorado sues the Maryland company in Colorado state court for unpaid state sales taxes resulting from those local sales.

• Jurisdiction Status: YES, Personal Jurisdiction applies.
• Legal Analysis: Due Process requires that for a court to exert in personam jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation, the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Because the company enjoyed the benefits and protections of Colorado's laws through systematic local solicitation, and the tax liability arose directly out of those in-state activities, jurisdiction is constitutional.
• Case Authority: International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington.

400

An Arizona commercial warranty corporation solicits a single commercial equipment warranty policy with a bakery owner in Nevada via mail. The Nevada baker accepts the contract from Nevada and mails monthly warranty payments from his Nevada bakery to Arizona for eight years. The warranty corporation maintains no physical office, employees, or agent in Nevada. When an industrial oven explodes, the baker sues the Arizona warranty firm in Nevada state court after it refuses to honor the claim

• Jurisdiction Status: YES, Personal Jurisdiction applies.
• Legal Analysis: It is sufficient for Due Process that the lawsuit was based on a contract that possessed a substantial connection with the forum state. The warranty policy was delivered in Nevada, payments originated in Nevada, the insured property and resident resided there, and Nevada maintained a manifest interest in offering a legal forum to protect its resident business owners against out-of-state warranty providers.
• Case Authority: McGee v. International Life Insurance Co..

500

A wealthy patron creates an investment escrow trust in Maine, designating a Maine trust company as trustee. Years later, the patron changes her permanent residence to New Mexico and receives monthly distribution checks mailed to her New Mexico home until her death. The Maine trust company maintains no office, property, or advertising in New Mexico and never solicited business there. A New Mexico court attempts to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Maine trust company to resolve a trust distribution contest.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Personal Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply.
• Legal Analysis: The unilateral activity of a plaintiff or third party who claims a relationship with an out-of-state defendant cannot satisfy the constitutional requirement of contact with the forum state. It is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. The Maine trustee performed no purposeful acts in New Mexico.
• Case Authority: Hanson v. Denckla.

Specific/General & Stream of Commerce

100

A custom furniture workshop incorporated and operating exclusively in Maine crafts a solid wooden dining table and sells it to a Maine customer. Two years later, the customer relocates to Iowa, transporting the dining table with him. While in Iowa, a table leg breaks during dinner, injuring a guest. The guest sues the Maine furniture workshop in Iowa state court, arguing it was foreseeable that custom furniture could be moved anywhere in the United States.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Personal Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply.
• Legal Analysis: Foreseeability that a product might enter a foreign state is not alone sufficient for personal jurisdiction. The foreseeability critical to Due Process is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that it should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. Because the Maine workshop took no purposeful action to serve the Iowa market, the unilateral movement of the purchaser drove the product into Iowa.
• Case Authority: World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson.

200

A German hydraulics company manufactures hydraulic valves in Germany and sells them to a Japanese tractor manufacturer. The tractor company incorporates the valves into farm tractors distributed throughout North America, including Idaho. An Idaho farmer is injured when a tractor hydraulic line fails. After all primary injury claims settle, an indemnification cross-claim remains pending between the Japanese tractor maker and the German valve producer in Idaho state court.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Personal Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply.
• Legal Analysis: Placing a component product into the stream of commerce without additional conduct purposefully directed toward the forum state (such as designing for the local market, direct advertising, or local customer service) fails to establish purposeful availment. Furthermore, under the multi-factor reasonableness analysis, subjecting a foreign component manufacturer to an indemnity dispute in an American court when all resident claims have settled is constitutionally unreasonable.
• Case Authority: Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court and J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro.

300

A mass tort lawsuit is filed in Illinois state court by 400 plaintiffs against a Delaware pharmaceutical company headquartered in New Jersey regarding alleged organ damage caused by a blood pressure drug. The defendant sold the drug nationwide, including in Illinois. However, 150 of the plaintiffs are residents of Ohio who purchased the medication in Ohio, took it in Ohio, and suffered injuries in Ohio, possessing zero connection to Illinois.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Specific Personal Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply to the non-resident claims.
• Legal Analysis: Personal jurisdiction must be established for each individual claim. For a court to exercise specific jurisdiction, the litigation must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum state. Because there is no connection between Illinois and the non-resident plaintiffs' injuries, specific jurisdiction is absent regardless of the company's extensive, unrelated sales in Illinois.
• Case Authority: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court.

400

An electric vehicle company (incorporated in DE, HQ in CA) extensively advertises, sells, and maintains regional charging hubs and service repair centers in Georgia for its "E-Glide" sedan. A Georgia resident purchases a used "E-Glide" sedan from a private seller across the border in Alabama and drives it back home to Georgia, where the high-voltage battery explodes in his garage. The EV maker argues Georgia courts lack specific PJ because it did not sell that specific used car in Georgia.

• Jurisdiction Status: YES, Personal Jurisdiction applies.
• Legal Analysis: Due Process does not require a strict, exclusive causal relationship between the defendant's in-state activity and the specific injury. The constitutional standard permits jurisdiction when the lawsuit "arises out of OR RELATES TO" the defendant's contacts with the forum. Because the manufacturer systematically cultivated, sold, and serviced that exact vehicle model in Georgia for years, the claim was sufficiently related to its forum activities.
• Case Authority: Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court.

500

Chilean citizens file a human rights lawsuit in a Texas state court against a French aerospace conglomerate headquartered in Paris, alleging environmental injuries at a plant in Chile. Plaintiffs assert general jurisdiction over the French parent corporation based on the massive sales volume and physical distribution centers maintained by its wholly owned commercial retail subsidiary in Texas.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, General Personal Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply.
• Legal Analysis: General (all-purpose) jurisdiction allows a court to hear any and all claims against a corporate defendant only when its affiliations with the state are so continuous and systematic as to render it "essentially at home" in the forum state. The paradigm forums for general jurisdiction over a corporation are its place of incorporation and its principal place of business. Substantial retail sales by a subsidiary do not make a foreign parent company "at home" in Texas.
• Case Authority: Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown and Daimler AG v. Bauman.

Diversity & Fed Question

100

Plaintiff A (domiciled in Indiana) files a state law negligence claim in federal district court against Defendant B (domiciled in Illinois) and Defendant C (a university student originally from Indiana who attends college in Illinois but maintains her permanent residence in Indiana). Plaintiff seeks $200,000 in damages.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Subject Matter Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply.
• Legal Analysis: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity: no plaintiff may share state citizenship with any defendant. Citizenship for a natural person is determined by domicile (physical presence plus intent to remain indefinitely). Because Plaintiff A and Defendant C are both domiciled in Indiana, complete diversity is destroyed.
• Case Authority: Strawbridge v. Curtiss and Mas v. Perry.

200

A national logistics corporation is incorporated in Delaware. It operates massive regional fulfillment centers employing thousands of workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but its executive officers work out of a single headquarters building in Illinois, where all high-level board decisions and strategic operational control occur. An Illinois resident sues the corporation in federal court for breach of contract, seeking $100,000.

• Jurisdiction Status: Corporation is a citizen of Delaware AND Illinois; NO Subject Matter Jurisdiction exists.
• Legal Analysis: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is deemed a citizen of every state of incorporation AND the single state where it has its principal place of business. Under the "nerve center" test, the principal place of business is the location where top officers direct, control, and coordinate corporate activities (Illinois). Because Plaintiff (IL) and Defendant (IL) share Illinois citizenship, complete diversity is destroyed.
• Case Authority: Hertz Corp. v. Friend.

300

A real estate development Limited Liability Company (LLC) has five equity members: four members reside and are domiciled in Alabama, and one member resides and is domiciled in Georgia. A Georgia citizen files a breach of contract action against the LLC in federal district court, seeking $500,000 in damages.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Subject Matter Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply.
• Legal Analysis: Unlike corporations, unincorporated entities (such as LLCs, partnerships, and joint ventures) do not possess dual citizenship based on incorporation or principal place of business. For diversity purposes, an LLC adopts the citizenship of ALL of its constituent members. Because one member is a citizen of Georgia, the LLC is a citizen of Georgia, destroying complete diversity against the Georgia plaintiff.
• Case Authority: Carden v. Arkoma Associates.

400

An architectural firm sues a municipal housing developer in federal district court for failure to pay fees under a building design contract. The complaint asserts a state law breach of contract claim, but specifically adds that the developer's expected defense—that federal environmental regulations made performance illegal—is preempted by the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Subject Matter Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply.
• Legal Analysis: Under the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule, statutory federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires that the federal question appear on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded cause of action. Anticipating a federal defense or raising a federal reply to an anticipated defense inside the complaint cannot establish federal question jurisdiction.
• Case Authority: Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley

500

A former patent owner sues his prior legal counsel in state court for legal malpractice under state tort law, alleging the attorney negligently handled a federal patent prosecution, causing the patent to be invalidated under statutory federal patent standards. The defendant attorney removes the lawsuit to federal court under § 1331.

• Jurisdiction Status: YES, Subject Matter Jurisdiction applies.
• Legal Analysis: Federal question jurisdiction extends to a state law claim if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. Adjudicating whether federal patent standards were violated satisfies these criteria.
• Case Authority: Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg. and Gunn v. Minton.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

100

A software engineer sues her employer in federal district court alleging federal age discrimination under the ADEA (28 U.S.C. § 1331) and adds a state law claim for unpaid commissions under state contract law stemming from the exact same termination meeting. Both parties are citizens of Oregon.

• Jurisdiction Status: YES, Subject Matter Jurisdiction applies via Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)).
• Legal Analysis: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), when a federal court has original jurisdiction over an anchor claim (here, ADEA under § 1331), it possesses supplemental jurisdiction over all related state claims that form part of the same Article III case or controversy, meaning they derive from a "common nucleus of operative fact."Statutory § 1367(b) restrictions apply only to diversity-only cases.
• Case Authority / Statute: United Mine Workers v. Gibbs and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

200

Plaintiff (PA) sues Defendant 1 (OH) in federal court under diversity jurisdiction (§ 1332) for $120,000 following a structural wall collapse. Defendant 1 impleads Subcontractor 2 (PA) under Rule 14 for indemnification. Plaintiff (PA) then asserts a direct state law negligence claim against Subcontractor 2 (PA) for $120,000.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Subject Matter Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply.
• Legal Analysis: Original jurisdiction was based solely on diversity (§ 1332). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), in diversity actions, district courts shall NOT have supplemental jurisdiction over claims made BY PLAINTIFFSagainst persons made parties under Rule 14 (third-party impleader) when exercising jurisdiction would violate complete diversity under § 1332. Because Plaintiff (PA) and Subcontractor 2 (PA) are both Pennsylvania citizens, supplemental jurisdiction is barred.
• Statute Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) and Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger.

300

Plaintiff (KY) sues Defendant 1 (TN) in federal district court under § 1332 for $90,000 for breach of a corporate merger agreement. Plaintiff seeks to permissively join Defendant 2 (KY) under Rule 20, asserting an $80,000 state fraud claim arising out of the same merger negotiations.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Subject Matter Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply.
• Legal Analysis: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), in civil actions founded solely on diversity (§ 1332), supplemental jurisdiction is explicitly prohibited over claims by plaintiffs against persons joined as defendants under Rule 20 (permissive joinder) if exercising jurisdiction would destroy § 1332 complete diversity.
• Statute Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b).

400

Plaintiff (MI) sues Defendant (MI) in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 alleging federal trademark infringement. Defendant files a permissive state law counterclaim alleging Plaintiff defaulted on a personal promissory note granted three years prior for an unrelated vacation home purchase.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Subject Matter Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply.
• Legal Analysis: To qualify for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the supplemental claim must form part of the same Article III case or controversy by sharing a "common nucleus of operative fact"with the anchor claim. Because the personal loan dispute is entirely unrelated to the trademark claim, it fails the statutory threshold of § 1367(a).
• Case Authority / Statute: United Mine Workers v. Gibbs and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

500

A plaintiff files a federal § 1983 civil rights claim alongside an unsettled, highly complex state statutory claim under a newly enacted state privacy law in federal district court. Early in pre-trial motion practice, the federal judge grants judgment on the pleadings dismissing the § 1983 federal claim.

• Jurisdiction Status: YES, the court may decline Supplemental Jurisdiction.
• Legal Analysis: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts may exercise discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction if: (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, (2) the claim substantially predominates, (3) the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, or (4) exceptional circumstances exist. Both § 1367(c)(1) and (c)(3) justify declining jurisdiction.
• Statute Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (3).

Removal Jurisdiction

100

Plaintiff (citizen of Kansas) files a $250,000 state law product liability suit in a Kansas state court against Defendant (citizen of Missouri). Within 30 days of receiving service of process, Defendant files a notice of removal in the federal district court embracing the Kansas state court location.

• Jurisdiction Status: YES, Removal Jurisdiction applies.
• Legal Analysis: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), any civil action brought in a state court of which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction (here, diversity under § 1332) may be removed by the defendant to the federal district court embracing the place where the state court action is pending.
• Statute Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

200

Plaintiff (citizen of Vermont) sues Defendant 1 (citizen of Maine) and Defendant 2 (citizen of Massachusetts) in a Massachusetts state court on a state tort claim seeking $300,000 in damages. Defendant 1 files a notice of removal to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Removal Jurisdiction DOES NOT apply (Forum Defendant Rule).
• Legal Analysis: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (the Forum Defendant Rule), an action removable solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction MAY NOT be removed if any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought. Because Defendant 2 is a citizen of Massachusetts (the forum state), removal is statutorily prohibited.
• Statute Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

300

Plaintiff (NV) sues Defendant 1 (AZ) and Defendant 2 (UT) in a Nevada state court alleging federal antitrust violations under the Sherman Act. Defendant 1 files a notice of removal in federal district court within 30 days of service. Defendant 2 actively refuses to join or consent to the removal.

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, Removal is procedurally defective.
• Legal Analysis: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) (the Rule of Unanimity), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action. Because Defendant 2 did not consent, the removal is procedurally defective and subject to remand upon plaintiff's timely motion.
• Statute Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A).

400

Plaintiff brings an action in state court asserting a federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim alongside a completely distinct state law real estate claim against a non-diverse party. Defendant removes the entire lawsuit to federal district court under § 1441(c).

• Jurisdiction Status: The federal court MUST SEVER AND REMAND the state law claim.
• Legal Analysis: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c), when a civil action includes a federal question claim under § 1331 and a claim not within original or supplemental jurisdiction, the entire action may be removed, BUT the district court must sever the non-qualifying claim and remand it back to the state court.
• Statute Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(1)-(2).

500

A lawsuit filed in state court in Denver, Colorado (located within the District of Colorado) is removed by the defendant to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The defendant then moves to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue, claiming venue should have been in Wyoming under general venue rules (§ 1391).

• Jurisdiction Status: NO, the motion to dismiss for improper venue is INVALID.
• Legal Analysis: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), the proper venue for a removed action is automatically the federal district court embracing the location where the state court action was pending. General venue requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 do not apply to removed cases, making venue challenges claiming improper venue unavailable in removed actions.
• Statute Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc.