Civil Procedure Quiz 2: Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Rules 4 & 14

In an impleader action a defendant is arguing that if he is liable to the plaintiff, then a third party defendant is liable to him. Impleader is based on secondary, or derivative liability, not sole liability. In other words, the third party plaintiff is NOT saying that the third party defendant is solely liable to the original plaintiff. Instead, he is arguing that if and only if he is liable to the plaintiff, then the third party defendant should be liable to him.

Choice A is the best answer. This is a typical impleader case. The law provides Doug with the right to contribution from Darren if Darren also contributed to the accident.

Choice B is not a good answer because impleader is not based on sole liability of the third party defendant to the plaintiff.

Choice C is not the best answer. It is true that a court might decline to allow Doug to implead Darren if, for some reason, Darren's presence in the case would prejudice the plaintiff or make the case unduly complicated for trial. But impleader usually promotes efficiency and would, in this case, probably prevent inconsistent judgments.

Choice D is wrong, because federal courts apply state negligence law.

Rule 4(f)(3) provides for service of process on individuals in foreign countries in any matter authorized by the court and not prohibited by international agreement. Rule 4(h)(2) provides the same rule for corporations in foreign countries, except for personal delivery.

The best answer is Choice C because the district court in this case authorized service of process on a defendant corporation overseas in a manner that did not violate any international agreements.

Choice A is wrong. Simply because the plaintiff served the defendant by means other than the Hague Convention does not mean the service was improper. The Hague Convention is appropriate pursuant to Rule 4(f)(1) but it is not the only manner in which an overseas defendant can be served.

Choice B is wrong. Personal service on a corporation within the territorial jurisdiction of the United Sates must be upon a suitable officer or agent - - Rule 4 (h)(1)(B) - - but this question does not concern personal delivery on a corporation within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Choice D is wrong because where Defecto's attorney regularly travels has no bearing on service of process.

Federal question jurisdiction does not depend on diversity or an amount in controversy so Choice A is wrong.

Choice B is wrong because it is only relevant to whether Perry will ultimately prevail in the case. A federal court will be unlikely to conclude that Perry was simply manufacturing a federal claim. Based on the facts presented it sounds like he has a good faith basis to allege that Delta violated the Act, regardless of whether he prevails or not.

Choice D might be relevant with respect to personal jurisdiction but for purposes of this question has no connection to subject matter jurisdiction.

Choice C is the best option. Federal law created Perry's claim and a federal court should have the power to hear the case,

Diversity is determined at the time the litigation is commenced. Citizenship of an LLC is based on the citizenship of its members.

Choice A is wrong because the parties were diverse at the time the litigation was commenced.
Choice B is wrong because the parties were diverse. Also, if there were no diversity jurisdiction it would not matter if the parties completed discovery. The case must be dismissed if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Choice D is wrong because it doesn't matter for purposes of diversity where the LLC was formed.
Choice C is right because the court should only consider the parties' citizenship at the time the action was commenced.

Service on a corporation is effective according to Rule (h)(1)(B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent of the company.

Choice A is the best answer because the summons and complaint were served on the son, who was not an officer or agent of Dudley. Therefore, service was improper and the court may dismiss for improper service

Choice B is wrong because the son's age is irrelevant. Service on an individual may be effective if left at the person's residence with a person of suitable age and discretion (Rule 4 (3)(2)(B)) but in this question we are dealing with service on a corporation.

Choice C is wrong for the same reason as Choice B,

Choice D is wrong for the same reason as Choices B & C. For purposes of service on the corporation, whether the son lives with the CEO father is irrelevant.

Rule 14, impleader, allows a defendant, as a third party plaintiff, to cause a third party defendant to join the case. The basis for impleader is that if the original defendant is liable to the plaintiff, then the third party defendant is liable to the original defendant. You will often see impleader where the third party defendant allegedly has promised to indemnify the original defendant or where there is a promise to insure the defendant. Impleader is not appropriate where the original defendant argues that the third party defendant is liable to the plaintiff instead of the original defendant. If the original defendant argues that the plaintiff is suing the wrong person, then impleader is probably not appropriate.

Choice A is wrong because there is no requirement that the amount in controversy be based on damage to tangible, movable property.

Choice C is wrong because photographs can be evidence.

Choice D is wrong because there is no requirement for diversity between the third party plaintiff and the third party defendant.



Choice B is the best choice because David is purporting to implead Donny based on an argument that Donny, not David, is actually liable to Patrick. Impleader must be based on an argument that if David is liable to Patrick, then Donny is liable to David. The case c

A case can be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time, even on appeal.

Choice B is incorrect because whether or not Patty alleged in good faith that the court has diversity jurisdiction, the court can only exercise jurisdiction in this case if the parties are, in fact, diverse.

Choice C is wrong because a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.

Choice D is wrong because subject matter jurisdiction is not a question for the jury.

Diversity jurisdiction requires, among other things, that the plaintiff not be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. To determine the citizenship of a partnership, a court must look at the citizenship of each partner. Likewise, for an LLC, federal courts will look at the citizenship of its members.

Choice A is not correct because as an unincorporated company, the LLC's citizenship does not depend on where it was formed or conducts its business.

Choice C is incorrect because the general partner is an individual domiciled in California. His citizenship does not depend on where he owns an office building.

Choice D is irrelevant because we need to know the citizenship of the members of the LLC.

Choice B is correct because the LLC is a citizen of New York if one of its members is from New York. And if the LLC is a citizen of New York, the limited partnership is also a citizen of New York.

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, waiving service of process does not waive a defendant's right to object to lack of personal jurisdiction or object to venue.

Choice A and C are wrong because both answers presume that David waived his personal jurisdiction arguments.

Choice B is wrong because David can be subject to personal jurisdiction in a state other than the state in which he is domiciled.

Choice D is correct because Rule 4 allows David to object to personal jurisdiction even if he waived service of process.

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service of process can be made according to the state law where the district court is located (Maine) or where service is made (New York). Here the question tells us that service of process complied with New York's rules.

Choice A is the best answer. If service was proper according to the state where service was made (New York) then Rule 4 is satisfied.

Choice B is wrong because Rule 4(e)(2)(B) provides for service at an individual's residence by leaving the papers with a person of suitable age and discretion who also resides there. The doorman did not reside in Donny's building.

Choice C is wrong because service with the doorman was consistent with New York law. The Court should not dismiss the action.

Choice D is wrong because although the doorman did not reside in the same building as Donny, the plaintiff can rely on Rule 4(e)(1). The court should not dismiss the action for improper service because service was consistent with New York's rules.