CIV 3701 EXAMINATION SET 2026
COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED
ANSWERS
⩥ A senator from State A became upset when he learned that residents of
State A are not permitted to bring state law products liability suits
against State A companies in State A federal courts, but that residents of
State B may do so.
The senator plans to introduce legislation that states: "Federal courts
shall have jurisdiction when the plaintiff's cause of action shows that it is
based upon a state products liability law." Is the proposed legislation
constitutional?
A: Yes, because Congress has plenary power to extend federal
jurisdiction to any questions arising under federal law or the U.S.
Constitution.
B: Yes, because Congress has plenary power to create federal courts and
determine their jurisdiction.
C: No, because it would extend federal jurisdiction to state law claims
without requiring diversity of citizenship among the parties.
,D: No, because it would not extend federal jurisdiction to defendants.
Answer: C: No, because it would extend federal jurisdiction to state law
claims without requiring diversity of citizenship among the parties.
C is correct. If the senator's proposed legislation were to pass, it would
allow a plaintiff to bring suit and avoid the diversity requirement, which
would be unconstitutional.
⩥ A pilot from State A sued a librarian from State B in a federal district
court in State A. The librarian sold the pilot an expensive collectible
watch through a website that generated a valid sales contract. The pilot's
complaint alleged that the librarian breached the contract's terms
because the librarian sold the pilot a watch that materially varied from
the description the librarian had provided. The pilot is seeking $175,000
in damages.
Shortly after selling the watch, the librarian went to State A on vacation
with her family. This was the librarian's first time ever in State A. While
visiting State A, the librarian was served with the pilot's complaint and a
summons in accordance with State A law. The librarian filed a motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Should the court grant the librarian's motion to dismiss?
A: Yes, because only federal courts have jurisdiction to hear disputes
between citizens. Answer: D: No, because the librarian's physical
,presence in State A when she was served is sufficient to establish
personal jurisdiction.
D is correct. The court should not grant the motion because both subject-
matter and personal jurisdiction are satisfied. The facts support diversity
jurisdiction based on the citizenship of the parties and amount in
controversy. Furthermore, under Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), a
court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if
she is present in the forum state when personally served with process.
This occurred here, when the librarian was in State A on vacation and
personally served with the complaint and summons in accordance with
State A law
⩥ A beneficiary of a trust, who is a citizen of State A, has sued the
trustee in federal court in State A for failing to correctly distribute the
income from the trust, seeking an accounting. The trustee was personally
served with process and the complaint by the beneficiary's attorney
while the trustee was vacationing in State A. The trustee is a citizen of
State B, and the accounts that are the subject of the trust are located in
State B.
What is the trustee's best response to the complaint?
A: Answer the complaint and counterclaim for abuse of process.
, B: File an action in a State B court and move to enjoin the State A
action.
C: Move to dismiss for improper service by the attorney.
D: Move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Answer: D: Move
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
D is correct. The court in State A lacks personal jurisdiction over the
trustee. Although the trustee was served in State A, the facts fail to
indicate any other contacts between the trustee and State A, and the trust
assets are located in State B. In addition, the trustee was sued in a
representative capacity but was served while in State A on a personal
vacation. Thus, the trustee can argue that the service did not establish
personal jurisdiction over him concerning his role as trustee. Further, the
trustee has no minimum contacts as a trustee with State A to satisfy the
requirements of fair play and substantial justice. See Hanson v. Denkla,
357 U.S. 235 (1958).
⩥ A shareholder of a car manufacturing company wants to sue the
company in federal court for breach of fiduciary duty.
What information about the company, besides its place of incorporation,
does the shareholder's attorney need in order to determine whether the
parties are diverse?
COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED
ANSWERS
⩥ A senator from State A became upset when he learned that residents of
State A are not permitted to bring state law products liability suits
against State A companies in State A federal courts, but that residents of
State B may do so.
The senator plans to introduce legislation that states: "Federal courts
shall have jurisdiction when the plaintiff's cause of action shows that it is
based upon a state products liability law." Is the proposed legislation
constitutional?
A: Yes, because Congress has plenary power to extend federal
jurisdiction to any questions arising under federal law or the U.S.
Constitution.
B: Yes, because Congress has plenary power to create federal courts and
determine their jurisdiction.
C: No, because it would extend federal jurisdiction to state law claims
without requiring diversity of citizenship among the parties.
,D: No, because it would not extend federal jurisdiction to defendants.
Answer: C: No, because it would extend federal jurisdiction to state law
claims without requiring diversity of citizenship among the parties.
C is correct. If the senator's proposed legislation were to pass, it would
allow a plaintiff to bring suit and avoid the diversity requirement, which
would be unconstitutional.
⩥ A pilot from State A sued a librarian from State B in a federal district
court in State A. The librarian sold the pilot an expensive collectible
watch through a website that generated a valid sales contract. The pilot's
complaint alleged that the librarian breached the contract's terms
because the librarian sold the pilot a watch that materially varied from
the description the librarian had provided. The pilot is seeking $175,000
in damages.
Shortly after selling the watch, the librarian went to State A on vacation
with her family. This was the librarian's first time ever in State A. While
visiting State A, the librarian was served with the pilot's complaint and a
summons in accordance with State A law. The librarian filed a motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Should the court grant the librarian's motion to dismiss?
A: Yes, because only federal courts have jurisdiction to hear disputes
between citizens. Answer: D: No, because the librarian's physical
,presence in State A when she was served is sufficient to establish
personal jurisdiction.
D is correct. The court should not grant the motion because both subject-
matter and personal jurisdiction are satisfied. The facts support diversity
jurisdiction based on the citizenship of the parties and amount in
controversy. Furthermore, under Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), a
court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if
she is present in the forum state when personally served with process.
This occurred here, when the librarian was in State A on vacation and
personally served with the complaint and summons in accordance with
State A law
⩥ A beneficiary of a trust, who is a citizen of State A, has sued the
trustee in federal court in State A for failing to correctly distribute the
income from the trust, seeking an accounting. The trustee was personally
served with process and the complaint by the beneficiary's attorney
while the trustee was vacationing in State A. The trustee is a citizen of
State B, and the accounts that are the subject of the trust are located in
State B.
What is the trustee's best response to the complaint?
A: Answer the complaint and counterclaim for abuse of process.
, B: File an action in a State B court and move to enjoin the State A
action.
C: Move to dismiss for improper service by the attorney.
D: Move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Answer: D: Move
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
D is correct. The court in State A lacks personal jurisdiction over the
trustee. Although the trustee was served in State A, the facts fail to
indicate any other contacts between the trustee and State A, and the trust
assets are located in State B. In addition, the trustee was sued in a
representative capacity but was served while in State A on a personal
vacation. Thus, the trustee can argue that the service did not establish
personal jurisdiction over him concerning his role as trustee. Further, the
trustee has no minimum contacts as a trustee with State A to satisfy the
requirements of fair play and substantial justice. See Hanson v. Denkla,
357 U.S. 235 (1958).
⩥ A shareholder of a car manufacturing company wants to sue the
company in federal court for breach of fiduciary duty.
What information about the company, besides its place of incorporation,
does the shareholder's attorney need in order to determine whether the
parties are diverse?
