Civ Pro - Smj, Pj, Domicile & ETC. For Midterm

20 Questions | Total Attempts: 11

SettingsSettingsSettings
Midterm Quizzes & Trivia

Hi peeps! I'll be adding more in the morning :)


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    Son lived with his parents in WI until he was 10 . at that time, his parents separated and his Dad moved to CA. Son's Mom sent him to Boarding school in PA when he was 13. Mom now lives in MI. Son is now 18 and a senior in high school at the PA boarding school. Son received an acceptance letter to NYU. He was so excited when he received the letter that he immediately responded "yes" and accepted the offer to attend NYU. NYU is Son's dream school. He has always wanted to graduate from there and then have a career in New York as a musician. Where is Son currently domiciled? 
    • A. 

      Wisconsin

    • B. 

      Pennsylvania

    • C. 

      Michigan

    • D. 

      New York 

  • 2. 
    Aunt was at her mansion in Beverly Hills, California, when thousands of miles away her 17 year old Nephew answered the door at Aunt's winter estate in Aspen, CO. Aunt spends one week each year at the Aspen estate, and loves every minute of it. Aunt owns no other real estate properties or homes. Nephew is a straight A student, headed to a well respected University in a few weeks. The process server flirted with Nephew and told him that Aunt would probably appreciate it if Nephew accepted service on Aunt's behalf. Nephew accepted service.  Was aunt properly served according to FRCP Rule 4? 
    • A. 

      No, because Nephew was a minor and was duped by the process server

    • B. 

      No, because the Aspen house was not Aunt's dwelling house or usual place of abode

    • C. 

      Yes, because Nephew was of suitable age and discretion

    • D. 

      Yes, because Aunt spent time every year in the Aspen house. 

  • 3. 
    Plaintiff's attorney emailed ∆ a copy of the Plaintiff's complaint, along with a request tht ∆ waive service of process. If ∆ waives service, how long does he have to answer the complaint? 
    • A. 

      20 days

    • B. 

      30 days

    • C. 

      45 dys

    • D. 

      60 days 

  • 4. 
    Employee, who is 29, had lived in Iowa all his life, until he received notice he was being transferred by his employer to their Georgia office. Company closed all of their Iowa offices and relocated those offices to Georgia. Employee did not want to move, but because there were no other employment opportunities in Iowa and because moving was the only way to keep his current job, he reluctantly moved to GA. He sold his condo in Iowa and bought a new home in GA. He obtained a GA driver's license, and enrolled his 6 year old son into the GA public school system. Has Employee changed his domicile to GA? 
    • A. 

      Yes, because he moved to GA with an intent to make it his true, fixed, and permanent home.

    • B. 

      No because he was forced to go to GA and never wanted to live there

    • C. 

      No, because he intends to go back to IA

    • D. 

      Yes, because he bought a home in GA, obtained a G driver's license, and enrolled his son in the GA school system. 

  • 5. 
    Bill wants to sue his former employer, Twitter Inc. A federal court will have subject matter jurisdiction over Bill's lawsuit if he is domiciled in which of the following?
    • A. 

      Texas

    • B. 

      Delaware

    • C. 

      California

    • D. 

      All of the above

  • 6. 
    Corporation does 100% of its business in CA. It is incorporated in TX and the majority of its board of directors lives in ID. Plaintiff, who is domiciled in MN but living in CA, wants to sue corporation. Would the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction? 
    • A. 

      Yes because Plaintiff is domiciled in MN

    • B. 

      Yes because there is complete diversity 

    • C. 

      No, because corporation's principal place of business is in CA

    • D. 

      No, because there is not complete diversity. 

  • 7. 
    Peter (CA) was in a car accident with David (NY), Jeff (WI) and Roberto (CA). Peter sued David and jeff in federal court for $150K for damage to his person and his car. David and Jeff believed that Roberto should be part of the lawsuit and successfully moved to add Roberto as a defendant. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? 
    • A. 

      Yes , because David, Jeff, and Roberto satisfy the complete diversity rule. 

    • B. 

      No because Peter should have brought his lawsuits separately against each defendant 

    • C. 

      Yes because Peter initially only sued David and jeff 

    • D. 

      No because Roberto is from CA

  • 8. 
    Plaintiff, a Mexican citizen living in CA, sued Defendant, a U.S. citizen domiciled in CA, and living in NV. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction? 
    • A. 

      Yes, because Plaintiff is a foreign citizen

    • B. 

      No because Plaintiff is a foreign citizen

    • C. 

      No because there is not complete diversity

    • D. 

      Yes because Defendant lives in NV, satisfying in the complete diversity rule

  • 9. 
    If Google sued Vimeo in federal court would the court have subject matter jurisdiction?
    • A. 

      No, because there is no diversity since both companies are incorporated in DE

    • B. 

      Yes, because Vimeo is a limited liability company whose partners are domiciled in NY, so there is complete diversity. 

    • C. 

      Yes, because Google's principal place of business is in CA, and Vimeo's principal place of business is in NY, so there is complete diversity

    • D. 

      Yes, if the claim is for patent infringement. 

  • 10. 
    A TX citizen and a Mexican citizen sued a Mexican citizen in federal court. At trial, right before the case was sent to the jury, the Mexican plaintiff dropped out of the case. What result?
    • A. 

      The judgment is voidable, because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when the case was filed.

    • B. 

      The judgment is void because the court never had subject matter jurisdiction

    • C. 

      The judgment stands, because at the time of judgment, there was alienage jurisdiction

    • D. 

      The judgment stands, because at the time of judgment, there was complete diversity. 

  • 11. 
    Corp is incorporated in DE. Some of its officers live in TX and some live in FL. It claims LA as its nerve center because it is the location of the annual executive retreat and it does most of its business there. Plaintiff, who is domiciled in LA, wants to sue Corp in federal court for breach of contract. Can she?
    • A. 

      No because it is unclear where Corp's nerve center is

    • B. 

      No because Corp does most of it's business in LA. 

    • C. 

      Yes, because there is complete diversity. 

    • D. 

      No because there is not complete diversity. 

  • 12. 
    Plaintiff, who is domiciled in CA, wants to sue defendant Corporation for securities fraud for lying in their proxy statement about the value of the Corporation. Corporation's principal place of business is in California. Corporation is incorporated in DE. Will the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction?
    • A. 

      Yes, because the court has exclusive jurisdiction.

    • B. 

      Yes, because the Plaintiff has the power to choose the court where she brings her claim. 

    • C. 

      No, because a corporation is a citizen both where it is incorporated and where it has it's principal place of business, so there is no complete diversity.

    • D. 

      Yes, because a corporation's citizenship is either the place of incorporation or the principal place of business and so there is complete diversity between a CA citizen and a DE corporation.   

  • 13. 
    Plaintiff (CA) sued defendants (NV), (TX) and (CA) for battery. Plaintiff filed her claim in federal court. Defendants knew the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, but they did not challenge it because they wanted to see if they could win the case at trial. Plaintiff won at trial. Defendants appealed the verdict, to delay the action until the statute of limitations on Plaintiff's battery claim ran. They then moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What result?
    • A. 

      The motion should be granted because the court did not have jurisdiction

    • B. 

      The motion should be denied, because the Defendants knew the court lacked jurisdiction and in bad faith chose not to bring the motion until after they lost at trial

    • C. 

      The motion should be denied, because Plaintiff would no longer have any remedy because the statute of limitations has run

    • D. 

      The motion should be granted because the Defendants' motion came before the final judgment on appeal

  • 14. 
    Plaintiff (WI) sued Defendants (TX), (CA) and (WI) in Federal court, based on diversity jurisdiction. At trial, the jury found for Defendants and judgment was entered. Rather than appealing the verdict, Plaintiff filed a 12(b)(1) motion challenging subject matter jurisdiction and requesting the court dismiss the lawsuit, because she planned to instead file suit in state court. What result? 
    • A. 

      The Court should deny the Plaintiff's motion, because only defendants can challenge subject matter jurisdiction

    • B. 

      The court should deny the Plaintiff's motion, because it is untimely

    • C. 

      The court should deny the motion because Plaintiff waived her right to challenge subject matter jurisdiction by bringing the action in federal court. 

    • D. 

      The Court must grant the plaintiff's motion and dismiss the lawsuit. 

  • 15. 
    Chris is a part-time motivational speaker in Ill. He currently lives in a van, down by the river. All four tires on the van are flat. All of his worldly possessions are stored in the van. David is the registered owner of the van, which he lent to Chris six months ago. After receiving notice that the van was going to be towed from its current location, David went to check on the van. While he was sitting in the van, waiting for Chris, David accepted delivery of a copy of a summons and complaint for a lawsuit filed against Chris. When Chris returned to the van, David gave him summons and complaint. Was service proper? 
    • A. 

      Yes, because Chris was personally served by David

    • B. 

      Yes, because the van is Chris' dwelling house or usual place of abode. 

    • C. 

      Yes, because Chris received actual notice of the lawsuit 

    • D. 

      No, because a vehicle does not qualify as a dwelling house or usual place of abode. 

  • 16. 
    Plaintiff's attorney emailed Defendant a copy of the Plaintiff's complaint, along with a request that defendant waive service of process. Both Plaintiff and Defendant are located in the United States. If, without good cause, Defendant fails to sign and return the waiver, what will be his consequence. 
    • A. 

      The court must require Defendant to pay Plaintiff's expenses and attorney's fees incurred in making service

    • B. 

      Nothing, unless Plaintiff files a motion to collect the expenses associated with serving defendant

    • C. 

      The court must require Defendant to pay plaintiff for any expenses incurred in making service 

    • D. 

      Nothing, Defendant has the right to be formally served with the lawsuit. 

  • 17. 
    Kate and Peach are sisters and lifelong fans of the Green Bay Packers (WI). Their houses are painted in the team colors. They are "owners" of the teach since they each own one share of packers stock, proudly displayed in frames on the walls of their homes, next to framed photographs of their favorite players. It has always been their dream to go to the super bowl to see their beloved Packers play. This year the Packers will play iun the super bowl in San Diego. Bill, who lives in San Diego, and knows abotu Kate and Peach's devotion to the Packers, sent two super bowl tickets to Peach. Bill assumed Peach would bring Kate to the game--which is what happened. While Kate was at the super bowl in San Diego, Bill properly served her with a lawsuit, which he had filed in San Diego. Kate has no other contacts with CA. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over Kate?
    • A. 

      Yes, because Kate was properly served while in San Diego

    • B. 

      No, because Bill tricked Kate into entering the State

    • C. 

      No, because Kate does not have minimum contacts in CA

    • D. 

      Yes, because Kate was physically present in CA.

  • 18. 
    Architect was working in his office when he received email service of a lawsuit naming his as the defendant. The plaintiff in that lawsuit works across the street from the architect, and could have easily hand delivered the complaint for personal service, or dropped off a copy of the complaint with the Architect's registered agent to accept service of process. Was service by e-mail proper according to FRCP Rule 4? 
    • A. 

      No, because service of process using e-mail is improper.

    • B. 

      No, because a more direct method of service was easily available to Plaintiff.

    • C. 

      Yes, if e-mail service is proper under applicable state law.

    • D. 

      Yes, because Architect actually received notice of the lawsuit. 

  • 19. 
    Ken, who lives in NE, and has never left the state, owns a mobile phone. Ken illegally downloaded an update for that phone, and during the illegal download, Ken willingly accepted a set of terms and conditions which stated: All claims, legal proceedings or litigation arising connection with this update will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in Olympia, WA. The mobile phone manufacturer filed suit agains Ken, in Olympia, WA, for fraud and theft of services, based on the illegal download. Does the court have personal jurisdiction over Ken?
    • A. 

      Yes, because the lawsuit arises out of Ken's contact with the forum state

    • B. 

      Yes, because Ken consented to jurisdiction

    • C. 

      No, because Ken does not have minimum contacts with WA.

    • D. 

      No, because it would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

  • 20. 
    Lindsay left her home in AZ and moved to Hollywood in the hopes of becoming a star. Lindsay had a successful movie, became a Mean Girl., and bought a home in CA where she planned to stay for her whole life. She was arrested for a DUI and her career went downhill quickly. For the past 2 years, she has been completely out of work, and currently has no prospects. The bank recently foreclosed on her home and now she is living on the street. Fed up, Lindsay packed her belongings and is ready to move back to AZ, to live with her parents, as soon as she can get enough money to pay for gas. 
    • A. 

      CA

    • B. 

      AZ, because she never changed her domicile to CA

    • C. 

      AZ, because she does not permanently intend to stay in CA

    • D. 

      AZ, because she currently has no home in CA in which to reside. 

Back to Top Back to top