Previous month:
March 2013
Next month:
May 2013

April 2013

Multiple Choice from 2007 Civ Pro Exam

1.    P (a citizen of New York) files a complaint against D (a citizen of Wisconsin) in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. P’s suit is for violation of federal securities laws that occurred in Wisconsin. D has never been to the state of New York and has never had any contact with the state. P hires a process server to serve D in Wisconsin. After knocking on the door of D’s home and finding no one there, the server affixes the summons and complaint to D’s front door. This manner of service is valid under New York law but not under Wisconsin law. D makes a pre-answer motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. Which of the following is most accurate?
a.    D’s motion should succeed. Under Hanna v. Plumer, the federal service rule applies. 
b.    D’s motion should succeed. Because P’s action has federal question subject matter jurisdiction, the federal service rule applies.
c.    D’s motion should succeed. D must be served within the state of New York.
d.    D’s motion should succeed. Since the federal service rule was not satisfied, service must be in accordance with Wisconsin law – the law of the state where D was served.
e.    D’s motion should not succeed.

Continue reading "Multiple Choice from 2007 Civ Pro Exam" »

Essay Question from the 2008 Civ Pro Exam

Question 8

P1 (a domiciliary of Nevada) was vacationing in California, when he stumbled into a Walmart and decided to buy a blender manufactured by the D Corp. (incorporated in Alabama). The D Corp. is a manufacturer of around 20 different kitchen appliances. Its main office is in Alabama. Its total sales are around $10 million. The blender was manufactured at the D Corp.’s factory (its only one, with around 90% of its employees), in California. P1 returned with the blender to his home in Nevada, where he was injured when the blade flew off, causing P1 $200,000 in damages.


Under Nevada law, P1’s breach of implied warranty action against the D Corp. can be assigned. Because P1 needed money to pay for doctor’s bills, he assigned 25% of his interest in his breach of implied warranty action against the D Corp. to P2 (a domiciliary of California) in return for $25,000.

The D Corp. sells its kitchen appliances solely to Walmart. The contracts of sale are always entered into between Walmart and the D Corp. in California and the transfer of ownership occurs at the factory in Alabama. The D Corp. does not control where Walmart sells its products. Walmart chooses not to sell D Corp. products in some states. The D Corp. knows, however, that around 3% of the sales of its products occur at Walmarts in Nevada. No D Corp. blenders, however, are sold in that state. The D Corp. occasionally takes out advertisements for its products in magazines with national circulation, including circulation in Nevada. The D Corp. has never taken out any ads concerning its blender, however.

P1 and P2 sue the D Corp. in state court in Nevada for breach of implied warranty. The D Corp. removes the action to the federal district court for the District of Nevada. The D Corp. then makes a motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. P1 and P2 make a motion to remand to the Nevada state court on the ground that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. How should the federal court decide these motions?

Continue reading "Essay Question from the 2008 Civ Pro Exam" »

Essay Question from the 2008 Civ Pro Exam

Question 7 

X (a domiciliary of Nevada) established a trust for the benefit of twin brothers: P (a domiciliary of Oregon) and Y (a domiciliary of Oregon). Upon reaching the age of 50, P will receive 75% and Y 25% of the value of the trust. At the age of 25, P sued the trustee of the trust, D (a domiciliary of Nevada), in the federal district court for Northern District of Georgia. P alleged that D wrongly claimed ownership of a $200,000 parcel of land in the Northern District of Georgia. The land, P argued, belonged to the trust. Y testified as a witness in the case. The jury determined that the land is in fact D’s and the federal court issued a judgment for D.

Soon afterward, D dies and Z inherits his estate. Within a year, Y sues Z in state court in Georgia. Y claims that the $200,000 property that Z inherited in fact belongs to the trust. Z claims that Y is issue precluded from relitigating whether the property belongs to the trust. How should the state court rule?

Continue reading "Essay Question from the 2008 Civ Pro Exam" »