Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Can SMJ be waived? Can a court raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte?
No and no
SMJ can be raised at any time, even by the court.
Which U.S. Supreme Court case established the "minimum contacts" test for determining whether a court has personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant?
A. International Shoe Co. v. Washington
B. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
C. Burnham v. Superior Court
D. Pennoyer v. Neff
A. International Shoe Co. v. Washington
The landmark 1945 case International Shoe established that a defendant must have "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that exercising jurisdiction does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."
A plaintiff who resided in the District of Utah wanted to sue two defendants in federal court for an automobile accident that occurred in the District of South Dakota. One of the defendants resided in the Eastern District of Texas and the other defendant resided in the Northern District of Texas.
Where is venue proper for the plaintiff’s lawsuit?
C: Only in the District of South Dakota, the Eastern District of Texas, or the Northern District of Texas.
C: Only in the District of South Dakota, the Eastern District of Texas, or the Northern District of Texas.
Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which of the following is not a required component of a complaint?
A. A statement of jurisdiction showing the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
B. A demand for the relief sought by the plaintiff.
C. A detailed narrative of all facts supporting the claim.
D. A short and plain statement of the claim showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
C. A detailed narrative of all facts supporting the claim.
A defendant removed a pending action for breach of warranty from state court in State A to federal district court in State A, in the division that embraced the location of the state court where the plaintiff originally filed the lawsuit. The defendant and the plaintiff were both citizens of State B, and the plaintiff’s claim did not involve a question of federal law. Sixty days after the defendant removed the case, the plaintiff filed a motion for remand.
Is the federal district court likely to grant the plaintiff’s motion for remand?
What type of subject matters can be litigated in federal court directly?
Patents, copyright, trademark, antitrust, and common law claims through the states' concurrent jurisdiction to hear claims arising out of contacts.
A plaintiff filed a lawsuit in his home state against a bicycle manufacturer, seeking damages for personal injuries the plaintiff suffered when he slipped and fell during a tour of the manufacturer’s out-of-state facilities. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Which of following facts, if true, would be the most likely to defeat the defendant’s motion?
If the defendant’s executive offices and distribution center are located in the forum state, the plaintiff’s best argument for jurisdiction is that the defendant has its principal place of business in the forum state.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which of the following is not a proper venue for a civil action in federal court?
A. A judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state.
B. A judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.
C. A judicial district where the plaintiff resides, if the plaintiff is suing a non-resident defendant.
D. A judicial district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, if no other district is appropriate.
C. A judicial district where the plaintiff resides, if the plaintiff is suing a non-resident defendant.
Plaintiff irrelevant again
Which of the following defenses cannot be raised in a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss?
A. Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
B. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
C. Insufficient evidence to prove the plaintiff’s claim.
D. Improper venue.
C. Insufficient evidence to prove the plaintiff’s claim.
Under 12(b), you can raise: SMJ, venue, PJ, service, failure to state a claim, failure to join party, and insufficient process.
Congress passed a federal statute amending the diversity jurisdiction of federal district courts. As amended by the statute, diversity jurisdiction required simple diversity, in which at least one plaintiff was a citizen of a different state than at least one defendant. The statute abolished the requirement for complete diversity, in which no one plaintiff was a citizen of the same state as any defendant.
May Congress amend diversity jurisdiction in this way?
An individual plaintiff sued a corporate defendant in state court in State A. The complaint asserted state-law claims for negligence and sought damages of $100,000. However, the complaint contained no information about where the plaintiff resided. The defendant did not know the plaintiff and was not familiar with where the individual lived. Forty-five days after the defendant was served with the complaint, the parties made their required initial disclosures. The initial disclosures made clear that the parties were completely diverse.
May the defendants file a notice of removal?
C: No, because the defendant was served with the complaint over 30 days ago.
D: No, because the complaint only states claims created by state law.
Sarah, a resident of Texas, orders a rare antique lamp from an online seller based in Vermont. The seller’s website is accessible nationwide, but it does not specifically target Texas residents. Sarah receives the lamp but claims it is defective and sues the Vermont seller in Texas state court.
The seller moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Will the Texas court likely have personal jurisdiction over the Vermont seller?
A. Yes, because the seller made a sale to Sarah in Texas.
B. No, because the seller does not have minimum contacts with Texas sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
C. Yes, because the seller's website is accessible in Texas, giving Texas jurisdiction over any claims arising from it.
D. No, because personal jurisdiction can only be exercised if the seller physically entered Texas.
B. No, because the seller does not have minimum contacts with Texas sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
A man and woman had a car accident in New Jersey. The woman’s home was in the Eastern District of New Jersey and she spent the majority of her time there. However, she carried on the preponderance of her business activities in the Southern District of New York and the company car she was driving at the time of the accident was registered there. The man wanted to sue the woman for the injuries he received in the accident in the federal court for the Southern District of New York, based on diversity jurisdiction.
Is the Southern District of New York a proper venue for the man’s lawsuit?
B: Yes, because the woman carried on the preponderance of her business activities in the Southern District of New York.
C: No, because the woman’s home was in the Eastern District of New Jersey.
D: No, because the woman spent the majority of her time in the Eastern District of New Jersey.
C: No, because the woman’s home was in the Eastern District of New Jersey.
An individual plaintiff sued a corporation on a products-liability theory in federal district court. The corporation did not file any Rule 12 motions. At trial, the corporation moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The corporation had not raised this defense in its answer to the complaint.
Will the federal district court consider the corporation’s argument?
A defense that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted may be raised in any pleading (either a pre-answer motion under Rule 12 or the answer), by a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), or at trial.
On November 1, a plaintiff sued a defendant in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction, alleging a claim of negligence based on an incident that occurred several months earlier, on August 1 of the same year. On December 1 of the same year, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the parties were not diverse.
Which date(s) must the court consider when determining the citizenship of the parties?
Jamie, a software engineer domiciled in Oregon, is vacationing in Hawaii. While driving a rental car, Jamie is rear-ended by Sophia, who is domiciled in New Jersey. Jamie suffers significant injuries and decides to sue Sophia for $75,000 in damages for medical expenses and emotional distress.
Jamie files the lawsuit in federal court, seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction. Will the federal court have subject-matter jurisdiction over Jamie’s lawsuit?
A. Yes, because Jamie and Sophia are domiciled in different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds the threshold.
B. No, because the case involves an auto accident which can't be heard under federal law.
C. Yes, because both the parties are from different states and under the St. Paul Mercury test, the federal court has the discretion to accept the amount claimed under legal certainty.
D. No, because although there is complete diversity, the amount in controversy does not meet the statutory requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
D. No, because although there is complete diversity, the amount in controversy does not meet the statutory requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
Needs to exceed $75,000.
Which of the following factors is not relevant to determining whether a state court’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant comports with the Due Process Clause?
A. Whether the defendant purposefully directed their activities at the forum state.
B. Whether the plaintiff has substantial connections to the forum state.
C. Whether the cause of action arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.
D. Whether exercising jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
B. Whether the plaintiff has substantial connections to the forum state.
don't care about plaintiff's connections
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which of the following is a valid reason for a federal court to transfer a case to another district?
A. The defendant prefers the new district because it has more favorable law.
B. The plaintiff wishes to move the case to a district that is closer to their current residence.
C. The original district is improper, so the court transfers the case to a district where venue is proper.
D. The transfer serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses and is in the interest of justice.
D. The transfer serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses and is in the interest of justice.
On May 19, a plaintiff filed a breach of contract action in federal court against a defendant. The defendant was served with the complaint on May 20. The defendant filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss on May 25. On May 30, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
At this point, how long does the defendant have to file an answer?
Answer option B is correct. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant generally has 21 days to submit an answer to a plaintiff's complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1), (4). However, instead of submitting an answer, a defendant may file a pre-answer motion within that same initial 21-day period. If an appropriate and timely pre-answer motion is filed, a defendant's time to file an answer will be extended to the date that is 14 days after the court has ordered a decision on the pre-answer motion.
In which two landmark Supreme Court cases was the "plausibility" standard for pleading established?
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal
The Twombly-Iqbal test is a set of pleading standards for federal civil lawsuits that requires a complaint to include enough facts to make a claim plausible.
A plaintiff sued a defendant for breach of contract in federal district court. The parties’ contract required the defendant to adhere to certain pollution standards defined in federal regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Both the EPA and federal courts had consistently interpreted the regulations to require pollutant concentrations of less than 2 parts per million. Both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that this interpretation was correct and governed in the case. The plaintiff asserted that in providing services under the contract, the defendant had maintained much higher concentrations of pollutant than those required by the EPA. The defendant argued instead that it had maintained pollutant concentrations within ranges required by the EPA.
Is a court likely to conclude that it has federal-question jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim?
D: No, because there is no room for disagreement on the federal issue implicated in the plaintiff’s claim.
D: No, because there is no room for disagreement on the federal issue implicated in the plaintiff’s claim.
o qualify for federal-question jurisdiction, the question of federal law necessarily raised by the plaintiff’s complaint must be (1) actually disputed; (2) substantial, serious, and important; and (3) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the workload Congress intended to balance between federal and state courts.
The court is likely to conclude that it does not have federal-question jurisdiction, because there is no room for disagreement on the federal issue presented in the plaintiff’s complaint.
A plaintiff sued a defendant corporation for defective design in state court in State A, where the plaintiff then lived. The defendant was incorporated in State B. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had negligently designed a medical device that had injured her after it was implanted in State C, where the plaintiff used to live. The defendant’s manufacturing plant where the device was designed and manufactured was located in State D, its principal place of business. The defendant sold the devices to distributors in States E and F, who in turn sold them to hospitals nationwide.
What kind of in personam jurisdiction, if any, does the court in State A have over the defendant?
The defendant’s only connection with State A is the injured plaintiff’s presence there.
What is the 'fall-back provision' in venue law under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(3)?
If no other venue is proper by fulfilling (a) domicile or (b) significant events, the fall-back provision allows venue in any district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.
Alex files a lawsuit against Lisa for negligence after slipping and falling in her restaurant. In his complaint, Alex states:
"On March 15, 2024, I slipped and fell on a wet floor in Lisa's restaurant, which caused me significant injuries. Lisa was negligent in maintaining her premises."
Lisa responds with a motion to dismiss, claiming that Alex’s complaint lacks sufficient detail regarding his negligence claim.
Which of the following is the most accurate assessment of Alex’s pleading?
A. Alex's complaint is sufficient because it describes the circumstances of his fall and identifies Lisa as the negligent party to inform the defendant of the claim being filed.
B. Alex's complaint is insufficient because it fails to identify the specific hazard that caused his fall and does not explain how Lisa was negligent in maintaining the premises; it makes legal conclusions.
C. Alex's complaint is sufficient because it meets the requirements of Rule 8 by providing a short and plain statement of his claim.
D. Alex's complaint is insufficient because it does not specify the exact nature of his injuries or provide medical documentation.
B. Alex's complaint is insufficient because it fails to identify the specific hazard that caused his fall and does not explain how Lisa was negligent in maintaining the premises; it makes legal conclusions.
What are the rules for joinder under rule 18 and rule 20 and how are they different?