Multistate Bar
Examination (MBE)
Civil Procedure
Questions
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Civil Procedure – Questions
Question 1
Each of 50 persons, who are domiciled throughout the United States, asserted a claim in the
amount of $50,000 against Corporation, a State M corporation with its principal place of
business in State M.
The cause of action arises from undisclosed, serious side effects that the plaintiffs experienced
after taking drugs manufactured by Corporation in State A.
May the 50 persons sue Corporation in a U.S. District Court?
(A) Yes, but only if their claim is based upon a federal statute.
(B) Yes, but only if the plaintiffs aggregate their claims in a class action.
(C) Yes, but only if diversity of citizenship exists between the entire plaintiff class and
Corporation.
(D) Yes, but only if there is diversity of citizenship between the class representative and
Corporation.
1
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Civil Procedure – Questions
Question 2
A student at a private university sued the university in federal court for negligence after he fell
from scaffolding in a university-owned theater building. At trial, after briefing from both
parties, the court permitted the jury to hear testimony that there had been several previous
accidents in the same building. The jury found for the student, and the university appealed.
One of the university's arguments on appeal is that the testimony about the previous accidents
should have been excluded as irrelevant and highly prejudicial.
Which standard of review applies to this argument?
(A) Abuse of discretion.
(B) Clearly erroneous.
(C) De novo.
(D) Harmless error.
2
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Civil Procedure – Questions
Question 3
An entrepreneur from State A decided to sell hot sauce to the public, labeling it "Best Hot
Sauce."
A company incorporated in State B and headquartered in State C sued the entrepreneur in
federal court in State C. The complaint sought $50,000 in damages and alleged that the
entrepreneur's use of the name "Best Hot Sauce" infringed the company's federal trademark.
The entrepreneur filed an answer denying the allegations, and the parties began discovery. Six
months later, the entrepreneur moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Should the court grant the entrepreneur's motion?
(A) No, because the company's claim arises under federal law.
(B) No, because the entrepreneur waived the right to challenge subject-matter jurisdiction by
not raising the issue initially by motion or in the answer.
(C) Yes, because although the claim arises under federal law, the amount in controversy is not
satisfied.
(D) Yes, because although there is diversity, the amount in controversy is not satisfied.
3
Examination (MBE)
Civil Procedure
Questions
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Civil Procedure – Questions
Question 1
Each of 50 persons, who are domiciled throughout the United States, asserted a claim in the
amount of $50,000 against Corporation, a State M corporation with its principal place of
business in State M.
The cause of action arises from undisclosed, serious side effects that the plaintiffs experienced
after taking drugs manufactured by Corporation in State A.
May the 50 persons sue Corporation in a U.S. District Court?
(A) Yes, but only if their claim is based upon a federal statute.
(B) Yes, but only if the plaintiffs aggregate their claims in a class action.
(C) Yes, but only if diversity of citizenship exists between the entire plaintiff class and
Corporation.
(D) Yes, but only if there is diversity of citizenship between the class representative and
Corporation.
1
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Civil Procedure – Questions
Question 2
A student at a private university sued the university in federal court for negligence after he fell
from scaffolding in a university-owned theater building. At trial, after briefing from both
parties, the court permitted the jury to hear testimony that there had been several previous
accidents in the same building. The jury found for the student, and the university appealed.
One of the university's arguments on appeal is that the testimony about the previous accidents
should have been excluded as irrelevant and highly prejudicial.
Which standard of review applies to this argument?
(A) Abuse of discretion.
(B) Clearly erroneous.
(C) De novo.
(D) Harmless error.
2
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Civil Procedure – Questions
Question 3
An entrepreneur from State A decided to sell hot sauce to the public, labeling it "Best Hot
Sauce."
A company incorporated in State B and headquartered in State C sued the entrepreneur in
federal court in State C. The complaint sought $50,000 in damages and alleged that the
entrepreneur's use of the name "Best Hot Sauce" infringed the company's federal trademark.
The entrepreneur filed an answer denying the allegations, and the parties began discovery. Six
months later, the entrepreneur moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Should the court grant the entrepreneur's motion?
(A) No, because the company's claim arises under federal law.
(B) No, because the entrepreneur waived the right to challenge subject-matter jurisdiction by
not raising the issue initially by motion or in the answer.
(C) Yes, because although the claim arises under federal law, the amount in controversy is not
satisfied.
(D) Yes, because although there is diversity, the amount in controversy is not satisfied.
3
