MBE Multistate Bar Examination 2026/2027 Master Review for Bar Exam Success

A plaintiff files a state-law breach of contract action in federal court. The complaint alleges that the defendant will probably defend the case by arguing that a federal statute invalidates the contract. Does the federal court have federal-question jurisdiction? A. Yes, because the anticipated defense involves federal law B. Yes, because any federal issue connected to the dispute creates jurisdiction C. No, because the federal issue does not appear in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint D. No, unless the defendant files the anticipated federal defense Correct Answer: C. No, because the federal issue does not appear in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint Rationale: Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction must arise from the plaintiff’s properly pleaded claim. A federal defense, counterclaim, or anticipated defense ordinarily cannot create jurisdiction. Options A and B improperly rely on a defense rather than the complaint. Option D is incorrect because the later filing of a federal defense does not cure the original jurisdictional defect. Question 2: A plaintiff brings a federal discrimination claim and a related state-law emotional distress claim in federal court. Before trial, the court grants summary judgment against the plaintiff on the federal claim. What may the court ordinarily do with the remaining state claim? A. It must retain the state claim until final judgment B. It may decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the state claim without prejudice C. It must transfer the state claim to the state supreme court D. It must decide the state claim because jurisdiction existed when the complaint was filed Correct Answer: B. It may decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the state claim without prejudice Rationale: A federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guide the decision. Option A incorrectly makes retention mandatory. Option C is procedurally improper because federal courts do not transfer ordinary claims directly to a state supreme court. Option D ignores the court’s statutory discretion. Question 3: A plaintiff files a federal copyright infringement action in state court against a defendant who is a citizen of the forum state. The defendant timely removes the case to federal court. The plaintiff argues that removal is barred because the defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Which result is most appropriate? A. Remand, because a forum-state defendant may never remove a case B. Remand, because the defendant lacks diversity from the forum C. Deny remand, because the forum-defendant rule applies only to diversity removal D. Deny remand, but only if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 Correct Answer: C. Deny remand, because the forum-defendant rule applies only to diversity removal Rationale: The forum-defendant rule prevents removal based solely on diversity when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum state. It does not restrict removal based on federal-question jurisdiction. Options A and B incorrectly apply the rule to every removal. Option D is incorrect because the amount-in- controversy requirement does not apply to federal-question jurisdiction. Question 4: A corporation is incorporated in Delaware. Its headquarters contain its senior executives, who direct and coordinate corporate policy from Illinois. The corporation operates most of its retail locations and earns most of its revenue in Texas. For diversity jurisdiction, where is the corporation a citizen? A. Delaware and Illinois B. Delaware and Texas C. Illinois and Texas D. Delaware, Illinois, and Texas Correct Answer: A. Delaware and Illinois Rationale: A corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the one state containing its principal place of business. The principal place of business is ordinarily the corporation’s “nerve center,” where high-level officers direct and coordinate activities. Texas’s operational importance does not independently create citizenship. Therefore, Options B, C, and D improperly treat major business activity as corporate citizenship. Question 5: A general partnership has three partners: one citizen of California, one citizen of Nevada, and one citizen of Arizona. Its principal office is in Colorado. Which statement correctly identifies the partnership’s citizenship for diversity jurisdiction? A. It is a citizen only of Colorado B. It is a citizen of Colorado and the state where most partners reside C. It is a citizen of California, Nevada, and Arizona D. It is a citizen of all four states Correct Answer: C. It is a citizen of California, Nevada, and Arizona Rationale: An unincorporated association, including a general partnership, possesses the citizenship of every one of its partners or members. Its principal office does not determine citizenship as it would help determine a corporation’s principal place of business. Options A, B, and D incorrectly include Colorado or apply corporate citizenship principles to an unincorporated entity. Question 6: A citizen of New York sues a citizen of Florida in federal court for $200,000 based solely on diversity jurisdiction. The defendant impleads a New York citizen for indemnification. The plaintiff then asserts a related negligence claim against the thirdparty defendant. May the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim? A. Yes, because the claim arises from the same case or controversy B. Yes, because the defendant introduced the nondiverse party C. No, because the plaintiff’s claim against the nondiverse third-party defendant would defeat complete diversity D. No, because supplemental jurisdiction is never available in diversity cases Correct Answer: C. No, because the plaintiff’s claim against the nondiverse third-party defendant would defeat complete diversity Rationale: In diversity-only cases, the plaintiff generally cannot use supplemental jurisdiction to assert claims against certain parties joined under the Federal Rules when doing so would violate complete diversity. Option A states the general constitutional test but overlooks the statutory plaintiff limitation. Option B does not eliminate that limitation. Option D is too broad because defendants and other parties may sometimes invoke supplemental jurisdiction. Question 7: A federal court hears a negligence action solely under diversity jurisdiction. State law caps noneconomic damages, while a Federal Rule governs the deadline for filing a motion. Which law should the court apply? A. Federal law to both matters B. State law to both matters C. State law to the damages cap and federal law to the filing procedure D. Federal law to the damages cap and state law to the filing procedure Correct Answer: C. State law to the damages cap and federal law to the filing procedure Rationale: Under the Erie doctrine, a federal diversity court applies state substantive law and federal procedural law. A damages cap affects the parties’ substantive rights and is therefore governed by state law. A valid Federal Rule governing motion deadlines is procedural and applies in federal court. Options A and B fail to distinguish substance from procedure, while Option D reverses the proper allocation. Question 8: Three defendants reside in different federal districts within the same state. A substantial portion of the events giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim occurred in another state. In which district is venue most clearly proper? A. Only where the plaintiff resides B. Any district in the defendants’ state and a district where substantial events occurred C. Only the district containing the first-named defendant D. Any federal district in the country because multiple defendants are involved Correct Answer: B. Any district in the defendants’ state and a district where substantial events occurred Rationale: Venue is generally proper in a district where any defendant resides when all defendants reside in the same state. It is also proper in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred. The plaintiff’s residence alone does not establish venue, making Option A incorrect. Options C and D invent restrictions or permissions not found in the federal venue statute. Question 9: A defendant files a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim but does not object to improper venue. After the motion is denied, the defendant includes an improper-venue defense in the answer. How should the court treat the defense? A. The defense is timely because it was raised in the answer B. The defense is waived because it was omitted from the defendant’s first Rule 12 response C. The defense may be raised at any time because venue affects subject matter jurisdiction D. The defense is preserved until discovery ends Correct Answer: B. The defense is waived because it was omitted from the defendant’s first Rule 12 response Rationale: Improper venue is a waivable Rule 12 defense. When a defendant makes a pre-answer Rule 12 motion, the defendant must include the available venue objection in that motion. Raising it later in the answer is too late. Option C confuses venue with subject matter jurisdiction, which cannot be waived. Options A and D disregard the consolidation and waiver rules. Question 10: A corporation is sued in a state containing three federal districts. The corporation would be subject to personal jurisdiction only in the district where it marketed and sold the product involved in the lawsuit. For venue purposes, where does the corporation reside? A. In every district within the state B. Only in the district where its registered agent is located C. In the district where it would be subject to personal jurisdiction for the action D. Nowhere in the state unless it is incorporated there Correct Answer: C. In the district where it would be subject to personal jurisdiction for the action Rationale: An entity generally resides in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction concerning the civil action. In a state with multiple districts, the analysis is applied as though each district were a separate state. Options A and B are overinclusive or rely on an irrelevant fact. Option D incorrectly limits business residence to the state of incorporation.