Civ Pro Questions

An employee, a citizen of State A, worked at a company’s manufacturing plant in State A. The company is incorporated in State A but is run from its headquarters in State B. A piece of machinery at the company’s manufacturing plant malfunctioned and injured the employee. The employee sues the company in a federal court in State A in the district where the manufacturing plant is located. The employee argues that the company negligently maintained the machinery and seeks $250,000 in damages.

 

State A has a law that provides that any violation of state or federal safety laws creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence per se. To establish negligence per se, the employee alleges that the machinery had not been inspected in the seven months preceding the malfunction and that this lack of inspection violated regulations of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Organization requiring the machinery to be inspected every six months. The company moves to dismiss the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

 

Is the court likely to grant the company’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction?

• Yes, because there is no subject-matter jurisdiction.

• Yes, because federal courts cannot hear state-law tort claims.

• No, because the employee’s claim requires application of federal law.

• No, because there is diversity jurisdiction.

Answer explanation

Answer option A is correct because there is no subject-matter jurisdiction. In addition to claims that arise under federal law, a federal court has federal question jurisdiction over a state-law claim if the complaint necessarily raises a federal issue, that issue is actually disputed in the case, the resolution of the issue is important to the federal system as a whole, and the federal court can entertain the suit without disrupting Congress’s allocation of jurisdiction between the federal and state judicial systems. That standard (referred to as the “embedded-federal-issue doctrine”) is difficult to meet. Here, the claim does not arise under federal law, and the federal regulation raised by the complaint is clear and easy to apply because the issue is whether the company complied with a required inspection schedule. Therefore, the court is unlikely to find subject-matter jurisdiction under the embedded-federal-issue doctrine. Answer option B is incorrect because it is too broad. Federal courts may hear a state-law claim if it meets diversity requirements or if resolution of the claim necessarily involves a disputed and substantial issue of federal law, as just described. Answer option C is incorrect because the necessary application of federal law alone does not meet the high standard required for a court to find federal question jurisdiction over a state-law claim. Answer option D is incorrect because there is no diversity jurisdiction; the company is incorporated in State A and thus is not diverse from the employee, who is a citizen of State A.

A homeowner, a citizen of State A, sued a contractor, a citizen of State B, in federal court for breach of contract. The homeowner alleged damages in excess of $100,000, claiming the first contractor improperly disposed of hazardous waste while working on the homeowner’s home. The first contractor impleaded a second contractor, a citizen of State C, claiming the second contractor is or may be liable to the first contractor for all or part of plaintiff's damages against the first contractor. The homeowner then amended the complaint to add a claim against the second contractor that alleged the same breach-of-contract action and damages.

Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim between the homeowner and the second contractor?

• Yes, because the homeowner’s claim against the second contractor arises out of a common nucleus of operative facts such that it forms the same case or controversy.

• Yes, because the homeowner’s claim against the second contractor is between diverse parties and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.

• No, because the homeowner’s claim against the first contractor is premised solely on diversity jurisdiction and the first contractor was the party who impleaded the second contractor.

• No, because the homeowner as the plaintiff cannot assert a claim against a third-party defendant.

Answer explanation

Answer option B is correct. The court has diversity jurisdiction over the second contractor with respect to the homeowner’s claim because the diversity and amount in controversy requirements are met. Answer option A is incorrect because while it is a correct statement of the standard for supplemental jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction is not required here because there is diversity jurisdiction supporting the homeowner’s claim against the second contractor. Answer options C and D are incorrect as they both address limitations prohibiting plaintiffs from claiming over against third-party defendants under supplemental jurisdiction. Because there is original jurisdiction over the second contractor (i.e., diversity of citizenship), however, supplemental jurisdiction prohibitions would not apply.

The plaintiff was a citizen of Mexico who was admitted as a permanent legal resident alien to the U.S. and lived in a U.S. state. The plaintiff subsequently moved to Mexico and had no plans to return to the U.S. While in Mexico, the plaintiff filed suit in federal district court against the defendant, a Mexican corporation with its principal place of business in Mexico. The suit alleged that the plaintiff sustained injuries when one of the defendant’s vehicles impacted the plaintiff and caused bodily injury. The plaintiff is seeking $100,000 in damages.

Is the plaintiff’s claim properly filed in federal court?

• Yes, because there is complete diversity.

• Yes, because there is alienage jurisdiction.

• No, because no party is a citizen of any U.S. state.

• No, because foreign citizens cannot sue in federal court.

Answer explanation

Answer option C is correct. Alienage jurisdiction is a special rule that allows for diversity jurisdiction over claims between a citizen of a U.S. state and a citizen of a foreign country. Where a foreign citizen is a lawful permanent resident and domiciled in a different state than a citizen of a U.S. state, diversity jurisdiction will exist between these parties. The plaintiff here, although formerly a permanent legal resident of the U.S., no longer resides in any U.S. state and does not intend to return to the U.S. Thus, the plaintiff is domiciled in Mexico. There is never diversity jurisdiction over claims solely between foreign citizens. Answer options A, B, and D are necessarily incorrect for these reasons.

Three drivers, all U.S. citizens, were involved in a chain-reaction collision in Mexico. The first driver, a resident of State A, was struck from behind by the second driver, a resident of State B, who had been struck from behind by the third driver, a resident of State C. All three states are single-district states. The first driver sued the second driver and the third driver in federal court in State B to recover for the first driver’s injuries. The second driver and the third driver moved to dismiss for improper venue.

How is the court likely to rule?

• Grant the motion, because a substantial part of the events or omissions did not occur in State B.

• Grant the motion, because none of the events or omissions occurred in the U.S.

• Deny the motion, because the defendants cannot prove there is another proper venue in the U.S.

• Deny the motion, because the second driver is subject to general personal jurisdiction in State B.

Answer explanation

Answer option D is correct. Under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper (1) in any judicial district in which a defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the same state, or (2) any judicial district in which either a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the claim is located, or (3) if there is no proper venue under either (1) or (2), any judicial district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the action. The second driver and the third driver do not both reside in the same state; thus, there is no proper venue under option (1). None of the events or omissions occurred in State B or anywhere else in the U.S.; thus, there is no proper venue under option (2). As a result, option (3) is available, and venue is proper where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Here, the second driver is a resident of State B, so the second driver is domiciled there and subject to general personal jurisdiction in State B. Answer options A and B are incorrect for the same reasons. Answer option C is incorrect because the defendants do not have the burden to prove another proper venue on a motion to dismiss.

A consumer, who was a citizen of State A, purchased a power tool that malfunctioned, injuring him. The manufacturer of the power tool was incorporated in State B, with a large office and two large manufacturing facilities in State C. The manufacturer also had a small office in State A where the president and all decision-making officers of the corporation maintained the corporation’s management offices. The plaintiff sued the manufacturer in federal court in State A based upon diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Assume the amount in controversy has been met.

Does the federal court have subject-matter jurisdiction? 

• No, because the manufacturer has a management office in State A where the corporation’s president and decision-making officers are located.

• No, because the consumer was injured in State A.

• Yes, because the manufacturer is incorporated in State B and has a large office and two large manufacturing facilities in State C.

• Yes, because the manufacturer is incorporated in State B.

Answer explanation

Answer option A is correct. There is not diversity of citizenship among the parties, because the manufacturer’s management offices, where the president and decision-making officers are located, is in State A, the same state where the consumer is a citizen. A corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. Here, the manufacturer’s “nerve center” where the high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the activities of the corporation, is located in State A. Answer options B, C, and D are necessarily incorrect for the same reasons.

A college student, who grew up in State A and had never lived anywhere else, completed her final year of college at a university in State A. The student accepted a position with a firm in State B, rented an apartment there, packed her bags, and began driving to State B. En route, the student was in a serious car accident in State A with a State A citizen. The student was hospitalized for several months in State A and had to delay her move. The student filed suit against the State A driver in federal court in State A, alleging $50,000 in property damages and $75,000 in personal injuries.

Does the federal district court have subject-matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit?

• No, because diversity of citizenship does not exist.

• No, because the amount-in-controversy requirement has not been satisfied.

• Yes, because the student is a citizen of State B.

• Yes, because the student is a citizen of both State A and State B.

Answer explanation

Answer option A is correct. There is no diversity of citizenship. The student retained her State A citizenship because she had not yet taken up her new residence while physically present in her new domicile. Although she had the requisite intent to establish a new domicile in State B, she was not physically present there yet. Answer option C is necessarily incorrect for the same reason. Answer option B is incorrect because a plaintiff can aggregate the values of multiple claims against a single defendant to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. Answer option D is incorrect because natural persons can only have one domicile at a time.

The plaintiff, a citizen of State A, sued two defendants, a citizen of State B and a citizen of State C, in state court in State C. The defendants were properly served. The plaintiff sought $50,000 in damages against the State B defendant and $100,000 in damages against the State C defendant. Both claims were negligence claims based on injuries the plaintiff incurred during a hot air balloon accident in a balloon owned by the State B defendant and operated by the State C defendant. The accident in which the plaintiff was injured occurred in State C. The defendants remove the action to a federal court in State A.

If the plaintiff seeks to have the case remanded to state court, which of the following will the federal court most likely do?

• Deny the remand, because there is diversity jurisdiction.

• Deny the remand, because venue would be proper in State C.

• Grant the remand, because there is no subject-matter jurisdiction.

• Grant the remand, because one of the defendants is a citizen of State C.

Answer explanation

Answer option D is correct. there, there is diversity subject-matter jurisdiction because all defendants are citizens of different states than all plaintiffs and because the claim against the State C defendant meets the amount in controversy. Additionally, the claim against the State C defendant is so related that it arises out of the same case or controversy, and thus the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against the State C defendant. Nevertheless, if federal jurisdiction is based on diversity, then a properly served defendant who is a citizen of the state in which the state court action is originally filed cannot remove the case to federal court. This is the forum or “in-state” defendant rule. Because one of the defendants is a citizen of State C, where the action was originally filed, the defendants cannot remove the lawsuit to federal court even though the court would have subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. Answer options A and C are incorrect for the same reasons. Answer option B is incorrect because venue is irrelevant to removal and remand.

A plaintiff (a citizen of State A) sues his friend (a citizen of State B) and his roommate (a citizen of State C) for injuries received when the plaintiff, the friend, and the roommate were involved in a fight in a bar in Canada. The plaintiff lives in the United States, just across the border from Canada, and visits Canada frequently. Most of the witnesses to the fight are Canadian. Canadian courts have jurisdiction over such a claim but have statutory maximum caps on damages that might limit the plaintiff’s damage award. The plaintiff brings suit in federal court in State A, a single-district state. The plaintiff seeks $100,000 from the friend and $80,000 from the roommate. The plaintiff had both the friend and the roommate personally served with the summons and complaint when they were in State A at a wedding. The friend and the roommate seek to have the matter dismissed or heard in Canada, where a damage award might be limited.

What is the best argument for having the matter dismissed?

• Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

• Lack of personal jurisdiction.

• Improper venue.

• Canada is a more appropriate forum. 

Answer explanation

Answer option D is correct. The doctrine of forum non conveniens gives a court discretion to dismiss a case if another forum is better suited to hear it. Dismissal under this doctrine is available only when venue lies in the federal court where the matter was filed but there is a significantly more convenient court in a foreign country that would be able to adjudicate the case. In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss on these grounds, a court will consider (1) the location of potential witnesses and evidence, (2) possible undue hardship for the defendant, (3) the availability of adequate alternative forums for the plaintiff, (4) the choice of law applicable to the dispute, and (5) public policy. Under the fallback venue provision, which applies when the events giving rise to the claim occurred outside the United States and there are multiple defendants who do not all reside in the same state, venue is proper in any district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the action. Here, none of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in any judicial district in the United States (but rather in Canada), and all of the defendants do not reside in the same state. Therefore, the fallback venue provision applies. Because the friend and the roommate were personally served while voluntarily present in State A, they are subject to personal jurisdiction in the federal court in State A where the case was initially filed, and venue is thus appropriate there. The court therefore has discretion to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, and because most of the witnesses are in Canada and the matter may be heard there, Canada may be a more appropriate forum. Answer option A is incorrect because the court has diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims. Answer option B is incorrect because, as discussed, the court has personal jurisdiction over both defendants. Answer option C is incorrect because, as discussed, venue is proper under the fallback venue provision.

A hotel guest, a citizen of State A, filed suit against a hotel in federal court in State A, seeking $100,000 for the loss or theft of the guest’s jewelry from the hotel’s safe in breach of the parties’ bailment agreement. The hotel was incorporated in State B and also maintained its principal place of business there. A state statute of State B limited the liability of hotels for bailments to the actual value of the item or $500, whichever is less. The hotel moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

How is the court likely to rule?

• Grant the motion, because the hotel is not a citizen of the forum state.

• Grant the motion, because the amount in controversy is not satisfied.

• Deny the motion, because the parties are completely diverse.

• Deny the motion, because the guest is a citizen of the forum state.

Answer explanation

Answer option B is correct. The court will dismiss a suit where subject-matter jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship if the court can determine, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover more than the minimum amount in controversy, i.e., more than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Here, the $500 maximum liability limit that applies means that the plaintiff cannot recover more than $500, well below the minimum amount in controversy. Answer options A and D are incorrect because whether any party is a citizen of the forum state is irrelevant for diversity of citizenship subject-matter jurisdiction purposes. Answer option C is incorrect because even if the parties are diverse, the amount in controversy requirement must still be met.

A farmer and a grower are both domiciled in State A, and both use water from the river that runs between State A and State B to water their crops. A chemical company manufactures chemicals in State B, up the river used by the farmer and the grower. The chemical company is responsible for an accidental release of chemicals into the river. The chemical company is incorporated in and has its principal place of business in State B. The farmer and the grower join in bringing a negligence suit against the chemical company in state court in State A. The farmer alleges $65,000 in damages for crop loss. The grower brings two claims against the chemical company, alleging $65,000 in damages from crop loss and $20,000 for damage to the grower’s water filtration system caused by the chemicals in the river. The chemical company removes the case to the appropriate federal court in State A. The farmer and the grower object to the removal and move to have the case remanded.

Should the federal court remand the case to the state court in State A?

• Yes, because both the farmer and the grower reside in State A.

• Yes, because none of the individual claims meet the required amount in controversy.

• No, because there is subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims.

• The court should refuse to remand the grower’s claims but grant the farmer’s motion to remand because the farmer’s claim does not meet the amount in controversy.

Answer explanation

Answer option C is correct. The basic rule of removal (§ 1441(a)) states that if the plaintiff could have filed the case in federal court, then the defendant may remove it to the federal district court located in the district embracing the state court where the plaintiff filed it. This means the case must contain at least one claim that falls within the court’s federal question or diversity jurisdiction. A plaintiff seeking the exercise of diversity jurisdiction may aggregate as many claims as the plaintiff has against a single defendant in order to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. If the court has diversity jurisdiction over at least one claim, then the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over other claims by other plaintiffs that arise out of the same case or controversy even if those claims do not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, so long as they do not destroy complete diversity of the parties. Here, there is diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over the grower’s claims because the grower and the chemical company are diverse from one another, and the grower may aggregate the grower’s two claims against the chemical company for a total amount in controversy of $85,000, well in excess of the statutory minimum of greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Because the farmer’s negligence claim arises out of the same chemical spill by the chemical company, and joining the farmer will not destroy complete diversity of citizenship, the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the farmer’s claim. Answer options B and D are necessarily incorrect for these reasons. Answer option A is incorrect because diversity requirements are between adverse parties, not among individual plaintiffs or individual defendants.