Civil Procedure Multiple Choice
Passenger, a citizen of State P, was injured when Driver, a citizen of State D, lost control of a
bus maintained by Busco, a firm incorporated in State B and having its principal place of
business in State D. In State P federal district court, Passenger asserted a claim against
Driver for negligent operation of the vehicle and sought damages in the sum of $100,000.
Driver responded by asserting a claim in impleader against Busco and demanding
contribution in the sum of $50,000 for negligent maintenance of the vehicle.
If Busco responds by moving to dismiss Driver's claim in impleader for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, then Busco's motion should be - correct answer-(a) Denied, because Driver's
claim in impleader against Busco arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that gave
rise to Passenger's claim against Driver.
Don, who resides in the Northern District of Texas, and Dulcinea, who resides in the
Southern District of Texas, infringed a copyright interest held by Panza, who resides in the
District of New Mexico, by copying and selling one of Panza's literary works in the District of
New Mexico without his permission. In response, Panza brought an action for copyright
infringement against Don and Dulcinea in United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico. If Don and Dulcinea move to dismiss the action due to improper venue, then the
motion should be -- - correct answer-(d) Denied, because under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is
permitted in any district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred.
Texco, a Texas corporation, and Norco, a Norwegian corporation, entered into a project
agreement with German Inc., a German corporation, for the purpose of developing certain
underwater petroleum reserves controlled by German Inc. in Europe's North Sea. In
exchange for investing in the project, Texco and Norco were each promised premium prices
for, and free pipeline transportation of, North Sea petroleum extracted by German Inc. After
the reserves were developed, however, German Inc. barred both Texco and Norco from
either buying petroleum at premium prices or transporting North Sea petroleum by pipeline
for free.
In Texas state court, Texco and Norco brought an action asserting claims for breach of
contract, fraud, and misrepresentation against German Inc. Invoking both federal question
and diversity jurisdiction, German Inc. timely removed the action to Texas federal district
court, where it filed timely motions - correct answer-(a) Incorrect, because under Capron v.
Van Noorden, the better practice is to address a potential defect in subject matter
jurisdiction, which was raised by the motion to remand, before addressing other potential
defects in the forum.
As to Texco and Norco's motion to remand, the district court should have determined that
diversity jurisdiction -- - correct answer-(d) Was not established, because German Inc.'s and
Norco's status as alien corporations defeats diversity jurisdiction.
, As to Texco and Norco's motion to remand, the district court should have determined that
federal question jurisdiction -- - correct answer-(c) Was not established, because the action
raises no substantial federal question.
Paul, a citizen of the State of Bullocks, sued Danco, a company incorporated and having its
principal place of business in the State of Wilshire, for breach of contract. The action was
filed in Bullocks federal district court. The Bullocks Rules of Civil Procedure require a
nonresident defendant corporation sued in Bullocks to enter a special appearance in order to
preserve its right to challenge personal jurisdiction. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
impose no such requirement.
Danco did not enter a special appearance, but did file a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court should -- - correct answer-(c) Hear the motion,
because under Hanna v. Plumer, a Bullocks federal court sitting in diversity must apply the
federal procedural rule whenever such rule irreconcilably conflicts with state law and is
arguably procedural.
Landy, the landlady of an apartment building, and Tenner, her tenant, are both citizens of the
State of Gupta, which maintains on its books a statute containing the following provisions:
Section 1. In any unlawful detainer action brought in a court of this State by a landlady
against a tenant for non-payment of rent, the tenant may be served with notice of such
action by mailing the summons and a copy of the complaint to the tenant at his rental unit.
Section 2. In any action described in section 1, a writ of possession in favor of the landlady
shall be issued by the court upon the landlady's filing of a declaration that she has probable
cause to believe that the tenant has failed to pay rent. No bond need be posted. If the writ of
possession is found to have been issued erroneously, then the tenant shall be restored to
possession of the rental unit.
The apartment building in question is situated in a neighborho - correct answer-(b) Granted,
because the activities of the Bangers cast doubt on whether mail notice is reasonably
calculated under the circumstances to give Tenner actual notice.
Same facts as No. 7, but assume that the rental agreement entered into between Landy and
Tenant contains a clause incorporating by reference the provision for mail notice found in
Section 1 of the statute. If Tenner moves to dismiss the action for insufficiency of service of
process, then the motion should be -- - correct answer-(c) Denied, unless by analogy Tenner
can show that the clause is unreasonable because it is not vital to the rental agreement,
would force Tenner to defend in a remote and alien forum, and was negotiated in bad faith.
Before the reversion of the province of Hong Kong from British to mainland Chinese rule,
Cal, a citizen of California, entered into a contract with Hongko, a Hong Kong corporation.
After reversion, mainland Chinese officials replaced a number of judicial institutions
established by the British with judicial institutions preferred by the Communist Party. Later,
during Communist Party rule, Cal brought an action against Hongko for breach of contract in
California. Hongko moved to dismiss. Cal's best argument against dismissal is that -- -
correct answer-(b) Hong Kong is not a feasible alternative forum.
Passenger, a citizen of State P, was injured when Driver, a citizen of State D, lost control of a
bus maintained by Busco, a firm incorporated in State B and having its principal place of
business in State D. In State P federal district court, Passenger asserted a claim against
Driver for negligent operation of the vehicle and sought damages in the sum of $100,000.
Driver responded by asserting a claim in impleader against Busco and demanding
contribution in the sum of $50,000 for negligent maintenance of the vehicle.
If Busco responds by moving to dismiss Driver's claim in impleader for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, then Busco's motion should be - correct answer-(a) Denied, because Driver's
claim in impleader against Busco arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that gave
rise to Passenger's claim against Driver.
Don, who resides in the Northern District of Texas, and Dulcinea, who resides in the
Southern District of Texas, infringed a copyright interest held by Panza, who resides in the
District of New Mexico, by copying and selling one of Panza's literary works in the District of
New Mexico without his permission. In response, Panza brought an action for copyright
infringement against Don and Dulcinea in United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico. If Don and Dulcinea move to dismiss the action due to improper venue, then the
motion should be -- - correct answer-(d) Denied, because under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is
permitted in any district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred.
Texco, a Texas corporation, and Norco, a Norwegian corporation, entered into a project
agreement with German Inc., a German corporation, for the purpose of developing certain
underwater petroleum reserves controlled by German Inc. in Europe's North Sea. In
exchange for investing in the project, Texco and Norco were each promised premium prices
for, and free pipeline transportation of, North Sea petroleum extracted by German Inc. After
the reserves were developed, however, German Inc. barred both Texco and Norco from
either buying petroleum at premium prices or transporting North Sea petroleum by pipeline
for free.
In Texas state court, Texco and Norco brought an action asserting claims for breach of
contract, fraud, and misrepresentation against German Inc. Invoking both federal question
and diversity jurisdiction, German Inc. timely removed the action to Texas federal district
court, where it filed timely motions - correct answer-(a) Incorrect, because under Capron v.
Van Noorden, the better practice is to address a potential defect in subject matter
jurisdiction, which was raised by the motion to remand, before addressing other potential
defects in the forum.
As to Texco and Norco's motion to remand, the district court should have determined that
diversity jurisdiction -- - correct answer-(d) Was not established, because German Inc.'s and
Norco's status as alien corporations defeats diversity jurisdiction.
, As to Texco and Norco's motion to remand, the district court should have determined that
federal question jurisdiction -- - correct answer-(c) Was not established, because the action
raises no substantial federal question.
Paul, a citizen of the State of Bullocks, sued Danco, a company incorporated and having its
principal place of business in the State of Wilshire, for breach of contract. The action was
filed in Bullocks federal district court. The Bullocks Rules of Civil Procedure require a
nonresident defendant corporation sued in Bullocks to enter a special appearance in order to
preserve its right to challenge personal jurisdiction. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
impose no such requirement.
Danco did not enter a special appearance, but did file a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court should -- - correct answer-(c) Hear the motion,
because under Hanna v. Plumer, a Bullocks federal court sitting in diversity must apply the
federal procedural rule whenever such rule irreconcilably conflicts with state law and is
arguably procedural.
Landy, the landlady of an apartment building, and Tenner, her tenant, are both citizens of the
State of Gupta, which maintains on its books a statute containing the following provisions:
Section 1. In any unlawful detainer action brought in a court of this State by a landlady
against a tenant for non-payment of rent, the tenant may be served with notice of such
action by mailing the summons and a copy of the complaint to the tenant at his rental unit.
Section 2. In any action described in section 1, a writ of possession in favor of the landlady
shall be issued by the court upon the landlady's filing of a declaration that she has probable
cause to believe that the tenant has failed to pay rent. No bond need be posted. If the writ of
possession is found to have been issued erroneously, then the tenant shall be restored to
possession of the rental unit.
The apartment building in question is situated in a neighborho - correct answer-(b) Granted,
because the activities of the Bangers cast doubt on whether mail notice is reasonably
calculated under the circumstances to give Tenner actual notice.
Same facts as No. 7, but assume that the rental agreement entered into between Landy and
Tenant contains a clause incorporating by reference the provision for mail notice found in
Section 1 of the statute. If Tenner moves to dismiss the action for insufficiency of service of
process, then the motion should be -- - correct answer-(c) Denied, unless by analogy Tenner
can show that the clause is unreasonable because it is not vital to the rental agreement,
would force Tenner to defend in a remote and alien forum, and was negotiated in bad faith.
Before the reversion of the province of Hong Kong from British to mainland Chinese rule,
Cal, a citizen of California, entered into a contract with Hongko, a Hong Kong corporation.
After reversion, mainland Chinese officials replaced a number of judicial institutions
established by the British with judicial institutions preferred by the Communist Party. Later,
during Communist Party rule, Cal brought an action against Hongko for breach of contract in
California. Hongko moved to dismiss. Cal's best argument against dismissal is that -- -
correct answer-(b) Hong Kong is not a feasible alternative forum.
