Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) —
Comprehensive Practice Question Set a
well detailed exam 2025/2026 graded
A+ upgraded !!! Advanced / Mixed
Difficulty — 150 Multiple-Choice
Questions
CIVIL PROCEDURE (Questions 1–22)
Question 1
A plaintiff filed a diversity action in federal court against a defendant domiciled in another state,
seeking $100,000 in damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff properly served the defendant
with a summons and complaint. The defendant timely filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. While that motion was pending, the defendant
also filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the Rule
12(b)(6) motion. The defendant then sought to have the personal jurisdiction motion heard.
Should the court consider the personal jurisdiction motion?
A. No, because the defendant waived the defense by filing the Rule 12(b)(6) motion first.
B. No, because the defendant failed to include the defense in the first responsive pleading.
,C. Yes, because lack of personal jurisdiction is a defense that can be raised at any time.
D. Yes, because the defendant raised the defense in a timely manner before filing an answer.
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(1), a party waives certain defenses—
including lack of personal jurisdiction—by failing to raise them in a motion under Rule 12 or in
the first responsive pleading. However, a party may raise the defense in a Rule 12 motion; if the
court denies that motion, the defense is not waived if raised in a timely manner. Here, the
defendant raised personal jurisdiction in a separate motion while the 12(b)(6) motion was
pending, and both motions were filed before any answer. The defense was therefore timely
asserted. Answer A is incorrect because filing a 12(b)(6) motion does not waive other Rule 12
defenses if they are raised concurrently or in a timely subsequent motion before an answer.
Answer B is incorrect because the motion itself constitutes a responsive pleading for waiver
purposes. Answer C is incorrect because personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction,
is waivable and must be raised timely.
Question 2
A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court alleging that the defendant, a corporation, violated
federal securities laws. The complaint contained three counts. The defendant filed a motion to
dismiss Count I for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion with prejudice as to
Count I but allowed Counts II and III to proceed. The defendant now wishes to appeal the
court's ruling on Count I. Is the ruling immediately appealable?
A. Yes, because the court's ruling finally disposed of Count I.
B. Yes, because the ruling involves a controlling question of law.
C. No, because the ruling did not dispose of all claims against all parties.
D. No, because federal securities laws do not permit interlocutory appeals.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, appellate courts have jurisdiction over final decisions of
district courts. A decision is final when it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for
the court to do but execute the judgment. Here, the dismissal of Count I with prejudice did not
dispose of Counts II and III, so the case remains pending. Therefore, the ruling is not a final
appealable order. Answer A is incorrect because disposing of one count does not make the
entire case final. Answer B is incorrect because while interlocutory appeals are available under
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for controlling questions of law, the court has not certified the question for
,appeal. Answer D is incorrect because there is no categorical bar on interlocutory appeals in
securities cases.
Question 3
A plaintiff filed a class action in federal district court under Rule 23. The proposed class consists
of 500 individuals who purchased defective products from the defendant. The plaintiff seeks
certification of the class. Which of the following is NOT a requirement for class certification
under Rule 23(a)?
A. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
B. There are questions of law or fact common to the class.
C. The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the class.
D. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Correct Answer: B (This is a requirement — the question asks for what is NOT a requirement)
Correction — the question asks for what is NOT a requirement. All options A, C, and D are
requirements. The correct answer should identify a non-requirement. However, since B is
actually a requirement, this question is flawed as written. Let me provide a corrected version.
Corrected Question 3: A plaintiff filed a class action in federal district court under Rule 23. The
proposed class consists of 500 individuals who purchased defective products from the
defendant. The plaintiff seeks certification of the class. Which of the following is NOT a
requirement for class certification under Rule 23(a)?
A. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
B. There are questions of law or fact common to the class.
C. The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the class.
D. The plaintiff has standing to sue on behalf of the class.
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: Rule 23(a) requires: (1) numerosity—the class is so numerous that joinder is
impracticable; (2) commonality—questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) typicality—
claims or defenses of representative parties are typical; and (4) adequacy—representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect class interests. Standing is a constitutional prerequisite
for any federal lawsuit but is not separately listed as a Rule 23(a) requirement, though it is
subsumed within the adequacy and typicality analysis. Therefore, D is not a standalone Rule
23(a) requirement.
, Question 4
A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court for negligence arising from a car accident. The
plaintiff is a citizen of State A, and the defendant is a citizen of State B. The amount in
controversy is $85,000. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. How should the court rule?
A. Grant the motion, because the amount in controversy is less than $100,000.
B. Grant the motion, because complete diversity is lacking.
C. Deny the motion, because the court has diversity jurisdiction.
D. Deny the motion, because the court has federal question jurisdiction.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity of
citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding
$75,000 (not $100,000). Here, the plaintiff is a citizen of State A, the defendant is a citizen of
State B—complete diversity exists—and the amount in controversy is $85,000, which exceeds
the jurisdictional threshold. Therefore, the court has diversity jurisdiction. Answer A is incorrect
because it cites the wrong threshold amount. Answer B is incorrect because complete diversity
actually exists. Answer D is incorrect because the claim arises under state law (negligence), not
federal law.
Question 5
A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court asserting claims under both federal and state law.
The federal claim was dismissed on the pleadings. The defendant now moves to dismiss the
remaining state law claims. How should the court rule?
A. Grant the motion, because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the state claims.
B. Grant the motion, because the court must dismiss all state claims once federal claims are
dismissed.
C. Deny the motion, because the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
claims.
D. Deny the motion, because the state claims are compulsory counterclaims.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state law
claims that are so related to federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.
Although the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal
Comprehensive Practice Question Set a
well detailed exam 2025/2026 graded
A+ upgraded !!! Advanced / Mixed
Difficulty — 150 Multiple-Choice
Questions
CIVIL PROCEDURE (Questions 1–22)
Question 1
A plaintiff filed a diversity action in federal court against a defendant domiciled in another state,
seeking $100,000 in damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff properly served the defendant
with a summons and complaint. The defendant timely filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. While that motion was pending, the defendant
also filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the Rule
12(b)(6) motion. The defendant then sought to have the personal jurisdiction motion heard.
Should the court consider the personal jurisdiction motion?
A. No, because the defendant waived the defense by filing the Rule 12(b)(6) motion first.
B. No, because the defendant failed to include the defense in the first responsive pleading.
,C. Yes, because lack of personal jurisdiction is a defense that can be raised at any time.
D. Yes, because the defendant raised the defense in a timely manner before filing an answer.
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(1), a party waives certain defenses—
including lack of personal jurisdiction—by failing to raise them in a motion under Rule 12 or in
the first responsive pleading. However, a party may raise the defense in a Rule 12 motion; if the
court denies that motion, the defense is not waived if raised in a timely manner. Here, the
defendant raised personal jurisdiction in a separate motion while the 12(b)(6) motion was
pending, and both motions were filed before any answer. The defense was therefore timely
asserted. Answer A is incorrect because filing a 12(b)(6) motion does not waive other Rule 12
defenses if they are raised concurrently or in a timely subsequent motion before an answer.
Answer B is incorrect because the motion itself constitutes a responsive pleading for waiver
purposes. Answer C is incorrect because personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction,
is waivable and must be raised timely.
Question 2
A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court alleging that the defendant, a corporation, violated
federal securities laws. The complaint contained three counts. The defendant filed a motion to
dismiss Count I for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion with prejudice as to
Count I but allowed Counts II and III to proceed. The defendant now wishes to appeal the
court's ruling on Count I. Is the ruling immediately appealable?
A. Yes, because the court's ruling finally disposed of Count I.
B. Yes, because the ruling involves a controlling question of law.
C. No, because the ruling did not dispose of all claims against all parties.
D. No, because federal securities laws do not permit interlocutory appeals.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, appellate courts have jurisdiction over final decisions of
district courts. A decision is final when it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for
the court to do but execute the judgment. Here, the dismissal of Count I with prejudice did not
dispose of Counts II and III, so the case remains pending. Therefore, the ruling is not a final
appealable order. Answer A is incorrect because disposing of one count does not make the
entire case final. Answer B is incorrect because while interlocutory appeals are available under
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for controlling questions of law, the court has not certified the question for
,appeal. Answer D is incorrect because there is no categorical bar on interlocutory appeals in
securities cases.
Question 3
A plaintiff filed a class action in federal district court under Rule 23. The proposed class consists
of 500 individuals who purchased defective products from the defendant. The plaintiff seeks
certification of the class. Which of the following is NOT a requirement for class certification
under Rule 23(a)?
A. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
B. There are questions of law or fact common to the class.
C. The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the class.
D. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Correct Answer: B (This is a requirement — the question asks for what is NOT a requirement)
Correction — the question asks for what is NOT a requirement. All options A, C, and D are
requirements. The correct answer should identify a non-requirement. However, since B is
actually a requirement, this question is flawed as written. Let me provide a corrected version.
Corrected Question 3: A plaintiff filed a class action in federal district court under Rule 23. The
proposed class consists of 500 individuals who purchased defective products from the
defendant. The plaintiff seeks certification of the class. Which of the following is NOT a
requirement for class certification under Rule 23(a)?
A. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
B. There are questions of law or fact common to the class.
C. The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the class.
D. The plaintiff has standing to sue on behalf of the class.
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: Rule 23(a) requires: (1) numerosity—the class is so numerous that joinder is
impracticable; (2) commonality—questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) typicality—
claims or defenses of representative parties are typical; and (4) adequacy—representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect class interests. Standing is a constitutional prerequisite
for any federal lawsuit but is not separately listed as a Rule 23(a) requirement, though it is
subsumed within the adequacy and typicality analysis. Therefore, D is not a standalone Rule
23(a) requirement.
, Question 4
A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court for negligence arising from a car accident. The
plaintiff is a citizen of State A, and the defendant is a citizen of State B. The amount in
controversy is $85,000. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. How should the court rule?
A. Grant the motion, because the amount in controversy is less than $100,000.
B. Grant the motion, because complete diversity is lacking.
C. Deny the motion, because the court has diversity jurisdiction.
D. Deny the motion, because the court has federal question jurisdiction.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity of
citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding
$75,000 (not $100,000). Here, the plaintiff is a citizen of State A, the defendant is a citizen of
State B—complete diversity exists—and the amount in controversy is $85,000, which exceeds
the jurisdictional threshold. Therefore, the court has diversity jurisdiction. Answer A is incorrect
because it cites the wrong threshold amount. Answer B is incorrect because complete diversity
actually exists. Answer D is incorrect because the claim arises under state law (negligence), not
federal law.
Question 5
A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court asserting claims under both federal and state law.
The federal claim was dismissed on the pleadings. The defendant now moves to dismiss the
remaining state law claims. How should the court rule?
A. Grant the motion, because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the state claims.
B. Grant the motion, because the court must dismiss all state claims once federal claims are
dismissed.
C. Deny the motion, because the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
claims.
D. Deny the motion, because the state claims are compulsory counterclaims.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state law
claims that are so related to federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.
Although the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal
