Civ Pro Final_spring 2020 {coronavirus}

The court should dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

The court should dismiss the lawsuit because State C is an improper venue.

The court should dismiss the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court should transfer the lawsuit for the convenience of parties and witnesses to a state court in State D

Yes, because federal law governs transfers of venue, and it would be more convenient for the witnesses and parties to litigate the claim in State B.

Yes, because federal common law makes the forum-selection clause controlling

No, because the mill should have instead filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue.

No, because State A law treats forum-selection clauses as unenforceable

Yes, the counterclaim runs afoul of pleading requirements because it does not arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subjectmatter of the original action

No, because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow permissive counterclaims.

Yes, because the federal court does not have jurisdiction over the corporation's counterclaim

No, because there is supplemental jurisdiction over this properly pled permissive counterclaim.

The homeowner is entitled to a jury because this is a civil case in which the plaintiff seeks purely legal remedies.

The homeowner is entitled to a jury because this is a civil case in which the plaintiff seeks both legal and equitable remedies.

The homeowner is not entitled to a jury because this is a civil case in which the plaintiff seeks purely equitable remedies

The homeowner is not entitled to a jury because the federal court's jurisdiction is based on diversity, and the Seventh Amendment applies only to federal question jurisdiction. B: The homeowner is entitled

There is no right to a jury because the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury for suits at common law. Injunctive relief is a remedy at equity, not law

There is a right to a jury because the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury for suits at common law. The plaintiff here is seeking damages, a legal remedy.

There is no right to a jury because the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury for suits at common law. The plaintiff here is seeking both damages and an injunction, an equitable remedy

There is a right to a jury because state law determines whether there is to be a jury in a federal case based on diversity jurisdiction.

File a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

File an answer, including an affirmative defense of insufficient service of process.

File a motion to dismiss for insufficient process.

File an answer, including an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.

File a motion to strike both the reporter's lack of personal jurisdiction and the statute of limitations affirmative defenses on the ground that they were waived.

File a motion to strike only the reporter's affirmative defense for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground that it has been waived.

File a motion to strike only the statute of limitations affirmative defense on the ground that it has been waived.

Continue with the case without filing a motion to strike any of the reporter's affirmative defenses.

File a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

File a motion for summary judgment

File a motion for judgment as a matter of law

The contractor’s attorney has no option but to continue with the trial.

The court should strike both of the seller's defenses for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue because the seller waived these defenses.

The court should not grant the motion to strike because the seller did not waive either defense

The court should strike only the defense of improper venue as it was waived by the seller

The court should strike only the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction as it was waived by the seller.

The court should refuse to accept the affidavits because pre-answer motions should be decided by referencing only the complaint and the facts which the court may take judicial notice.

The court should accept the affidavits and convert the stockbroker's motion into one for summary judgment

The court should deny the stockbroker's motion because, by failing to make a special appearance, the stockbroker consented to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him.

The court should accept the affidavits and grant the stockbroker's motion if it finds that the stock broker lacks minimum contacts with the state.

Yes, the court should consider whether each defense is a valid defense to the case at bar.

The court should only consider whether failure to join a party is a valid defense to the case at bar, but it should refuse to consider the merits of the defense of improper venue.

No, the court should refuse to consider either of the grocer's additional defenses as being a valid defense to the case at bar

The court should only consider whether improper venue is a valid defense to the case at bar, but it should refuse to consider the merits of the defense of failure to join a party.

No, because but for the new trial order, final judgment would have been rendered for the designer and it is most efficient for the court of appeals to decide now whether the new trial order was an abuse of discretion, rather than have a new trial proceed to final judgment before any appeal can be taken.

Yes, because the designer is not aggrieved by the new trial order since he has not lost on any claim or defense.

Yes, because no final judgment exists and there is no other basis for appellate jurisdiction.

No, because both the jeweler and the designer have an interest in an appellate determination of whether the new trial order was an abuse of discretion and such a determination now will save both parties from an expenditure of time, money and effort that might be unnecessary.

No, because the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.

No, because the district court's decision on jurisdiction is final.

Yes, because a contrary appellate decision could terminate the action.

Yes, because the surgeon's personal-jurisdiction challenge raises a constitutional question.

The art collector can bring an interpleader action against the historian living in State B only, and that court's decision will also be binding on the teacher

The art collector can bring an interpleader action against both the historian and teacher in State A federal court, even if State A's state court would not have personal jurisdiction over the historian or the teacher under State A's long-arm statute.

The art collector would have been able to bring an interpleader action in State A federal court against the historian or teacher if the painting had been appraised at more than $75,000.

The art collector can bring an interpleader action against the historian and the teacher in federal court in State A, but only if a State A state court would have had personal jurisdiction over the historian and teacher under State A's long-arm statute.

A motion to dismiss, filed by the driver, because there is not complete diversity, therefore the court lacks jurisdiction

A motion to sever the causes of action, filed by the driver, because she has been improperly joined as a defendant.

A motion to dismiss, filed by the woman, because she is not a required party.

A motion to dismiss, jointly filed by the woman and the driver, because the case would be better heard in state court.

Yes, because there is no diversity of citizenship since all parties are citizens of State A

No, because the court has jurisdiction over the cross-claim.

Yes, because the cross-claim does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action.

No, because the cross-claim satisfies the amount in controversy requirement.

The man's lawsuit can go forward if he did not receive actual notice of the class action lawsuit.

The man's lawsuit can go forward if State B did not have personal jurisdiction over the man.

The man's lawsuit can go forward if he can establish that the class did not receive adequate representation in the class action lawsuit.

The man's lawsuit can go forward if he can establish that the class was not so numerous that joinder of all members was impracticable.

The class representative and corporation may, but need not, seek court approval of the settlement agreement

The court must allow absent class members to opt out of the settlement agreement

Attorneys' fees must be approved by the court, and this award will be approved.

The court must hold a settlement hearing.

The corporation can move the court to dismiss the action for failure to join a necessary party, and the court will be required to dismiss the action.

The corporation can move the court to dismiss the action for failure to join a necessary party, and the court will have some discretion in determining whether to dismiss the action.

The corporation will not be able to successfully move the court to dismiss the action for failure to join a necessary party.

The corporation can move the court to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, because the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the surgeon.

File a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for misjoinder of parties

File a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, because there is not complete diversity of parties.

File a motion to sever and order plaintiffs to bring separate lawsuits.

File a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the cyclist.

Move the court to order that the manufacturer be joined as a required party.

Serve a summons and complaint on the manufacturer as a third-party defendant

Join the manufacturer as a defendant under the federal interpleader statute.

Nothing. The manufacturer cannot be joined in this lawsuit because doing so would destroy the court's diversity jurisdiction.

File a motion with the court in which the foreign corporation argues that it is an indispensable party and must be joined

File a motion with the court in which the foreign corporation seeks permissive intervention.

File a motion asking that the court certify a class representing all automobile manufacturers.

File a motion with the court in which the foreign corporation seeks permissive joinder.

Certify the class. There is diversity jurisdiction since the man's claim exceeds $75,000 and the man and the corporation have diverse citizenship

Not certify the class. The man's claims are not typical of the claims of the rest of the class.

Certify the class. Questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Not certify the class. There is no jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act since the matter in controversy does not exceed $5,000,000.

The court must dismiss the action. The man is an indispensable party, and the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the man's claim.

The court may retain the case. Though the man is an indispensable party and the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the man's claim, the court may retain the case without the man's joining the lawsuit if the court determines in equity and good conscience that the action should proceed.

The court may retain the case. The man is not an indispensable party.

The court may retain the case. Although the man is an indispensable party, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his claim and therefore can order that he be joined as a party.

The court should dismiss the lawsuit because misjoinder is a ground to dismiss and the manufacturer and dealer are misjoined.

The court should deny the motion to dismiss, sever the claims against the manufacturer from the claim against the dealer, and determine whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over each of the severed suits

The court should deny both the motion to dismiss and the motion to sever because misjoinder is not a ground to dismiss and the manufacturer and dealer are not misjoined

The court should deny both the motion to dismiss and the motion to sever because misjoinder is not a ground to dismiss and the manufacturer and dealer are not misjoined

Yes. The court must dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit because a court must dismiss claims when necessary parties cannot be added

No. If the court determines that excluding the State B American-born employees would only impair and not prejudice the Americanborn employees then the court does not need to dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit.

Yes. The court must dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit because courts must dismiss suits when the exclusion of a potential party to the suit would impair that party's interest.

No. The court does not need to dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit because courts do not need to dismiss suits even when indispensable parties cannot be joined.

No. The court should deny the motion to sever because the record label's claim amongst the disc jockeys worked in tandem and therefore the record label's claim arises out of the same transaction.

Yes. The court should grant the motion to sever because the record label failed to assert, against the disc jockeys, a right to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence or a series of transactions or occurrences

Yes. The court should grant the motion to sever because no question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action

The court should postpone ruling on the motion to sever, then deny it if it holds that the complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted

Whether the class was so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable

Whether there were questions of law or fact common to the class

Whether the defenses of the company to the representative female Hispanic's claims were typical of the defenses of the company to the claims of the class members.

Whether there would be conflicts-of-interest among the class members that would undermine the adequacy of the representation that the named Hispanic accountant and her attorney could provide.

The court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint, because both the manufacturer and the designer are citizens of State B.

The manufacturer failed to obtain the court's leave to file the third-party complaint

The manufacturer's failure to follow the designer's specifications caused the flaw that resulted in the consumer's injuries.

The manufacturer's third-party complaint failed to state a proper third-party claim.

No, because although the employer has an interest in the clerk's action, that interest is not likely to be impaired in the employer's absence

No, because the clerk chose not to join the employer as a co-plaintiff in his action.

Yes, because the employer is an indispensable party

Yes, because the employer's claim shares common questions of law and fact with the clerk's action.

Yes. The federal court has personal jurisdiction over the homeowner. State A's long-arm statute is irrelevant because the gardener's lawsuit was filed in federal court.

No. The federal court does not have personal jurisdiction over the homeowner. State A's long-arm statute is applicable under Erie's constitutional analysis.

No. The federal court does not have personal jurisdiction over the homeowner. State A's long-arm statute is applicable on account of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Yes. The federal court may have jurisdiction if the homeowner is served not more than 100 miles from where the summons was issued.

Yes. The court should grant the truck driver's motion, but only if State B choice-of-law rules indicate that State A tort law applies in this case.

No. The court should deny the truck driver's motion. State B law applies because this is a diversity suit and the federal court is situated in State B.

Yes. The court should grant the truck driver's motion because the federal rule applies.

No. The court should deny the truck driver's motion. This is a substantive issue and therefore state law applies.

The farmer should submit a motion for remittitur, on the ground that the jury's damage award "shocks the conscience."

The farmer should move for remittitur or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the ground that the jury's damage award "shocks the conscience."

The farmer should submit a motion for remittitur, on the ground that the jury's damage award was "excessive."

The farmer should move for remittitur or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the ground that the jury's damage award was "excessive."

The patient's claim will be time-barred because it did not comply with State A's tolling statute.

The patient's claim is not time-barred because the action was "commenced" on January 4, 2008.

The patient's claim will be time-barred because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not applicable in diversity actions.

The patient's claim is not time-barred; because the patient's lawsuit is timely under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.