Civil Procedure Practice Questions Quiz
1
Plaintiff owns a company that manufactures edible decorations used by commercial bakers
for holiday cakes. Defendant owns a company that distributes food coloring. Plaintiff enters
into a two-year contract with Defendant for the purchase of red and blue food coloring, both
of which are essential for cakes baked for the Fourth of July. Defendant is late shipping the
food coloring, and as a result Plaintiff loses out on a number of important contracts. Three
years later, Plaintiff sues Defendant in federal court for breach of contract. After the requisite
jurisdictional allegations, including that the court may exercise diversity jurisdiction, the
complaint avers: "Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff and Defendant failed to
deliver the goods on time." Defendant enters a general denial.
Five months after filing its answer, Defendant moves to amend its answer by raising the
statute of limitations as an affir - correct answer-Yes, in the court's discretion if justice so
requires
Plaintiff was driving a car and stopped at a red light. Defendant, a taxi driver, crashed into
the rear end of Plaintiff's car. Defendant was employed by Company, which owns
Defendant's taxi. Plaintiff filed a diversity action in federal court against Defendant and
Company alleging negligence. Paragraph 16 of the complaint alleged, "Defendant was
acting in the course of his employment when the accident took place." Before answering the
complaint, Company reviewed three internal documents: (a) a scheduling book that showed
Defendant was not officially assigned to work on the day of the accident; (b) a telephone log
that indicated two of the Company's other drivers called in sick on the day of the accident;
and (c) a garage receipt showing that Defendant signed the taxi out of the garage on the day
of the accident. Moreover, Company requested an interview with Defendant, but Defendant's
counsel refused to make him avai - correct answer-Company should answer, "company is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation"
**rule 11: reasonable inquiry
**a party that lacks knowledge must state that they lack the knowledge and it functions as a
denial
Plaintiff owns a deli called Health Foods. Defendant runs a company that sells "organic"
baked goods. Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant for the weekly delivery of
organic oatmeal cookies. It turns out that the "organic" cookies are really repackaged
highly-processed cookies that Defendant buys in bulk from a foreign wholesale company.
Plaintiff sued Defendant in federal court, alleging diversity jurisdiction. The complaint
included a proper jurisdictional statement and adequately made a demand for judgment. It
further alleged: (1) Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff to deliver thirty pounds of
organic oatmeal cookies weekly, (2) Defendant instead fraudulently delivered non-organic
cookies, and (3) Defendant engaged in fraud.
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim. How should the court
rule on the motion? - correct answer-The court should grant the motion because the
complaint fails to allege special matters
1
Plaintiff owns a company that manufactures edible decorations used by commercial bakers
for holiday cakes. Defendant owns a company that distributes food coloring. Plaintiff enters
into a two-year contract with Defendant for the purchase of red and blue food coloring, both
of which are essential for cakes baked for the Fourth of July. Defendant is late shipping the
food coloring, and as a result Plaintiff loses out on a number of important contracts. Three
years later, Plaintiff sues Defendant in federal court for breach of contract. After the requisite
jurisdictional allegations, including that the court may exercise diversity jurisdiction, the
complaint avers: "Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff and Defendant failed to
deliver the goods on time." Defendant enters a general denial.
Five months after filing its answer, Defendant moves to amend its answer by raising the
statute of limitations as an affir - correct answer-Yes, in the court's discretion if justice so
requires
Plaintiff was driving a car and stopped at a red light. Defendant, a taxi driver, crashed into
the rear end of Plaintiff's car. Defendant was employed by Company, which owns
Defendant's taxi. Plaintiff filed a diversity action in federal court against Defendant and
Company alleging negligence. Paragraph 16 of the complaint alleged, "Defendant was
acting in the course of his employment when the accident took place." Before answering the
complaint, Company reviewed three internal documents: (a) a scheduling book that showed
Defendant was not officially assigned to work on the day of the accident; (b) a telephone log
that indicated two of the Company's other drivers called in sick on the day of the accident;
and (c) a garage receipt showing that Defendant signed the taxi out of the garage on the day
of the accident. Moreover, Company requested an interview with Defendant, but Defendant's
counsel refused to make him avai - correct answer-Company should answer, "company is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation"
**rule 11: reasonable inquiry
**a party that lacks knowledge must state that they lack the knowledge and it functions as a
denial
Plaintiff owns a deli called Health Foods. Defendant runs a company that sells "organic"
baked goods. Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant for the weekly delivery of
organic oatmeal cookies. It turns out that the "organic" cookies are really repackaged
highly-processed cookies that Defendant buys in bulk from a foreign wholesale company.
Plaintiff sued Defendant in federal court, alleging diversity jurisdiction. The complaint
included a proper jurisdictional statement and adequately made a demand for judgment. It
further alleged: (1) Defendant entered into a contract with Plaintiff to deliver thirty pounds of
organic oatmeal cookies weekly, (2) Defendant instead fraudulently delivered non-organic
cookies, and (3) Defendant engaged in fraud.
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim. How should the court
rule on the motion? - correct answer-The court should grant the motion because the
complaint fails to allege special matters
