Civil Procedure Multiple
Choice Questions and
Complete Solutions Graded A+
Passenger, a citizen of State P, was injured when Driver, a citizen of State D, lost control of a bus
maintained by Busco, a firm incorporated in State B and having its principal place of business in State D.
In State P federal district court, Passenger asserted a claim against Driver for negligent operation of the
vehicle and sought damages in the sum of $100,000. Driver responded by asserting a claim in impleader
against Busco and demanding contribution in the sum of $50,000 for negligent maintenance of the
vehicle.
If Busco responds by moving to dismiss Driver's claim in impleader for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
then Busco's motion should be - Answer: (a) Denied, because Driver's claim in impleader against Busco
arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that gave rise to Passenger's claim against Driver.
Don, who resides in the Northern District of Texas, and Dulcinea, who resides in the Southern District of
Texas, infringed a copyright interest held by Panza, who resides in the District of New Mexico, by
copying and selling one of Panza's literary works in the District of New Mexico without his permission. In
response, Panza brought an action for copyright infringement against Don and Dulcinea in United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico. If Don and Dulcinea move to dismiss the action due to
improper venue, then the motion should be -- - Answer: (d) Denied, because under 28 U.S.C. § 1391,
venue is permitted in any district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred.
Texco, a Texas corporation, and Norco, a Norwegian corporation, entered into a project agreement with
German Inc., a German corporation, for the purpose of developing certain underwater petroleum
reserves controlled by German Inc. in Europe's North Sea. In exchange for investing in the project, Texco
and Norco were each promised premium prices for, and free pipeline transportation of, North Sea
petroleum extracted by German Inc. After the reserves were developed, however, German Inc. barred
both Texco and Norco from either buying petroleum at premium prices or transporting North Sea
petroleum by pipeline for free.
In Texas state court, Texco and Norco brought an action asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud,
and misrepresentation against German Inc. Invoking both federal question and diversity jurisdiction,
German Inc. timely removed the action to Texas federal district court, where it filed timely motions -
Answer: (a) Incorrect, because under Capron v. Van Noorden, the better practice is to address a
, potential defect in subject matter jurisdiction, which was raised by the motion to remand, before
addressing other potential defects in the forum.
As to Texco and Norco's motion to remand, the district court should have determined that diversity
jurisdiction -- - Answer: (d) Was not established, because German Inc.'s and Norco's status as alien
corporations defeats diversity jurisdiction.
As to Texco and Norco's motion to remand, the district court should have determined that federal
question jurisdiction -- - Answer: (c) Was not established, because the action raises no substantial
federal question.
Paul, a citizen of the State of Bullocks, sued Danco, a company incorporated and having its principal
place of business in the State of Wilshire, for breach of contract. The action was filed in Bullocks federal
district court. The Bullocks Rules of Civil Procedure require a nonresident defendant corporation sued in
Bullocks to enter a special appearance in order to preserve its right to challenge personal jurisdiction.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose no such requirement.
Danco did not enter a special appearance, but did file a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction. The district court should -- - Answer: (c) Hear the motion, because under Hanna v.
Plumer, a Bullocks federal court sitting in diversity must apply the federal procedural rule whenever
such rule irreconcilably conflicts with state law and is arguably procedural.
Landy, the landlady of an apartment building, and Tenner, her tenant, are both citizens of the State of
Gupta, which maintains on its books a statute containing the following provisions:
Section 1. In any unlawful detainer action brought in a court of this State by a landlady against a tenant
for non-payment of rent, the tenant may be served with notice of such action by mailing the summons
and a copy of the complaint to the tenant at his rental unit.
Section 2. In any action described in section 1, a writ of possession in favor of the landlady shall be
issued by the court upon the landlady's filing of a declaration that she has probable cause to believe that
the tenant has failed to pay rent. No bond need be posted. If the writ of possession is found to have
been issued erroneously, then the tenant shall be restored to possession of the rental unit.
Choice Questions and
Complete Solutions Graded A+
Passenger, a citizen of State P, was injured when Driver, a citizen of State D, lost control of a bus
maintained by Busco, a firm incorporated in State B and having its principal place of business in State D.
In State P federal district court, Passenger asserted a claim against Driver for negligent operation of the
vehicle and sought damages in the sum of $100,000. Driver responded by asserting a claim in impleader
against Busco and demanding contribution in the sum of $50,000 for negligent maintenance of the
vehicle.
If Busco responds by moving to dismiss Driver's claim in impleader for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
then Busco's motion should be - Answer: (a) Denied, because Driver's claim in impleader against Busco
arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that gave rise to Passenger's claim against Driver.
Don, who resides in the Northern District of Texas, and Dulcinea, who resides in the Southern District of
Texas, infringed a copyright interest held by Panza, who resides in the District of New Mexico, by
copying and selling one of Panza's literary works in the District of New Mexico without his permission. In
response, Panza brought an action for copyright infringement against Don and Dulcinea in United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico. If Don and Dulcinea move to dismiss the action due to
improper venue, then the motion should be -- - Answer: (d) Denied, because under 28 U.S.C. § 1391,
venue is permitted in any district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred.
Texco, a Texas corporation, and Norco, a Norwegian corporation, entered into a project agreement with
German Inc., a German corporation, for the purpose of developing certain underwater petroleum
reserves controlled by German Inc. in Europe's North Sea. In exchange for investing in the project, Texco
and Norco were each promised premium prices for, and free pipeline transportation of, North Sea
petroleum extracted by German Inc. After the reserves were developed, however, German Inc. barred
both Texco and Norco from either buying petroleum at premium prices or transporting North Sea
petroleum by pipeline for free.
In Texas state court, Texco and Norco brought an action asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud,
and misrepresentation against German Inc. Invoking both federal question and diversity jurisdiction,
German Inc. timely removed the action to Texas federal district court, where it filed timely motions -
Answer: (a) Incorrect, because under Capron v. Van Noorden, the better practice is to address a
, potential defect in subject matter jurisdiction, which was raised by the motion to remand, before
addressing other potential defects in the forum.
As to Texco and Norco's motion to remand, the district court should have determined that diversity
jurisdiction -- - Answer: (d) Was not established, because German Inc.'s and Norco's status as alien
corporations defeats diversity jurisdiction.
As to Texco and Norco's motion to remand, the district court should have determined that federal
question jurisdiction -- - Answer: (c) Was not established, because the action raises no substantial
federal question.
Paul, a citizen of the State of Bullocks, sued Danco, a company incorporated and having its principal
place of business in the State of Wilshire, for breach of contract. The action was filed in Bullocks federal
district court. The Bullocks Rules of Civil Procedure require a nonresident defendant corporation sued in
Bullocks to enter a special appearance in order to preserve its right to challenge personal jurisdiction.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose no such requirement.
Danco did not enter a special appearance, but did file a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction. The district court should -- - Answer: (c) Hear the motion, because under Hanna v.
Plumer, a Bullocks federal court sitting in diversity must apply the federal procedural rule whenever
such rule irreconcilably conflicts with state law and is arguably procedural.
Landy, the landlady of an apartment building, and Tenner, her tenant, are both citizens of the State of
Gupta, which maintains on its books a statute containing the following provisions:
Section 1. In any unlawful detainer action brought in a court of this State by a landlady against a tenant
for non-payment of rent, the tenant may be served with notice of such action by mailing the summons
and a copy of the complaint to the tenant at his rental unit.
Section 2. In any action described in section 1, a writ of possession in favor of the landlady shall be
issued by the court upon the landlady's filing of a declaration that she has probable cause to believe that
the tenant has failed to pay rent. No bond need be posted. If the writ of possession is found to have
been issued erroneously, then the tenant shall be restored to possession of the rental unit.
