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.