For those interested in old civ pro exam questions with answers, they are available here. I should warn you however that since around 2014 (and especially since 2016) I have not systematically updated the answers in the older posts to take into account changes in the law. As a result some answers will be out of date. For those in my class at William and Mary, some material that is in these old exam questions is not currently covered in my class.
2. In each of these cases the plaintiff brings suit against the defendant in federal court in New York. In which of these cases is the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction most likely to succeed? Do not assume the defendant has any contacts with New York other than those mentioned.
a. P (a citizen of New York) brings an action against D (a Turkish national domiciled in Turkey) for violations of federal antiterrorism law concerning an attack on Americans in Turkey in which P was harmed. D is served in Turkey.
b. P (a citizen of New York) brings an action against D (a citizen of Pennsylvania) under federal civil rights law concerning the defendant’s arrest of the plaintiff in Buffalo, New York. D is served at his home in Pennsylvania.
c. P (a New York citizen) sues a widget manufacturer, D Corp (incorporated in New York but with its headquarters and all of its employees and factories in Massachusetts). The D Corp ships its widgets to stores in all fifty states. P sues the D Corp under California product liability law for a widget he bought at a store while on vacation in California that harmed him in California.
d. P (a New York citizen) sues a widget manufacturer, D Corp (incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters and all of its employees and factories in Massachusetts). The D Corp ships its widgets to stores in all fifty states. P sues the D Corp under California product liability law for a widget he bought at a store while on vacation in California that harmed him in California. P has the summons and complaint delivered in hand to the D Corp’s chief legal officer while she is in New York on business for the D Corp.
e. P (a New York citizen) sues D (a German subject domiciled in Germany) to determine ownership of 1000 shares in the D Corp (incorporated in New York with its headquarters and all of its employees and factories in Massachusetts). Under New York law, shares in a New York corporation are considered to be located in New York.
Continue reading "2nd (Hard) Multiple Choice from the Midterm Exam" »
P (a domiciliary of Vermont) has brought a suit against the D1 Corp and D2 in the Federal District Court for the District of Vermont. P’s suit is for damages that she received from a defective toaster. The D1 Corp, incorporated in Massachusetts, owns and runs a chain of 100 hardware stores, with 40 stores (and 40% of its employees) in Massachusetts, 10 stores (and 10% of its employees) in New Hampshire, and 50 stores (and 50% of its employees) in Vermont. Its headquarters are in Massachusetts. It advertises in states where it has hardware stores. D2 is an individual domiciled in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, D2, remembering a D1 Corp advertisement he saw there, entered a D1 Corp hardware store and bought a toaster. D2 took it with him to Vermont, as a gift to P. When P used the toaster, it malfunctioned, severely injuring her. P asks for $100,000 in damages from the D1 Corp and D2, who she alleges are jointly liable. The D1 Corp and D2 each bring motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue.
Briefly:
Should their motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction succeed and why or why not? (6 points)
Should their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction succeed and why or why not? (14 points)
Should their motion to dismiss for improper venue succeed and why or why not? (10 points)
Continue reading "Long Essay Question on Midterm with Model Answer" »
Short Essay Question 2 (6 points)
P (a citizen of New York) sues the D Corp (incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Massachusetts) in federal court in New York. P’s lawyer gives the summons and complaint to the D Corp’s CEO while he is on a plane over airspace in New York. The D Corp makes a motion to dismiss for improper service. Briefly: Should the motion succeed and why or why not?
Continue reading "2nd Short Essay Question with Model Answer" »
Short Essay Question 1 [12 points]
P1 (an American subject domiciled in New York) and P2 (a French subject domiciled in France) together wish to sue D1 (a French subject admitted for permanent residency in the United States and domiciled in New York) in federal court in California under French negligence law for a car accident that occurred in France.
Briefly describe why there is currently no subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction for their action. (6 points)
Briefly: Could Congress remove these subject matter and personal jurisdiction impediments and why or why not? (6 points)
Continue reading "1st Short Essay Question on Midterm with Model Answer" »
1. In each of these cases the plaintiff or plaintiffs bring suit against D in state court in New York. In which of these cases is D’s attempt to remove the case to federal court most likely to succeed?
a. P (a French subject admitted for permanent residency in the U.S. who is domiciled in New York) sues D (a German subject admitted for permanent residency in the U.S. who is domiciled in New Jersey). P’s suit is for violation of New York negligence law in connection with a car accident in New York. P asks for $100,000 in damages.
b. P (a citizen of New York), who is a beneficiary of a trust, sues the trustee, D (a citizen of California). P claims that D violated his fiduciary obligations to P under New York trust law by investing in securities that are illegal under federal law.
c. P (a New York citizen) sues D (French citizen domiciled in France) under New York law for $100,000 in child support that D owes P for care of P’s and D’s children in New York.
d. P1 and P2 (both citizens of California) own separate lots adjacent to property in New York owned by D (a citizen of New York). P1 and P2 sue D under New York nuisance law, requesting an injunction prohibiting D from building a rendering plant on his property. Alternatively, they ask for $40,000 each, which is the damages they will sustain from the plant’s operation. The cost of D’s abiding by the injunction is $80,000.
e. P1, a New York citizen, and P2, a California citizen, sue D, a California citizen, for violations of New York negligence law concerning a car accident in New York. P1 asks for $100,000 in damages from D, but P2 asks for only $20,000.
Continue reading "1st Multiple Choice Question on Midterm - with answer key" »
After class, Allie Maples mention a scenario in which the Mottleys could have gotten into federal court in a way that satisfied the well pleaded complaint rule, by suing the United States under the Fifth Amendment. The last time this very creative idea was brought up was four years ago, so I will link to my discussion then.
This article is one salvo in a comprehensive attack on interest analysis - the dominant choice-of-law approach in the United States. It took a while to see the light of day, but it is finally coming out from the Georgia Law Review.
...have now been posted. The fact that so many of those who choose to take this course are exceptional students always makes assigning grades within the confines of the mandatory curve a problem. My goal of keeping the number of lower grades to a minimum meant that I gave out fewer As and A-s than I might otherwise have done.
...have now been posted. A very good set of exams that made assigning grades within the confines of the mandatory curve very difficult.
My review of Timothy Endicott's groundbreaking paper is finally up on Jotwell. It's about time philosophers started looking into the conflict of laws.