Uslawessentials Civ Pro Essentials 1

(A) is the right answer because it correctly states the standard under Rule 13 for mandatory counterclaims. Dennis’s claim arises from the same transaction and occurrence as the subject matter of Phillip’s claim. (B) misstates the standard for permissive counterclaims and (C) misstates the standard for mandatory counterclaims. (D) relies on the “case and controversy” language of 28 USC 1367(a) which is relevant to supplemental subject matter jurisdiction but is not the standard for determining whether a counterclaim is mandatory.

(C) is correct because it correctly states the Rule 8 standard as interpreted in the Supreme Court’s decisions Twombly and Iqbal: a Complaint must contain a short and plain statement alleging facts that show the plaintiff is plausibly entitled to the relief that he seeks.
The Complaint does not require proof nor does it require the plaintiff to show that he is likely to prevail, therefore, choices (A) and (B) are wrong. (D) describes the standard to prevail on summary judgment, which is far more stringent.

28 USC §1367 establishes supplemental jurisdiction over Sally’s claim, provided she and Patrick have related claims - - their lawsuits must form part of the same case or controversy. The statute does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs joined pursuant to Rule 19 but courts do have supplemental jurisdiction over a lawsuit by plaintiffs joined pursuant to Rule 20.
(A) is wrong because one plaintiff who does not meet the amount in controversy requirement will not contaminate other plaintiffs’ claims.
(C) is wrong because the Court will not aggregate claims by multiple plaintiffs (except where there is a common and undivided interest - - e.g., tenants in common suing together with respect to property).
(D) is wrong to state that the court has jurisdiction because Sally satisfies diversity. That Sally is a citizen of a different state from Patrick is irrelevant. She would need to be diverse from Dapper and also satisfy the amount in controversy requirement for the court to assert diversity jurisdiction.

The Court will have subject matter jurisdiction over the case because there is diversity between the class representative and the defendant, the case alleges more than $5 million in damages, and there are at least 100 class members. Only diversity between one class member and the defendant is required pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (28 USC §1332(d)).
Courts may decline jurisdiction where between 1/3 and 2/3 of the class members and at least one of the primary defendants are citizens of the forum state.
Courts must decline jurisdiction where more than 2/3 of the class members and at least one of the primary defendants are citizens of the forum state.
(A) is wrong because only one class member must be diverse from the defendant.
(C) and (D) are wrong because each class member is not required to be diverse nor does each class member have to plead more than $75,000 in damages.

(D) best states the Rule 34 requirement for producing ESI.
(C) is wrong because it misstates the best evidence rule and is not relevant to the issue.
(A) is not the best answer, although the cost of production might be relevant in another context to discovery disputes. Under amended Rule 26 the scope of discoverable information is proportional to, among other things, the needs of the case and the burden of production.
(B) is wrong because there is no requirement that a party produce ESI in more than one form.

enue, pursuant to 28 USC §1391, is appropriate in a jurisdiction where a substantial number of the underlying events occurred or, if all defendants are resident in the same state, in any district in which one defendant resides.
The incorrect answer choices for this question are either incomplete or include EDNY. EDNY is inappropriate because EDNY is plaintiff’s residence and does not affect venue.

As a general rule, jurors in federal cases must reach a unanimous decision, however, the parties can agree otherwise, therefore, (A) is the best answer. (B), (C), and (D) are wrong because parties can agree to depart from the general rule. (B) and (C) are also irrelevant in their discussion of when judges should ask jurors to continue to deliberate.

Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the states in which they are citizens (usually their permanent residence). (B) is the best answer because it correctly states that New York has power over Dustin because Dustin is a citizen of New York. Defendants may also be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in another state if they engage in activity that affects another state and the litigation results from that activity.
(A) is wrong to the extent it states that there are no policy reasons to support jurisdiction over Dustin in New York. The answer is accurate to the extent that California may also have personal jurisdiction over him based on his activities in the state.
(C) is wrong because jurisdiction is based on where he is currently a citizen, not a former residence.
(D) is wrong because merely traveling to other states does not result in personal jurisdiction in those states.

Rule 47(b) and 28 USC §1870 limit parties to three peremptory challenges but there is no limit to challenges for cause.
Because she challenged jurors for cause, the attorney should have three peremptory challenges remaining, making (C) the best answer.
(A), (B), and (D) each misstate the number of peremptory challenges remaining for the lawyer.

Rule 7 lists the pleadings allowed in a federal civil litigation. Typically the case begins with the Complaint. Rules for pleadings are discussed in Rules 8 and 9 and in certain statutes that impose more stringent pleading requirements.

(A) & (B) are relevant to the amount in controversy. But this case appears to be based on federal question jurisdiction so citizenship and the amount in controversy requirement are irrelevant.
(D) is wrong because if the plaintiff initiates the case in a federal court that court should have personal jurisdiction over her.

To determine whether a case should be dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party courts apply a two-step test: First is an absent party necessary to be joined? Second, is it feasible to join the absent party?
An absent party is required to be joined if in his absence the court cannot provide relief to the parties. As a general rule, joint tortfeasors do not have to be joined in the same case. Likewise, when employees commit a tort, plaintiffs do not have to join the employer and the employee in the same action. Assuming our general rules hold, the court should not dismiss the case because the action can proceed against Dunking without the employee.

Rule 9 provides that some pleadings require more specificity than the general pleading requirements of Rule 8.
Pleadings that include, among other things, allegations of fraud or mistake are subject to the heightened requirements of Rule 9. Although mental state my be alleged generally, the circumstances of the fraud or mistake must be alleged with specificity.
Answers (A) & (D) are wrong because they do not distinguish between the pleading requirements for alleging mental state and pleading the circumstances of the fraud or mistake. (B) is wrong because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require affidavits, declarations, or documentary evidence to prove allegations at the pleading stage.

Rule 8 provides for pleading in the alternative by either the plaintiff or the defendant so answers (A) and (B) are wrong. (C) is irrelevant to the question but it is true that a plaintiff must allege fraud with particularity according to Rule 9.

(C) is the best answer because Peaceful is alleging a state law breach of contract claim and it appears that the Medicaid argument is a defense. Removal is appropriate pursuant to 28 USC §1441 if federal law preempts the claim or if the claim creates a substantial federal question. Provided the plaintiff does not engage in “artful pleading” to avoid alleging what is obviously a federal claim, a federal court will likely lack jurisdiction. Where the defendant is alleging federal law as a defense, a federal court is unlikely to assert subject matter jurisdiction.
(A) is wrong because removal is not appropriate merely because a federal issue arises in a state court case.
(B) is wrong because federal law did not create the claim. This is a breach of contract case.
(D) is wrong because although it is true that a federal court cannot “seize a case from a state court” the question asks whether removal is appropriate.

(A) is the correct answer because there is no diversity jurisdiction between Duncan and Terrapin and the court will need to rely on supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §1367. 28 USC 1367 provides that in a claim by a defendant against a third party under Rule 14, the court will have supplemental jurisdiction provided the claim arises out of the same case or controversy as the original claim.
(B) is wrong because supplemental jurisdiction means diversity between the defendant and the third party is unnecessary.
(D) is wrong because the facts tell us the parties are not diverse. If the parties were diverse the court would not need to rely on supplemental jurisdiction
(C) is wrong because this is not a counterclaim against the plaintiff. The defendant is impleading a third party for contribution pursuant to Rule 14.

Parties may remove a case to federal court if the court could originally have asserted jurisdiction over the claim. The process requires only a notice of removal to the state court. There is no need to file a motion.
Remand is where a federal court returns the case to state court because it does not have federal jurisdiction. To remand a case after removal requires a motion.
(A) and (D) are wrong because they imprecisely refer to remanding a case to federal court. (B) is wrong because it incorrectly states that removal requires a motion.

(C) most accurately states the rule in 28 USC §1441(c) that a federal court may decide both federal and state law claims unless the state law claim is non-removable. If the state law claim is non-removable then the federal court should sever the case and remand the non-removable claims back to the state court.
(A) is wrong because a federal court may adjudicate state law claims.
(B) is not accurate because nothing in the question demonstrates that the state law claim would be non-removable. Even if it the state law claim were non-removable, the federal court could decide the federal question - - the defendant would still have the right to remove the case to have that claim decided.
(D) is wrong because there is no bond requirement.

(A) is wrong because the state court cannot transfer a case to a federal court. (B) is wrong because Daring is at home in State B and is not allowed to remove a case to federal court located in his home state. If the case were in State A, where Daring is not a citizen, removal would be permissible (28 USC §1441). (C) is wrong because a party cannot remove the case from a state court to a federal court in another state.

(A) incorrectly states that discoverable information must be admissible. Rule 26 does not require information to be admissible. All of the other answers are consistent with the requirements of Rule 26.