Michael Green's CivPro Blog

Multiple Choice from the 2007 Exam

With updated answers:

6.    P is considering bringing suit in federal court against two co-defendants: the D1 Corp. (incorporated in Massachusetts) and D2 (an individual). P’s suit is for damages that she received from a defective toaster. The D1 Corp. owns a chain of large hardware stores, with 30 stores in Massachusetts, 10 in the Albany, New York area (in the Northern District of New York), and 10 in the New York City area (in the Southern District of New York). The D1 Corp’s headquarters is in Massachusetts. The D1 Corp advertises and has employees or property only in areas where it has hardware stores. D2 lives in Connecticut but works in New York City (in the Southern District of New York). While visiting Albany, New York, D2 bought a toaster from a D1 Corp hardware store. D2 took it with him to Idaho, as a gift to P, who lives in Idaho. When P used the toaster, it malfunctioned, severely injuring P. Which is the most accurate list of federal districts that have venue for the case of P v. D1 and D2?

A Multiple Choice Question from the 2000 Exam

With updated answers:

1. P (a citizen of New York) files a suit against the D Corp. for fraud under New York law in Wyoming state court.  P is asking for $70,000.  The suit concerns misrepresentations the president of the D Corp. allegedly made to P in New York City (in the Southern District of New York) about the productivity of oil fields that the D Corp. holds in Wyoming.  These misrepresentations induced P to buy a significant amount of D Corp. stock in New York.  The D Corp. is an oil company incorporated in Delaware.  It has extensive oil fields of roughly equal size and value in Wyoming and Southern California.  The president of the D Corp. works in Houston, Texas, and the board of directors meets there.  Most financial decisions are also made in Houston.  The D Corp. removes the Wyoming action to the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming on the basis of diversity, arguing that the parties are diverse and that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000.  Which of the following statements is most accurate?

 A. After removal, the D Corp. would be able to successfully move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  There is no personal jurisdiction because the misrepresentation at issue took place in New York.  The fact that the misrepresentation was about something in Wyoming is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

 B. The district court will remand the case back to state court.  The D Corp. may not successfully remove because it resides within the state of Wyoming.  A diversity case may not be removed if a defendant is an in-state resident.

 C. The district court must remand the case back to state court.  True, the plaintiff and the defendant are diverse.  But the court cannot find that the amount in controversy is above the jurisdictional minimum, because the plaintiff has asked for only $70,000.

D. The D. Corp. could not have successfully removed the action to the Southern District of New York.

 E. The district court will remand the case back to state court, because the case lacks venue.  It is not true that a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated,” in Wyoming.  The fact that the misrepresentation was about Wyoming is insufficient to establish venue.

A Short Question from the 1998 Civil Procedure Exam

 With updated answers:

1. Congress is considering passing a statute to protect abortion rights by allowing for the removal to federal district court of any civil case in state court the outcome of which would ride upon abortion rights derivable from the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In one paragraph, is the statute constitutional and why or why not? [8 points] 

A Puzzle about the Fallback Provision of the Venue Statute

Every year, I usually get something like the following question: The fallback provision in the venue statute (28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3)) says that “if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section [that is, neither § 1391(b)(1) nor (b)(2) can be satisfied by any district], [then there is venue in] any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” But why say any defendant? All the defendants must be subject to PJ for the action to proceed (or the defendants over which there is no PJ will have to be dropped). Furthermore, we already know that all the defendants must be subject to PJ in the state where the action is brought, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). So the fallback provision looks superfluous. Why not just say that venue is not a consideration when there is no district that satisfies § 1391(b)(1) or (b)(2)?

An Essay Question from the 2006 Civil Procedure Exam

 With updated answers:

Essay Question 1. [45 points – 54 minutes]

P bought a blender at the X appliance store in her hometown of Lexington, Kentucky in 2004. That day she tried to make a smoothie. The blade on the blender immediately flew off and hit P in both eyes. Her vision was cloudy as a result of the accident. She complained to the D Corp., the manufacturer of the blender. The D Corp. paid for P to visit a doctor in Kentucky, who recommended that she visit an eye treatment facility located in Richmond, Virginia. Since P was retired, she decided to sell her house in Kentucky and rent an apartment in Richmond. She had few

A Multiple Choice Question about Rule 11

From the 2010 Exam

Question 11)   P, a domiciliary of New York, brings a $300,000 state law fraud action against D, a domiciliary of Pennsylvania, in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In P's complaint, which is signed by P's lawyer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a), there is an allegation that D knowingly lied to P about termites in a house in order to induce P to buy it.  After discovery, it becomes clear that there is no evidence in favor of the allegation in P's complaint that D believed that there were termites in the house at the time he sold the house to P.  D brings a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against P.  What one of the following is a valid reason why this motion should fail?

An Essay Question from the 2010 Exam

With updated answers:

Essay Question 6. [24 points]

D has lived in New York City all her life. In the fall of 2008, at the age of 21, she moved to Massachusetts to go to law school. At the beginning of her second year of law school, in the fall of 2009, she interviewed only with firms located in New York, although she did not get any offers. In the fall of 2009, soon after her interviews, she was driving a rental car while on vacation in California when she ran into a car driven by P, a domiciliary of Massachusetts. A month after the accident, P sued D under California negligence law in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts, for $100,000 in damages for his injuries in the accident. D was served while she was visiting her parents in New York City. D makes a preanswer motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and improper venue. Will her motion succeed and why or why not?

Two Multiple Choice Questions from the 2008 Exam

The following are two multiple choice questions from the 2008 Civil Procedure Exam. The updated answer key follows.

1. P is suing D in federal court for federal securities fraud. Which of the following is most likely a violation of Rule 11?

 a. P’s complaint failed to state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that D knew what D was saying was false.

An Essay Question from the 2007 Civil Procedure Exam

The following is an essay question from the 2007 exam that my current CivPro students should be able to do at this point. I have changed the answer key in response to intervening law, especially Goodyear.

Multiple Choice Questions from the 2010 Civil Procedure Examination

Here are three multiple choice questions from my 2010 Civil Procedure examination that my current CivPro students should be able to do at this point. I'll start with the questions and then give an explanation of the answers. My explanations have been updated to take into account this year’s reading and relevant changes in the law (especially the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011). Here, by the way, is an explanation of a point biserial.