Civil Procedure - Casebook Connect
Exam-Graded A
Erica, a resident of New York City, was vacationing in California when the taxi she was
riding in collided with an automobile owned by Dave, a resident of San Francisco,
California, and driven by Chris, a resident of Los Angeles, California. Erica brought a
tort action seeking $300,000 in damages against both Dave and Chris in the federal
district court for the Central District of California, which is located in Los Angeles. San
Francisco is located within the Northern District of California. Does venue lie in the
chosen forum?
(A) Yes, because the plaintiff chose this forum.
(B) No, because the plaintiff is a resident of New York City.
(C) Yes, because Chris resides there.
(D) No, because Dave resides in San Francisco, which is located in the Northern District
of California. - ANS-Answer C is correct.
Venue in diversity cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1391(a). Under §1391(b)(1) venue
will lie in a federal judicial district in which any defendant resides as long as all
defendants reside in the same state. Although the two defendants reside in different
federal judicial districts (the Northern and Central Districts of California), they both
reside in the State of California. Therefore, under § 1391(b)(1), venue would lie in either
the Central (Los Angeles) or Northern (San Francisco) District.
Answer A is incorrect because the plaintiff's choice of venue is not dispositive.
Answer B is incorrect because residence of the plaintiff is irrelevant for venue purposes.
Answer D is incorrect because, under § 1391(b)(1), only one of the defendants needs to
reside in the chosen district if both defendants reside in the same multi-district state.
Jill went on a vacation to Europe with her two best friends, Lenny and Patty. Lenny is a
resident of New York City, New York, and Patty is a resident of Chicago, Illinois. Jill had
been a lifelong resident of Chicago but moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, just before
leaving for vacation. While they were in Paris, Lenny and Patty rented motorcycles and
during their ride, they ran over Jill. Jill returned home and filed a civil action in federal
court in Philadelphia asserting $200,000 tort claims against both Lenny and Patty.
Neither Lenny nor Patty has ever been to Pennsylvania nor have either of them had any
contact with the state. Does venue lie in the chosen forum?
(A) No, because neither defendant resides there and the accident occurred in Paris.
(B) Yes, because there is no other district in which venue would lie.
(C) No, because New York law would govern the merits of the case.
(D) Yes, because Jill is a re - ANS-A is the correct answer. Venue in diversity cases is
governed by 28 U.S.C. §1391. Venue is proper under this statute in a district in which
,any defendant resides if they all reside in the same state, a district in which a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or a district in which any
defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if there is no other district in the United
States that would qualify under either of the first two tests. Neither of the defendants
(NY, IL) resides in the chosen district (PA) and the events giving rise to the claim did not
occur within that district (Paris, France). Can we then rely on the personal jurisdiction-
based fall-back position? Only if there is no other federal district in which venue would
lie under either of the first two tests. Since there is no district in the United States in
which both defendants reside and there is no district in the United States where the
events giving rise to the claim occurred, then the fall-back provision comes into play.
However, Pennsylvania is not a suitable venue under the fall-back provision for venue
as neither have been to Pennsylvania and neither have sufficient contacts in that forum
in order to be subject to personal jurisdiction in PA.
Answer B is incorrect. The fall-back provision states that venue will lie in a district in
which "any defendant" is subject to personal jurisdiction. But neither defendant is
subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania so venue would not lie in any district in
that state. Since Lenny is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York and Patty is
subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois, venue would lie in either the Southern District
of New York or the Northern District of Illinois.
Answer C is incorrect because this factor is irrelevant to a venue determination. Venue
in fed
Jill went on a vacation to Hawaii with her best friend, Patty. Patty is a resident of
Chicago, Illinois. Jill had been a lifelong resident of Chicago but moved to Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, just before leaving for vacation. While they were in Hawaii, Jill and Patty
rented motorcycles and during their ride, Patty's motorcycle ran into Jill's motorcycle
while Jill was on it. Jill returned home and filed a civil action in federal court in
Philadelphia asserting $200,000 tort claims against Patty and Bikes, Inc., the Hawaii
rental company that is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. Patty has never been
to Pennsylvania and never had any contact with the state. Although Bikes, Inc. operates
a highly interactive web site, no one in Pennsylvania has ever visited that site or
purchased any products from the company. Does venue lie in the chosen forum?
(A) Yes, because Jill is a resident of Philadelphia.
(B) Yes, becaus - ANS-C is the correct answer. This case involves two defendants—
one natural person and one corporation. Since residence is the relevant concept for
venue purposes, we need to know the definition of residence for a corporate defendant.
Under the terms of §1391(c)(2), a corporate defendant resides in any federal judicial
district in which the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction. And in multi-district
states, the corporation is deemed to reside in any district in that state within which its
contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were
considered to be a separate state. Here, defendant Patty is a resident of the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago). The defendant rental company clearly resides in Hawaii and
is also subject to personal jurisdiction in the state under whose laws it is incorporated—
Delaware. But it does not have any contact with Pennsylvania that would justify
determining that it would be subject to personal jurisdiction in any part of Pennsylvania.
,Consequently, Bikes, Inc. does not reside in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). Therefore, we now have two defendants, each of whom resides in
different states. Thus, residence of defendants is not useful for venue purposes. The
events occurred in Hawaii so that will not support jurisdiction in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). And since the events occurred in Hawaii, venue would not
lie in Philadelphia under §1391(b)(2). We cannot even consider the fall-back provision
of (b)(3) since venue is available elsewhere under subsections (1) or (2), here in Hawaii.
Answer A is incorrect because the residence of the plaintiff is irrelevant under the
federal venue statute.
Answer B is incorrect because the company is not subject to personal jurisdiction in
Pennsylvania. Bikes, Inc.
Jill went on a vacation to Paris, France, with her best friend, Sandy. Sandy is a resident
of Chicago, Illinois. Jill had been a lifelong resident of Chicago but moved to
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, just before leaving for vacation. While they were in Paris,
Jill and Sandy rented motorcycles and during their ride, Sandy's motorcycle ran into
Jill's motorcycle while Jill was on it. Jill returned home and filed a civil action in federal
court in Chicago asserting $200,000 tort claims against Sandy and Moto, the motorcycle
rental company in Paris. Does venue lie in the chosen forum?
(A) Yes, because Sandy resides there and Moto is a French company.
(B) No, because Moto is a French company.
(C) Yes, because Jill used to live in Chicago.
(D) No, because the accident occurred in Paris. - ANS-A is the correct answer. Subject
matter jurisdiction is predicated on §1332(a)(1) (as to the claim against Sandy) and
§1332(a)(2) (as to the claim against Moto). So the governing venue statute is §1391(b)
(1), which provides for venue in the district where the defendant resides. Since Sandy
resides in Chicago, venue is clearly appropriate as to the claim against her. Moto is a
foreign company. But §1391(c)(3) expressly allows that a defendant not residing in the
United States may be sued in any judicial district, and that joinder of such defendant
shall be disregarded in determining where the action may be brought with respect to
other defendants.
Answer B is incorrect because aliens can be sued in any federal district.
Answer C is incorrect because the residence of the plaintiff is irrelevant for venue
purposes under §1391(c)(3).
Answer D is incorrect because the fact that the accident did not occur in the chosen
venue does not preclude venue if venue can be predicated on the residence of the
defendant(s) under §1391(b)(1).
Mandy, a resident of New York City, was vacationing in California when the taxi she
was riding in collided with an automobile owned by Charles, a resident of San Francisco
and driven by Mike, a resident of Los Angeles. Mandy brought a tort action seeking
$300,000 in damages against both Charles and Mike in the federal district court for the
Southern District of New York, which is located in New York City. Does venue lie in the
chosen forum?
, (A) Yes, because the plaintiff chose this forum.
(B) No, because the plaintiff's residence is irrelevant for venue purposes and because
the accident occurred and the defendants reside in California.
(C) Yes, because the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.
(D) No, because New York law would govern the resolution of this case. - ANS-B is the
correct answer. Venue in diversity cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1391. Proper venue
here lies in the district in which any defendant resides if they all reside in the same state
under §1391(b)(1), a district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the
claim occurred under §1391(b)(2), or a district in which any defendant is subject to
personal jurisdiction if there is no other district in the United States that would qualify
under subsections (1) or (2) under §1391(b)(3). None of the defendants resides in New
York so defendant residence under §1391(b)(1) does not provide venue. The events
giving rise to the claim occurred in California, not New York, so that does not provide
venue in New York under §1391(b)(2). Even if the defendants would be subject to
personal jurisdiction in New York, that is not a basis for venue because that fall-back
provision is only available if there is no other district in the United States that would
meet either of the prior two tests. In other words, since venue options are available in
judicial districts in California, Mandy cannot use §1391(b)(3) to obtain venue in New
York.
Answer C is incorrect since venue would lie in any judicial district in California, and
therefore we cannot rely on the fall-back provision in § 1391(b)(3). Therefore, venue
does not lie in New York City. The fact that the plaintiff resides there is irrelevant
because the plaintiff's residence is irrelevant to a venue determination.
Answer A is incorrect because the plaintiff's choice of venue is not dispositive.
Answer D is incorrect because this proposition is irrelevant to this problem. Venue in
federal courts is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1391, not state law.
Sam is injured in a crash between his car and another car and a truck on a narrow
country road in Concord, New Hampshire. Sam is a citizen of New Hampshire. The
driver of the other car, Karen, is a citizen of Maine, and the owner of the truck, Mac
Truck, is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of
business in Connecticut. Sam files an action in the federal court for the District of New
Hampshire seeking damages of $250,000 against each of the two named defendants,
Karen and Mac Truck. In the same suit, Karen files a claim against Mac Truck seeking
over $75,000 in damages for the damage to her car. Mac Truck files a tort claim against
Sam seeking over $70,000 in damages for the damages to its truck. Mac Truck also
files a claim against Ben, a citizen of Connecticut who was driving its truck at the time of
the accident, seeking indemnity from any loss it might suffer in connection with Sam -
ANS-D is the correct answer. Since original jurisdiction was founded solely on diversity
in this civil action, the relevant venue provision is §1391(b). Under §1391(b)(2), venue
will lie in the district where a substantial part of the events that gave rise to the claim
occurred. Since the accident occurred in the chosen venue, venue lies there.
Answer A is incorrect because that fact goes to subject matter jurisdiction and not to
venue.
Answer B is incorrect because the residence of the plaintiff is irrelevant to the venue
calculation required by §1391(b).
Exam-Graded A
Erica, a resident of New York City, was vacationing in California when the taxi she was
riding in collided with an automobile owned by Dave, a resident of San Francisco,
California, and driven by Chris, a resident of Los Angeles, California. Erica brought a
tort action seeking $300,000 in damages against both Dave and Chris in the federal
district court for the Central District of California, which is located in Los Angeles. San
Francisco is located within the Northern District of California. Does venue lie in the
chosen forum?
(A) Yes, because the plaintiff chose this forum.
(B) No, because the plaintiff is a resident of New York City.
(C) Yes, because Chris resides there.
(D) No, because Dave resides in San Francisco, which is located in the Northern District
of California. - ANS-Answer C is correct.
Venue in diversity cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1391(a). Under §1391(b)(1) venue
will lie in a federal judicial district in which any defendant resides as long as all
defendants reside in the same state. Although the two defendants reside in different
federal judicial districts (the Northern and Central Districts of California), they both
reside in the State of California. Therefore, under § 1391(b)(1), venue would lie in either
the Central (Los Angeles) or Northern (San Francisco) District.
Answer A is incorrect because the plaintiff's choice of venue is not dispositive.
Answer B is incorrect because residence of the plaintiff is irrelevant for venue purposes.
Answer D is incorrect because, under § 1391(b)(1), only one of the defendants needs to
reside in the chosen district if both defendants reside in the same multi-district state.
Jill went on a vacation to Europe with her two best friends, Lenny and Patty. Lenny is a
resident of New York City, New York, and Patty is a resident of Chicago, Illinois. Jill had
been a lifelong resident of Chicago but moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, just before
leaving for vacation. While they were in Paris, Lenny and Patty rented motorcycles and
during their ride, they ran over Jill. Jill returned home and filed a civil action in federal
court in Philadelphia asserting $200,000 tort claims against both Lenny and Patty.
Neither Lenny nor Patty has ever been to Pennsylvania nor have either of them had any
contact with the state. Does venue lie in the chosen forum?
(A) No, because neither defendant resides there and the accident occurred in Paris.
(B) Yes, because there is no other district in which venue would lie.
(C) No, because New York law would govern the merits of the case.
(D) Yes, because Jill is a re - ANS-A is the correct answer. Venue in diversity cases is
governed by 28 U.S.C. §1391. Venue is proper under this statute in a district in which
,any defendant resides if they all reside in the same state, a district in which a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or a district in which any
defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if there is no other district in the United
States that would qualify under either of the first two tests. Neither of the defendants
(NY, IL) resides in the chosen district (PA) and the events giving rise to the claim did not
occur within that district (Paris, France). Can we then rely on the personal jurisdiction-
based fall-back position? Only if there is no other federal district in which venue would
lie under either of the first two tests. Since there is no district in the United States in
which both defendants reside and there is no district in the United States where the
events giving rise to the claim occurred, then the fall-back provision comes into play.
However, Pennsylvania is not a suitable venue under the fall-back provision for venue
as neither have been to Pennsylvania and neither have sufficient contacts in that forum
in order to be subject to personal jurisdiction in PA.
Answer B is incorrect. The fall-back provision states that venue will lie in a district in
which "any defendant" is subject to personal jurisdiction. But neither defendant is
subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania so venue would not lie in any district in
that state. Since Lenny is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York and Patty is
subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois, venue would lie in either the Southern District
of New York or the Northern District of Illinois.
Answer C is incorrect because this factor is irrelevant to a venue determination. Venue
in fed
Jill went on a vacation to Hawaii with her best friend, Patty. Patty is a resident of
Chicago, Illinois. Jill had been a lifelong resident of Chicago but moved to Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, just before leaving for vacation. While they were in Hawaii, Jill and Patty
rented motorcycles and during their ride, Patty's motorcycle ran into Jill's motorcycle
while Jill was on it. Jill returned home and filed a civil action in federal court in
Philadelphia asserting $200,000 tort claims against Patty and Bikes, Inc., the Hawaii
rental company that is incorporated under the laws of Delaware. Patty has never been
to Pennsylvania and never had any contact with the state. Although Bikes, Inc. operates
a highly interactive web site, no one in Pennsylvania has ever visited that site or
purchased any products from the company. Does venue lie in the chosen forum?
(A) Yes, because Jill is a resident of Philadelphia.
(B) Yes, becaus - ANS-C is the correct answer. This case involves two defendants—
one natural person and one corporation. Since residence is the relevant concept for
venue purposes, we need to know the definition of residence for a corporate defendant.
Under the terms of §1391(c)(2), a corporate defendant resides in any federal judicial
district in which the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction. And in multi-district
states, the corporation is deemed to reside in any district in that state within which its
contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were
considered to be a separate state. Here, defendant Patty is a resident of the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago). The defendant rental company clearly resides in Hawaii and
is also subject to personal jurisdiction in the state under whose laws it is incorporated—
Delaware. But it does not have any contact with Pennsylvania that would justify
determining that it would be subject to personal jurisdiction in any part of Pennsylvania.
,Consequently, Bikes, Inc. does not reside in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). Therefore, we now have two defendants, each of whom resides in
different states. Thus, residence of defendants is not useful for venue purposes. The
events occurred in Hawaii so that will not support jurisdiction in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). And since the events occurred in Hawaii, venue would not
lie in Philadelphia under §1391(b)(2). We cannot even consider the fall-back provision
of (b)(3) since venue is available elsewhere under subsections (1) or (2), here in Hawaii.
Answer A is incorrect because the residence of the plaintiff is irrelevant under the
federal venue statute.
Answer B is incorrect because the company is not subject to personal jurisdiction in
Pennsylvania. Bikes, Inc.
Jill went on a vacation to Paris, France, with her best friend, Sandy. Sandy is a resident
of Chicago, Illinois. Jill had been a lifelong resident of Chicago but moved to
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, just before leaving for vacation. While they were in Paris,
Jill and Sandy rented motorcycles and during their ride, Sandy's motorcycle ran into
Jill's motorcycle while Jill was on it. Jill returned home and filed a civil action in federal
court in Chicago asserting $200,000 tort claims against Sandy and Moto, the motorcycle
rental company in Paris. Does venue lie in the chosen forum?
(A) Yes, because Sandy resides there and Moto is a French company.
(B) No, because Moto is a French company.
(C) Yes, because Jill used to live in Chicago.
(D) No, because the accident occurred in Paris. - ANS-A is the correct answer. Subject
matter jurisdiction is predicated on §1332(a)(1) (as to the claim against Sandy) and
§1332(a)(2) (as to the claim against Moto). So the governing venue statute is §1391(b)
(1), which provides for venue in the district where the defendant resides. Since Sandy
resides in Chicago, venue is clearly appropriate as to the claim against her. Moto is a
foreign company. But §1391(c)(3) expressly allows that a defendant not residing in the
United States may be sued in any judicial district, and that joinder of such defendant
shall be disregarded in determining where the action may be brought with respect to
other defendants.
Answer B is incorrect because aliens can be sued in any federal district.
Answer C is incorrect because the residence of the plaintiff is irrelevant for venue
purposes under §1391(c)(3).
Answer D is incorrect because the fact that the accident did not occur in the chosen
venue does not preclude venue if venue can be predicated on the residence of the
defendant(s) under §1391(b)(1).
Mandy, a resident of New York City, was vacationing in California when the taxi she
was riding in collided with an automobile owned by Charles, a resident of San Francisco
and driven by Mike, a resident of Los Angeles. Mandy brought a tort action seeking
$300,000 in damages against both Charles and Mike in the federal district court for the
Southern District of New York, which is located in New York City. Does venue lie in the
chosen forum?
, (A) Yes, because the plaintiff chose this forum.
(B) No, because the plaintiff's residence is irrelevant for venue purposes and because
the accident occurred and the defendants reside in California.
(C) Yes, because the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.
(D) No, because New York law would govern the resolution of this case. - ANS-B is the
correct answer. Venue in diversity cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1391. Proper venue
here lies in the district in which any defendant resides if they all reside in the same state
under §1391(b)(1), a district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the
claim occurred under §1391(b)(2), or a district in which any defendant is subject to
personal jurisdiction if there is no other district in the United States that would qualify
under subsections (1) or (2) under §1391(b)(3). None of the defendants resides in New
York so defendant residence under §1391(b)(1) does not provide venue. The events
giving rise to the claim occurred in California, not New York, so that does not provide
venue in New York under §1391(b)(2). Even if the defendants would be subject to
personal jurisdiction in New York, that is not a basis for venue because that fall-back
provision is only available if there is no other district in the United States that would
meet either of the prior two tests. In other words, since venue options are available in
judicial districts in California, Mandy cannot use §1391(b)(3) to obtain venue in New
York.
Answer C is incorrect since venue would lie in any judicial district in California, and
therefore we cannot rely on the fall-back provision in § 1391(b)(3). Therefore, venue
does not lie in New York City. The fact that the plaintiff resides there is irrelevant
because the plaintiff's residence is irrelevant to a venue determination.
Answer A is incorrect because the plaintiff's choice of venue is not dispositive.
Answer D is incorrect because this proposition is irrelevant to this problem. Venue in
federal courts is governed by 28 U.S.C. §1391, not state law.
Sam is injured in a crash between his car and another car and a truck on a narrow
country road in Concord, New Hampshire. Sam is a citizen of New Hampshire. The
driver of the other car, Karen, is a citizen of Maine, and the owner of the truck, Mac
Truck, is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of
business in Connecticut. Sam files an action in the federal court for the District of New
Hampshire seeking damages of $250,000 against each of the two named defendants,
Karen and Mac Truck. In the same suit, Karen files a claim against Mac Truck seeking
over $75,000 in damages for the damage to her car. Mac Truck files a tort claim against
Sam seeking over $70,000 in damages for the damages to its truck. Mac Truck also
files a claim against Ben, a citizen of Connecticut who was driving its truck at the time of
the accident, seeking indemnity from any loss it might suffer in connection with Sam -
ANS-D is the correct answer. Since original jurisdiction was founded solely on diversity
in this civil action, the relevant venue provision is §1391(b). Under §1391(b)(2), venue
will lie in the district where a substantial part of the events that gave rise to the claim
occurred. Since the accident occurred in the chosen venue, venue lies there.
Answer A is incorrect because that fact goes to subject matter jurisdiction and not to
venue.
Answer B is incorrect because the residence of the plaintiff is irrelevant to the venue
calculation required by §1391(b).
