Civil Procedure MBE
A plaintiff brought a negligence action in federal court to recover damages for injuries
suffered as an audience member at an event held by the defendant. The defendant was
a citizen of the forum state; the plaintiff was a citizen of the neighboring state in which
the event was held. Under the forum state's choice-of-law rules, the negligence law of
the neighboring state applied to this action. Under the negligence law of the neighboring
state, the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff.
Under the negligence law of the forum state, the defendant did not owe a duty to the
plaintiff. Which law should the court apply in deciding this action?
The negligence law of the forum state, because that is the law of the state in which the
federal court sits.
The negligence law of the forum state, because choice-of-law rules are procedural
rules.
The negligence law of the neighboring state, because of the forum state's choice -
answerA + B. See C.
C. Correct. FC with DJ over an action must apply conflict of laws rules of the state in
which it sits. Thus, court should apply negligence law of the neighboring state in
determining D's duty to P since this is the law that a state court in the same state as the
federal court would apply in determining the action
D. Wrong because in determining applicable law that a FC sitting in Dj must apply, the
state citizenship of the plaintiff is irrelevant
A patient, a citizen of state A, had a severe allergic reaction to a prescription drug
approved by the federal Food & Drug Administration (FDA). The patient was
hospitalized for many days and missed a number of days of work. She filed suit in the
U.S. District Court in the city of her residence against the manufacturer of the drug. The
manufacturer is incorporated in State B, but has its principal place of business in State
A. The patient claims that the manufacturer violated both State A tort law and the
federal Safe Drug Act (SDA), which provides that "persons who reasonably believe that
they may have been injured by a prescription drug have a cause of action in the
appropriate U.S. District Court." State A law is unsettled on the issue of whether
obtaining FDA approval shields a drug manufacturer from tort liability.
,The patient requests damages of $40,000 for medical expenses, $20,000 for lost pay,
and $15,000 - answerA. Correct. Court has FQ because the federal statute expressly
creates a federal COA for P's in patient's situation
B. Wrong because there's not complete diversity and the AIC is under 75k
C. Wrong because abstention applies when P brings a federal constitutional claim, and
in any event the resolution of the state law claim wouldn't obviate the need to decide
under FQ
D. Wrong because patient properly plead a question of federal law in her complaint
A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal district court in the state where the plaintiff was
domiciled. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant, who lived in a neighboring state,
was liable for damages the plaintiff sustained in a car accident that took place in the
neighboring state. The plaintiff had the defendant personally served by a process server
while the defendant was traveling through the forum state, which was his only contact
with the forum state. Nineteen days after being served with the complaint, the defendant
served an answer in which he denied that he was responsible for the car accident. The
next day, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal
jurisdiction over him. Is the court likely to grant the defendant's motion?
Yes, because the defendant raised the issue of personal jurisdiction within 21 days of
being served with the complaint.
Yes, because the defend - answerA. Wrong because by not raising an objection in his
answer, D has waived any objection based on PJ
B. Wrong because any objection to PJ was waived when he filed his answer without
raising this objection. This gets into the substance of the issue, we're looking at the
procedure
C. Correct. Defense to lack of jurisdiction over someone must be asserted in an answer
or pre-answer motion within 21 days, whichever comes first. If lack of PJ is not
asserted, the defense is waived
D. Wrong, D generally subject to PJ in any state where he's served while voluntarily
present, with 2 exceptions. P's fraudulently brought into the state by D for purpose of
serving process or if D is merely passing through state to attend other judiciary
proceedings, service may not provide PJ over D.
The plaintiff attended a professional baseball game, where he was hit by a foul ball. He
was rushed to a hospital and diagnosed with a head bruise. The injury was minor, and
the plaintiff's pain went away after three days. However, such a blow to the head, in one
out of every 500,000 cases, can lead to serious brain injuries many years later. The
plaintiff sued the defendant baseball team for negligence and requested $1,000,000 in
, damages. The federal court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction. The jury's verdict
was that the defendant was liable for negligence, based on evidence that the ball that
hit the plaintiff went through a hole in protective netting that the team failed to repair.
The jury awarded the plaintiff $15,000 for medical expenses and three days of lost
wages, plus $985,000 for "pain and suffering," primarily for the mental anguish of not
knowing whether a brain injury would develop later. In si - answerA. Wrong because the
court can limit the new trial to one issue like damages
B. Wrong because the court could've offered P a remittitur (reduction of verdict amount)
and granted a new trial on condition that remittitur wasn't accepted, but wasn't required
to give P that option
C. Wrong because there's no such requirement
D. Correct. a TC has discretion to grant a motion for a new trial on all or some issues for
a variety of reasons including an excessive verdict. Here, jury's award for pain and
suffering appears to be excessive.
A car dealership sued a car manufacturer in the federal court for State A for breach of
contract, alleging that the cars provided by the manufacturer to the dealership were
defective. The car dealership is incorporated in State A where its principal place of
business is located. The car manufacturer is incorporated in State B where its principal
place of business is located. The federal court for State A has personal jurisdiction over
the car manufacturer. The contract that formed the basis of the action contains a forum-
selection provision that designated the federal court for State B as the only appropriate
venue in which litigation of disputes arising under the contract could be pursued. The
car manufacturer has moved to dismiss this action for improper venue. Under the law of
State A, a forum selection clause is unenforceable.
How should the court rule on this motion?
Grant this motion, because of the forum se - answerA. Wrong because while the
contract in question contains a forum selection clause and could be given effect by the
federal court if the manufacturer sought to transfer the case to a federal court for State
B, the clause doesn't effect whether venue is proper
B. Wrong because while enforceability of the forum selection clause under federal law
would permit the federal court for State A to transfer this case to federal court for State
B, it's not relevant to whether venue is proper
C. Correct. Venue is proper in i) a judicial district where any D resides if all D's reside in
the same state in which the district is located, or ii) a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions on which the claim is based occurred, or
where a substantial part of the property is located. D that's an entity can sue and be
sued, regardless of whether incorporated, in any judicial district in which the entity is
A plaintiff brought a negligence action in federal court to recover damages for injuries
suffered as an audience member at an event held by the defendant. The defendant was
a citizen of the forum state; the plaintiff was a citizen of the neighboring state in which
the event was held. Under the forum state's choice-of-law rules, the negligence law of
the neighboring state applied to this action. Under the negligence law of the neighboring
state, the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff.
Under the negligence law of the forum state, the defendant did not owe a duty to the
plaintiff. Which law should the court apply in deciding this action?
The negligence law of the forum state, because that is the law of the state in which the
federal court sits.
The negligence law of the forum state, because choice-of-law rules are procedural
rules.
The negligence law of the neighboring state, because of the forum state's choice -
answerA + B. See C.
C. Correct. FC with DJ over an action must apply conflict of laws rules of the state in
which it sits. Thus, court should apply negligence law of the neighboring state in
determining D's duty to P since this is the law that a state court in the same state as the
federal court would apply in determining the action
D. Wrong because in determining applicable law that a FC sitting in Dj must apply, the
state citizenship of the plaintiff is irrelevant
A patient, a citizen of state A, had a severe allergic reaction to a prescription drug
approved by the federal Food & Drug Administration (FDA). The patient was
hospitalized for many days and missed a number of days of work. She filed suit in the
U.S. District Court in the city of her residence against the manufacturer of the drug. The
manufacturer is incorporated in State B, but has its principal place of business in State
A. The patient claims that the manufacturer violated both State A tort law and the
federal Safe Drug Act (SDA), which provides that "persons who reasonably believe that
they may have been injured by a prescription drug have a cause of action in the
appropriate U.S. District Court." State A law is unsettled on the issue of whether
obtaining FDA approval shields a drug manufacturer from tort liability.
,The patient requests damages of $40,000 for medical expenses, $20,000 for lost pay,
and $15,000 - answerA. Correct. Court has FQ because the federal statute expressly
creates a federal COA for P's in patient's situation
B. Wrong because there's not complete diversity and the AIC is under 75k
C. Wrong because abstention applies when P brings a federal constitutional claim, and
in any event the resolution of the state law claim wouldn't obviate the need to decide
under FQ
D. Wrong because patient properly plead a question of federal law in her complaint
A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal district court in the state where the plaintiff was
domiciled. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant, who lived in a neighboring state,
was liable for damages the plaintiff sustained in a car accident that took place in the
neighboring state. The plaintiff had the defendant personally served by a process server
while the defendant was traveling through the forum state, which was his only contact
with the forum state. Nineteen days after being served with the complaint, the defendant
served an answer in which he denied that he was responsible for the car accident. The
next day, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal
jurisdiction over him. Is the court likely to grant the defendant's motion?
Yes, because the defendant raised the issue of personal jurisdiction within 21 days of
being served with the complaint.
Yes, because the defend - answerA. Wrong because by not raising an objection in his
answer, D has waived any objection based on PJ
B. Wrong because any objection to PJ was waived when he filed his answer without
raising this objection. This gets into the substance of the issue, we're looking at the
procedure
C. Correct. Defense to lack of jurisdiction over someone must be asserted in an answer
or pre-answer motion within 21 days, whichever comes first. If lack of PJ is not
asserted, the defense is waived
D. Wrong, D generally subject to PJ in any state where he's served while voluntarily
present, with 2 exceptions. P's fraudulently brought into the state by D for purpose of
serving process or if D is merely passing through state to attend other judiciary
proceedings, service may not provide PJ over D.
The plaintiff attended a professional baseball game, where he was hit by a foul ball. He
was rushed to a hospital and diagnosed with a head bruise. The injury was minor, and
the plaintiff's pain went away after three days. However, such a blow to the head, in one
out of every 500,000 cases, can lead to serious brain injuries many years later. The
plaintiff sued the defendant baseball team for negligence and requested $1,000,000 in
, damages. The federal court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction. The jury's verdict
was that the defendant was liable for negligence, based on evidence that the ball that
hit the plaintiff went through a hole in protective netting that the team failed to repair.
The jury awarded the plaintiff $15,000 for medical expenses and three days of lost
wages, plus $985,000 for "pain and suffering," primarily for the mental anguish of not
knowing whether a brain injury would develop later. In si - answerA. Wrong because the
court can limit the new trial to one issue like damages
B. Wrong because the court could've offered P a remittitur (reduction of verdict amount)
and granted a new trial on condition that remittitur wasn't accepted, but wasn't required
to give P that option
C. Wrong because there's no such requirement
D. Correct. a TC has discretion to grant a motion for a new trial on all or some issues for
a variety of reasons including an excessive verdict. Here, jury's award for pain and
suffering appears to be excessive.
A car dealership sued a car manufacturer in the federal court for State A for breach of
contract, alleging that the cars provided by the manufacturer to the dealership were
defective. The car dealership is incorporated in State A where its principal place of
business is located. The car manufacturer is incorporated in State B where its principal
place of business is located. The federal court for State A has personal jurisdiction over
the car manufacturer. The contract that formed the basis of the action contains a forum-
selection provision that designated the federal court for State B as the only appropriate
venue in which litigation of disputes arising under the contract could be pursued. The
car manufacturer has moved to dismiss this action for improper venue. Under the law of
State A, a forum selection clause is unenforceable.
How should the court rule on this motion?
Grant this motion, because of the forum se - answerA. Wrong because while the
contract in question contains a forum selection clause and could be given effect by the
federal court if the manufacturer sought to transfer the case to a federal court for State
B, the clause doesn't effect whether venue is proper
B. Wrong because while enforceability of the forum selection clause under federal law
would permit the federal court for State A to transfer this case to federal court for State
B, it's not relevant to whether venue is proper
C. Correct. Venue is proper in i) a judicial district where any D resides if all D's reside in
the same state in which the district is located, or ii) a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions on which the claim is based occurred, or
where a substantial part of the property is located. D that's an entity can sue and be
sued, regardless of whether incorporated, in any judicial district in which the entity is
