STUDENTS SUCCESS
Revision Examination Tests
“Come all for this greatness”
...100% Correct Ans...
CIV 3701 (CIVIL PROCEDURE) ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1
ANSWERS/SOLUTIONS (UNISA) 2024 /2025 - DISTINCTION
GUARANTEED 100%
A person's domicile is usually defined as the state where he has taken
up residence with the intent to reside indefinitely. Under this definition,
residence is not equivalent to domicile; having a residence in the state is
necessary but not sufficient to establish a domicile for diversity
purposes.
ans:> ex: Hawkins vs. Masters Farms
* If Hawes owns houses in both Missouri and Wyoming and spends a
good deal of time in both states, he will still have onlyn one domicile.
Which state it is depends on his subjective intent-sometimes almost
impossible to ascertain-to make one particular state his home.
Assume that France sues DeLesseps on the canal contract, and
DeLesseps wishes to recover from Said, his subcontractor, for certain
camels Said took away when he left the job? May he Implead Said?
ans:> This is not a proper impleader claim. Here, DeLesseps has a claim
against Said, arising out of the same transaction (construction of canal)
as the main claim, but Said's liability to DeLesseps is not derivative of
the main suit. DeLesseps has a totally independent claim against Said,
which he could assert whether France wins or loses on the main claim or
never sues at all.
Because Byrd reaffirmed that state rules of form and mode should
usually be applied if they might prove outcome determinative, it still
appeared after Byrd that state procedural rules would often displace the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in diversity cases.
ans:> In Hanna, the plaintiff served process on the defendant, the
executor of a massachusetts estate, by leaving the summons and
complaint at his home with "a person of suitable age and discretion," as
,required by FRCP 4 (d)(1). However, a Massachusetts statute required
in-hand service upon the executor. If service was valid, the case would
go forward. If it was not, it would have to be dismissed, since the
executor had not been served in hand within the limitations period.
Validity of service turned thus on whether the federal court was required
to apply the state service rule instead of Rule 4(d)(1)
Byrd reaffirmed that, under York, federal courts should apply outcome-
determinative state law even on procedural issues as to which there is
federal constitutional authority to make it own rule.
ans:> Justice Brennan went on to hold that, in deciding whether to follow
state law in matters of "form and mode" (that is, the area in which the
court follows state law as a matter of policy rather than constitutional
command) the federal court must consider not only the york policy of
uniform outcomes in diversity cases, but also any countervailing federal
policies that arise from the federal court's status as an independant
judicial system.
Challenge and Waiver- 12 (b), (h), and (g)
If you make a pre-answer motion(or make an appearance or litigate
other issues) without first raising objection to personal jurisdiction, then
the defense is waived.
Objection to personal jurisdiction must be raised at the earliers
opportunity.
ans:>
Choosing a proper court
Barnum, a citizen of Maine, sues Ringling Brothers, Inc. for injuries
suffered when Kelly, a Ringling Brothers' Clown, fails to secure the door
on a lion cage while the train is refueling in Bangor, Maine. Leo, a
trained lion, escapes and bites Barnum. Ringling Brothers is
incorporated in wisconsin, with its headquarters in Manhattan, in the
Southern District of N.Y. The circus has its winter quarters in Florida, has
permanent facilities for training performers in the Northern District of
Ohio, and performs for two or three weeks each year in every state on
the eastern seaboard. (for those whose geography is rusty, the eastern
seaboard states include Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.)
,-Could the suit be brought in the Northern District of New York? (New
York
ans:> This case could not be brought in the Norhern District of New
York. The analysis of the court's subject matter jurisdiction is exactly the
same as in example 1a. A diversity case is a diversity case is a diversity
case: If the parties are from different states and the amount-in
controversy requirement is satisfied, every federal district court will have
subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity. Personal jurisdiction
may also be proper in NY based on the fact that Ringling Brothers
headquarters is in the state. If this suffices to support general in
personam jurisdiction over Ringling Brothers- That is, Jurisdiction for all
claims, including those arising in other states- then Barnum can sue in
NY even for this Maine accident. The supreme court strongly suggested
in Goodyear that a corporation is subject to general in personam
jurisdiction in the state of its principal place of business. But is NY
Ringling brothers principal place of business for personal jurisdiction
purposes? Maybe. we know it is for diversity purposes, but the court has
yet to tell us whether the headquarters state is the state of a
corporation's principal place of business for personal jurisdiction
purposes (or, if it is not, whether if might be a sufficiently important
contact to support general in personam jurisdiction anyway)!
-Venue in Barnum's suit cannot be based on 28 U.S.C 1391 (b)(2) since
none of the events giving rise to his claim took place in NY. But does
Ringling Brothers "reside" in the Northern District under 1391 (b)(1)? No,
it doesn't. Subsections 1391 (c) and (d) tell us that Ringling Brothers
"resides" in any New York district in which its contacts would suffice to
subject it to personal jurisdiction. Once again, the analysis of the rings is
similar but a little bit different. Since Ringling Brothers has its headquat
Choosing a proper court
Barnum, a citizen of Maine, sues Ringling Brothers, Inc. for injuries
suffered when Kelly, a Ringling Brothers' Clown, fails to secure the door
on a lion cage while the train is refueling in Bangor, Maine. Leo, a
trained lion, escapes and bites Barnum. Ringling Brothers is
incorporated in wisconsin, with its headquarters in Manhattan, in the
Southern District of N.Y. The circus has its winter quarters in Florida, has
permanent facilities for training performers in the Northern District of
Ohio, and performs for two or three weeks each year in every state on
the eastern seaboard. (for those whose geography is rusty, the eastern
seaboard states include Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.)
, a. Could the suit be brought in the federal district court in Maine? (Main
ans:> There is clearly no problem with subject matter jurisdiction. Barum
is a Maine citizen, and Ringling Brothers is a citizen of Wisconsin (where
it is incorporated) and New York (where it has its principal place of
business under 28 U.S.C 1332 (c) (1). As long as Barnum's claim is for
more than $75,000, the requirements for federal subject matter
jurisdiction based on diversity are met. The fact that Barnum is a citizen
of the state where suit was brought is irrelevant to the diversity analysis;
diversity is satisfied as long as he and Ringling Brothers are citizens of
different states, regardless of which states those are.
- The maine court will also have personal jurisdiction over Ringling
Brothers in this action. The claim arises out of a negligent act by its
employee, which took place in the state and caused injury in the state.
The defendant's negligent in-state conduct is sufficient to support
specific in personam jurisdiction under the minimum contacts test, that
is, jurisdiction over a claim such as Barnum's, which arises out of the in-
state act itself.
- Venue is also proper in Maine under 1391 (b)(1) on the ground that
Ringling Brothers "resides" in Maine for venue purposes. Under 28
U.S.C 1391 (c), a corporate defendant "resides" in every district in which
it is subject to personal jurisdiction. Because the circus is subject to
minimum contacts jurisdiction in the District of Maine for this claim, it
"resides" there under 28 U.S.C 1391 (c). Venue is also proper under
1391 (b)(2) since a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim
took place in the district.
Choosing a proper court
Barnum, a citizen of Maine, sues Ringling Brothers, Inc. for injuries
suffered when Kelly, a Ringling Brothers' Clown, fails to secure the door
on a lion cage while the train is refueling in Bangor, Maine. Leo, a
trained lion, escapes and bites Barnum. Ringling Brothers is
incorporated in wisconsin, with its headquarters in Manhattan, in the
Southern District of N.Y. The circus has its winter quarters in Florida, has
permanent facilities for training performers in the Northern District of
Ohio, and performs for two or three weeks each year in every state on
the eastern seaboard. (for those whose geography is rusty, the eastern
seaboard states include Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.)
D. could the suit be brought in any federal district court in New Jersey?
Revision Examination Tests
“Come all for this greatness”
...100% Correct Ans...
CIV 3701 (CIVIL PROCEDURE) ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1
ANSWERS/SOLUTIONS (UNISA) 2024 /2025 - DISTINCTION
GUARANTEED 100%
A person's domicile is usually defined as the state where he has taken
up residence with the intent to reside indefinitely. Under this definition,
residence is not equivalent to domicile; having a residence in the state is
necessary but not sufficient to establish a domicile for diversity
purposes.
ans:> ex: Hawkins vs. Masters Farms
* If Hawes owns houses in both Missouri and Wyoming and spends a
good deal of time in both states, he will still have onlyn one domicile.
Which state it is depends on his subjective intent-sometimes almost
impossible to ascertain-to make one particular state his home.
Assume that France sues DeLesseps on the canal contract, and
DeLesseps wishes to recover from Said, his subcontractor, for certain
camels Said took away when he left the job? May he Implead Said?
ans:> This is not a proper impleader claim. Here, DeLesseps has a claim
against Said, arising out of the same transaction (construction of canal)
as the main claim, but Said's liability to DeLesseps is not derivative of
the main suit. DeLesseps has a totally independent claim against Said,
which he could assert whether France wins or loses on the main claim or
never sues at all.
Because Byrd reaffirmed that state rules of form and mode should
usually be applied if they might prove outcome determinative, it still
appeared after Byrd that state procedural rules would often displace the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in diversity cases.
ans:> In Hanna, the plaintiff served process on the defendant, the
executor of a massachusetts estate, by leaving the summons and
complaint at his home with "a person of suitable age and discretion," as
,required by FRCP 4 (d)(1). However, a Massachusetts statute required
in-hand service upon the executor. If service was valid, the case would
go forward. If it was not, it would have to be dismissed, since the
executor had not been served in hand within the limitations period.
Validity of service turned thus on whether the federal court was required
to apply the state service rule instead of Rule 4(d)(1)
Byrd reaffirmed that, under York, federal courts should apply outcome-
determinative state law even on procedural issues as to which there is
federal constitutional authority to make it own rule.
ans:> Justice Brennan went on to hold that, in deciding whether to follow
state law in matters of "form and mode" (that is, the area in which the
court follows state law as a matter of policy rather than constitutional
command) the federal court must consider not only the york policy of
uniform outcomes in diversity cases, but also any countervailing federal
policies that arise from the federal court's status as an independant
judicial system.
Challenge and Waiver- 12 (b), (h), and (g)
If you make a pre-answer motion(or make an appearance or litigate
other issues) without first raising objection to personal jurisdiction, then
the defense is waived.
Objection to personal jurisdiction must be raised at the earliers
opportunity.
ans:>
Choosing a proper court
Barnum, a citizen of Maine, sues Ringling Brothers, Inc. for injuries
suffered when Kelly, a Ringling Brothers' Clown, fails to secure the door
on a lion cage while the train is refueling in Bangor, Maine. Leo, a
trained lion, escapes and bites Barnum. Ringling Brothers is
incorporated in wisconsin, with its headquarters in Manhattan, in the
Southern District of N.Y. The circus has its winter quarters in Florida, has
permanent facilities for training performers in the Northern District of
Ohio, and performs for two or three weeks each year in every state on
the eastern seaboard. (for those whose geography is rusty, the eastern
seaboard states include Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.)
,-Could the suit be brought in the Northern District of New York? (New
York
ans:> This case could not be brought in the Norhern District of New
York. The analysis of the court's subject matter jurisdiction is exactly the
same as in example 1a. A diversity case is a diversity case is a diversity
case: If the parties are from different states and the amount-in
controversy requirement is satisfied, every federal district court will have
subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity. Personal jurisdiction
may also be proper in NY based on the fact that Ringling Brothers
headquarters is in the state. If this suffices to support general in
personam jurisdiction over Ringling Brothers- That is, Jurisdiction for all
claims, including those arising in other states- then Barnum can sue in
NY even for this Maine accident. The supreme court strongly suggested
in Goodyear that a corporation is subject to general in personam
jurisdiction in the state of its principal place of business. But is NY
Ringling brothers principal place of business for personal jurisdiction
purposes? Maybe. we know it is for diversity purposes, but the court has
yet to tell us whether the headquarters state is the state of a
corporation's principal place of business for personal jurisdiction
purposes (or, if it is not, whether if might be a sufficiently important
contact to support general in personam jurisdiction anyway)!
-Venue in Barnum's suit cannot be based on 28 U.S.C 1391 (b)(2) since
none of the events giving rise to his claim took place in NY. But does
Ringling Brothers "reside" in the Northern District under 1391 (b)(1)? No,
it doesn't. Subsections 1391 (c) and (d) tell us that Ringling Brothers
"resides" in any New York district in which its contacts would suffice to
subject it to personal jurisdiction. Once again, the analysis of the rings is
similar but a little bit different. Since Ringling Brothers has its headquat
Choosing a proper court
Barnum, a citizen of Maine, sues Ringling Brothers, Inc. for injuries
suffered when Kelly, a Ringling Brothers' Clown, fails to secure the door
on a lion cage while the train is refueling in Bangor, Maine. Leo, a
trained lion, escapes and bites Barnum. Ringling Brothers is
incorporated in wisconsin, with its headquarters in Manhattan, in the
Southern District of N.Y. The circus has its winter quarters in Florida, has
permanent facilities for training performers in the Northern District of
Ohio, and performs for two or three weeks each year in every state on
the eastern seaboard. (for those whose geography is rusty, the eastern
seaboard states include Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.)
, a. Could the suit be brought in the federal district court in Maine? (Main
ans:> There is clearly no problem with subject matter jurisdiction. Barum
is a Maine citizen, and Ringling Brothers is a citizen of Wisconsin (where
it is incorporated) and New York (where it has its principal place of
business under 28 U.S.C 1332 (c) (1). As long as Barnum's claim is for
more than $75,000, the requirements for federal subject matter
jurisdiction based on diversity are met. The fact that Barnum is a citizen
of the state where suit was brought is irrelevant to the diversity analysis;
diversity is satisfied as long as he and Ringling Brothers are citizens of
different states, regardless of which states those are.
- The maine court will also have personal jurisdiction over Ringling
Brothers in this action. The claim arises out of a negligent act by its
employee, which took place in the state and caused injury in the state.
The defendant's negligent in-state conduct is sufficient to support
specific in personam jurisdiction under the minimum contacts test, that
is, jurisdiction over a claim such as Barnum's, which arises out of the in-
state act itself.
- Venue is also proper in Maine under 1391 (b)(1) on the ground that
Ringling Brothers "resides" in Maine for venue purposes. Under 28
U.S.C 1391 (c), a corporate defendant "resides" in every district in which
it is subject to personal jurisdiction. Because the circus is subject to
minimum contacts jurisdiction in the District of Maine for this claim, it
"resides" there under 28 U.S.C 1391 (c). Venue is also proper under
1391 (b)(2) since a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim
took place in the district.
Choosing a proper court
Barnum, a citizen of Maine, sues Ringling Brothers, Inc. for injuries
suffered when Kelly, a Ringling Brothers' Clown, fails to secure the door
on a lion cage while the train is refueling in Bangor, Maine. Leo, a
trained lion, escapes and bites Barnum. Ringling Brothers is
incorporated in wisconsin, with its headquarters in Manhattan, in the
Southern District of N.Y. The circus has its winter quarters in Florida, has
permanent facilities for training performers in the Northern District of
Ohio, and performs for two or three weeks each year in every state on
the eastern seaboard. (for those whose geography is rusty, the eastern
seaboard states include Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.)
D. could the suit be brought in any federal district court in New Jersey?
