Civil Procedure Quiz 2: Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Rules 4 & 14
Test your knowledge of US Civil Procedure Download a CivPro Quiz Ebook with 101 questions from iTunes here
- 1.
The Truth in Advertising Act of 2015 allows any plaintiff who has been injured as a result of an intentionally false advertisement on any nationally broadcast network to sue the maker of the advertisement in federal court.Perry buys a $5 bottle of Delta Red Wine advertised on a national network. Delta Red Wine turns out to be grape juice. Perry sues Delta in federal court for violating the Act. Delta moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Should the court grant the motion?
- A.
Yes, unless Perry can demonstrate that his damages amount to greater than $75,000.
- B.
Yes, Perry may be disappointed with his purchase but because the product derived from grapes, the advertisement could not have been intentionally false.
- C.
No, provided Perry alleges that Delta violated the Truth in Advertising Act of 2015.
- D.
No, provided the product was shipped across state lines and Delta inserted the product into the stream of commerce.
Correct Answer
C. No, provided Perry alleges that Delta violated the Truth in Advertising Act of 2015.Explanation
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,Rate this question:
-
- 2.
Patty, a citizen of New York, sues Delta Co. in New York federal court, based on diversity. Patty's complaint alleges that Delta Co. is a citizen of New Jersey and that the amount in controversy is $85,000. Delta Co. is headquartered in New York. On the eve of trial the judge dismisses the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The judge's decision to dismiss the case was
- A.
Correct, because subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.
- B.
Correct, provided Patty knew or had reason to know that Delta Co. was headquartered in New York, making her Complaint nunc pro tunc invalid.
- C.
Incorrect because Delta Co's failure to move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction waived its right object to the court's jurisdiction.
- D.
Incorrect, because the judge usurped the jury's power.
Correct Answer
A. Correct, because subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.Explanation
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.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Penelope, who is domiciled in New York, files a complaint in New York federal court against David, domiciled in New Jersey. David agrees to waive service of the summons. Thereafter, David files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court should
- A.
Deny the motion, because, whether inadvertent or not, David waived his right to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- B.
Grant the motion, because David is domiciled in New Jersey.
- C.
Decide the motion on the merits, unless David knew that by waiving service of the summons he waived his right to raise a defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
- D.
Decide the motion on the merits, because David did not waive a defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
Correct Answer
D. Decide the motion on the merits, because David did not waive a defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction.Explanation
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.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
Paul files a complaint against Donny in federal court in Maine. Donny lives in New York City. A professional process server left a copy of the summons and complaint with Donny's doorman. Donny's doorman lives across the Hudson River from Donny in New Jersey. Thereafter, the process server mails copies of the documents to Donny. Assume service complied with New York State's rules for service of process.Should the court dismiss the action for improper service of process?
- A.
Probably not, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1).
- B.
Probably not, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(2)(B).
- C.
Probably, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1).
- D.
Probably, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(2)(B).
Correct Answer
A. Probably not, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1).Explanation
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.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Poly Corporation filed a lawsuit against Defecto Corporation in New York federal court. Defecto is apparently based in Costa Rico, and has an email address, but Poly cannot determine its physical address. Defecto has an attorney in Los Angeles who advised Poly that he is not authorized to accept service on Defecto's behalf. The federal court judge issues an order providing that Poly may serve a summons and complaint on Defecto by emailing a copy of the same to Defecto's email address and by sending copies to Defecto's lawyer by overnight courier.No international convention explicitly prohibits service in this manner.On appeal, Defecto argues to the appellate court that the district court abused its discretion and that service of process was improper. The appellate court should...
- A.
Reverse the district court because the court authorized service in a manner inconsistent with the Hague Convention.
- B.
Reverse the district court unless a suitable officer of Defecto opened the email.
- C.
Affirm the district court's decision because Poly was unable to serve the defendant and the manner authorized by the court did not violate any international agreements.
- D.
Affirm the district court's decision, if Defecto's attorney regularly travels to New York.
Correct Answer
C. Affirm the district court's decision because Poly was unable to serve the defendant and the manner authorized by the court did not violate any international agreements.Explanation
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.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Percy sues Dudley Corporation in federal court. His process server visits Dudley Corporation's headquarters and meets the CEO's son. The son does not work for Dudley but is 19 years old and studies at a local University. The process server leaves the summons and a copy of the complaint with the son.Should the court dismiss for improper service?
- A.
Yes, the summons and complaint were not served on an officer or agent of the company.
- B.
Yes, the son was under 21.
- C.
No, the son was a person of appropriate age and discretion.
- D.
No, provided the son resided with the company's CEO.
Correct Answer
A. Yes, the summons and complaint were not served on an officer or agent of the company.Explanation
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.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Patrick (State A) sues David (State B) in federal court based on diversity, alleging that David struck him with his car, causing $300,000 in injuries.David has photographic evidence that, in fact, it was Donny (from State B) who drove the car that struck Patrick.What is the strongest argument to NOT allow David to implead Donny pursuant to Rule 14?
- A.
The case does not belong in federal court because the amount in controversy is based on physical injuries, not damage to tangible, movable property.
- B.
David's claim is not suitable for impleader because he is alleging that Donny is solely liable to Patrick, not derivatively liable to David based upon David's liability to Patrick.
- C.
David, the third party plaintiff, and Donny, the third party defendant, are not diverse, therefore, even though the amount in controversy is satisfied, David may not sue Donny in this case.
- D.
Photographs are generally not evidence.
Correct Answer
B. David's claim is not suitable for impleader because he is alleging that Donny is solely liable to Patrick, not derivatively liable to David based upon David's liability to Patrick.Explanation
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 cRate this question:
-
- 8.
Perry is driving a passenger car in State A when he is injured by Doug, driving a bus. Perry sues Doug in State A federal court. Doug seeks to implead Darren, another driver, whom he alleges contributed to the accident through his own careless driving. State A's Joint Tortfeasor Law provides that joint tortfeasors may seek contribution from each other.Pursuant to the Joint Tortfeasor Law, Doug argues that impleader is appropriate. Should the Court allow Doug to implead Darren?
- A.
Probably yes. Impleader is appropriate because Doug's third party complaint is based on contribution from Darren if Doug is liable to Perry.
- B.
Probably yes, especially if Darren is solely liable to Perry.
- C.
Probably not. Patrick chose to sue Doug and Doug can easily and efficiently sue Darren in a separate action.
- D.
Probably not. Federal courts should generally abstain from applying state negligence law.
Correct Answer
A. Probably yes. Impleader is appropriate because Doug's third party complaint is based on contribution from Darren if Doug is liable to Perry.Explanation
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.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
Penelope is a citizen of New York. She sues D&D, a limited partnership in New York federal court, based on diversity. D&D is comprised of a general partner and a limited partner. The general partner is a businessman domiciled in California. The limited partner is an LLC.Which of the following would most likely cause the federal court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?
- A.
The LLC conducts most of its business in New York.
- B.
The LLC includes a member who is a citizen New York.
- C.
The general partner owns an office building in New York.
- D.
The LLC was formed in New York.
Correct Answer
B. The LLC includes a member who is a citizen New York.Explanation
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.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Ducktown LLC sues Derrick, a citizen of California, in federal court based on diversity. Ducktown is comprised of two members, Donald, a citizen of Florida, and Daffy, a citizen of New York. Later, Diseny, a citizen of California joins the LLC and Phil moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Should the court grant the motion?
- A.
Yes, the parties are not diverse.
- B.
Yes, provided the case has not proceeded past the discovery phase.
- C.
No, the parties were diverse at the time the action was commenced.
- D.
No, provided the LLC was not formed in California.
Correct Answer
C. No, the parties were diverse at the time the action was commenced.Explanation
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.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Jun 13, 2018Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Feb 01, 2015Quiz Created by
Back to top