July Bar Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) The Definitive Study and Exam Prep Guide: Comprehensive Topic Review, Realistic Practice Questions, Complete Test Bank Mastery, and Advanced Preparation Manual

A federal court is considering whether it may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Which sequence correctly describes the analysis? A. Determine venue first, then subject-matter jurisdiction B. Examine the forum state’s jurisdictional statute and then constitutional due process C. Examine only whether the defendant received adequate notice D. Apply federal common law without considering state law Correct Answer: B. Examine the forum state’s jurisdictional statute and then constitutional due process Rationale: Personal jurisdiction generally requires a two-step analysis. First, the court determines whether the forum state’s law, usually through a long-arm statute, authorizes jurisdiction. Second, the court determines whether exercising jurisdiction satisfies constitutional due process. Service and notice are separate requirements and do not independently establish personal jurisdiction. Question 2 A citizen of California sues a citizen of Nevada in Nevada state court for $200,000. The Nevada defendant seeks to remove the case to federal court solely on diversity grounds. Is removal proper? A. Yes, because the parties are completely diverse B. Yes, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 C. No, because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state D. No, because diversity cases may never be removed Correct Answer: C. No, because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state Rationale: The forum-defendant rule generally prevents removal based solely on diversity when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was filed. Although the parties satisfy the requirements for original diversity jurisdiction, the Nevada defendant generally cannot remove the case from Nevada state court on that basis. The rule does not apply to removal based on federalquestion jurisdiction. Question 3 A woman has lived in Illinois for six months while completing a temporary work assignment. She maintains her permanent home, voter registration, and driver’s license in Indiana and plans to return there when the assignment ends. For diversity purposes, where is she domiciled? A. Illinois, because she is physically present there B. Indiana, because she lacks an intent to remain indefinitely in Illinois C. Both Illinois and Indiana D. Whichever state she identifies in her complaint Correct Answer: B. Indiana, because she lacks an intent to remain indefinitely in Illinois Rationale: An individual’s domicile requires both physical presence and an intent to remain indefinitely. Although the woman is physically present in Illinois, her t temporary assignment and continuing ties to Indiana indicate that she has no established a new domicile. An individual has only one domicile at a time, and a former domicile continues until a new one is established. Question 4 A plaintiff files a state-law negligence action in federal court. The plaintiff anticipates that the defendant will rely on a federal statute as a defense and argues that the statute is unconstitutional. Does the federal court have federal-question jurisdiction? A. Yes, because the validity of a federal statute will determine the outcome B. Yes, because any constitutional issue creates federal-question jurisdiction C. No, because the federal issue does not appear as part of the plaintiff’s affirmative claim D. No, unless the defendant formally raises the federal defense in the answer Correct Answer: C. No, because the federal issue does not appear as part of the plaintiff’s affirmative claim Rationale: Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint as part of the plaintiff’s affirmative cause of action. An anticipated federal defense does not ordinarily create federal-question jurisdiction, even when the defense raises a constitutional issue. The defendant’s answer cannot retroactively create federal-question jurisdiction. Question 5 A corporation is incorporated in Delaware. Its manufacturing facilities and most employees are located in Ohio, but its senior executives direct and coordinate corporate policy from its headquarters in New York. Of which states is the corporation a citizen for diversity purposes? A. Delaware only B. Delaware and Ohio C. Delaware and New York D. Delaware, Ohio, and New York Correct Answer: C. Delaware and New York Rationale: A corporation is generally a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the state containing its principal place of business. The principal place of business is ordinarily the corporation’s “nerve center,” where senior management directs, controls, and coordinates corporate activities. The location of manufacturing facilities and the number of employees do not determine the principal place of business when central management is located elsewhere. Question 6 A plaintiff brings a federal employment-discrimination claim and a related state-law wrongful-termination claim arising from the same firing. The federal claim provides original federal-question jurisdiction. What is the strongest basis for hearing the statelaw claim? A. Diversity jurisdiction B. Supplemental jurisdiction because the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact C. Ancillary jurisdiction because the state claim exceeds $75,000 D. Exclusive federal jurisdiction over employment disputes Correct Answer: B. Supplemental jurisdiction because the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact Rationale: Supplemental jurisdiction generally extends to state-law claims that form part of the same Article III case or controversy as a federal claim. Claims arising from the same termination generally share a common nucleus of operative fact and may ordinarily be heard together. Diversity jurisdiction and a separate amount-in- controversy requirement are unnecessary for the related state claim. Question 7 A plaintiff in good faith seeks $80,000 in compensatory damages, but state law makes it legally impossible for the plaintiff to recover more than $60,000 on the asserted claim. Is the amount-in-controversy requirement satisfied? A. Yes, because the amount alleged in good faith controls conclusively B. Yes, because the plaintiff seeks more than $75,000 C. No, because it is legally certain that the plaintiff cannot recover more than $75,000 D. No, unless the plaintiff also requests punitive damages Correct Answer: C. No, because it is legally certain that the plaintiff cannot recover more than $75,000 Rationale: The amount claimed ordinarily controls when the plaintiff makes the demand in good faith. However, jurisdiction is absent when it is legally certain that the plaintiff cannot recover more than $75,000. Because state law caps recovery at $60,000, the jurisdictional threshold cannot be satisfied merely by requesting a larger amount. Question 8 A plaintiff asserts three unrelated state-law claims against one diverse defendant, seeking $30,000 on each claim. May the plaintiff aggregate the claims to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement? A. Yes, because one plaintiff may aggregate all claims against one defendant B. Yes, but only if the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence C. No, because unrelated claims may never be aggregated D. No, because each individual claim must exceed $75,000 Correct Answer: A. Yes, because one plaintiff may aggregate all claims against one defendant Rationale: A single plaintiff may generally aggregate multiple claims against a single defendant to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement, even when the claims are unrelated. Here, the claims total $90,000. A same-transaction requirement applies to certain joinder and supplemental-jurisdiction situations but does not prevent one plaintiff from aggregating claims against one defendant. Question 9 A nonresident defendant voluntarily enters a state for vacation and is personally served with process while dining at a restaurant. The lawsuit is unrelated to the visit. Is personal jurisdiction generally proper? A. Yes, because voluntary physical presence at the time of service ordinarily supports transient jurisdiction B. Yes, but only if the lawsuit arises from the restaurant visit C. No, because minimum contacts require permanent residence D. No, because personal service cannot establish jurisdiction over a nonresident Correct Answer: A. Yes, because voluntary physical presence at the time of service ordinarily supports transient jurisdiction Rationale: Personal service on an individual who is voluntarily present in the forum generally establishes transient, or “tag,” jurisdiction even when the lawsuit is unrelated to the visit. Permanent residence and claim-related contacts are not required for this type of jurisdiction. Exceptions may apply when presence was obtained through fraud or force or when an applicable immunity applies. Question 10 A plaintiff files a removable action against three defendants. Two defendants have been properly served, while the third has not yet been served. The two served defendants timely file a notice of removal. Must the unserved defendant consent? A. Yes, because every named defendant must consent B. Yes, unless the unserved defendant is a nominal party C. No, because only defendants who have been properly served must join or consent D. No, because removal never requires unanimity among defendants Correct Answer: C. No, because only defendants who have been properly served must join or consent Rationale: Under the rule of unanimity, all defendants who have been properly joined and served generally must join in or consent to removal. A defendant who has not yet been served generally does not have to participate in the removal decision. However, removal must still satisfy the applicable jurisdictional and timing requirements.