MBE 17 SUMMURY 2025
A criminal suspect filed an action in federal district court against the police officer who
arrested him and the city that employed the officer, claiming that the officer beat him
even though he was not resisting arrest. The suspect's action asserted a battery claim
against the police officer and a federal statutory claim against the city for violation of the
suspect's civil rights. The suspect and the police officer are citizens of State A, and the
city in which the arrest took place is in State A. The action seeks $50,000 each from the
police officer and the city.
Does the federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction over either of the claims?
A The court has federal question jurisdiction over the federal statutory claim against the
city and supplemental jurisdiction over the tort claim against the police officer.
B The court has federal question jurisdiction over the federal statutory claim against the
<correct answer>The court has subject matter jurisdiction over both claims. Federal
question jurisdiction is available when the plaintiff, in his well-pleaded complaint, alleges
a claim that arises under federal law. Here, the suspect claims that his civil rights were
violated, which is a valid federal claim; thus, the court has federal question jurisdiction
over that claim. The battery claim against the police officer does not arise under federal
law, but rather under state law. However, when the federal court has subject matter
jurisdiction over one claim, it has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
related claims that derive from the same common nucleus of fact and are such that a
plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in a single judicial proceeding. Here,
the suspect's claim against the city is derived from the officer's battery, which is the
basis of the state law claim. As a result, the two claims arise from the same nucleus of
common fact. Thus, the battery claim may be heard in federal court under supplemental
jurisdiction. (B) and (D) are incorrect for similar reasoning. It is true that diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction does not exist because the claims are too small (and complete
diversity does not exist between the parties); however, there is no minimum amount in
controversy requirement for supplemental claims. Likewise, (C) is incorrect because
, complete diversity is not an issue at all when the underlying claim (i.e., the claim
invoking the court's original jurisdiction) is based on federal question jurisdiction.
A national fast food franchisor filed an action against one of its franchisees, alleging
breach of contract. Both parties are corporations. The franchisor alleged that the
franchisee had failed to pay the franchisor the requisite percentage of the franchisee's
profits as required by the franchise contract. The franchisor timely served on the
franchisee corporation a notice of deposition, which named the franchisee corporation
as the deponent and which stated that the deposition would inquire into the accounting
methods and accounting records of the franchisee corporation.
How should the defendant franchisee corporation respond to the fact that the notice of
deposition does not name a person to be deposed?
A It may safely ignore the notice.
B It should alert the franchisor to the flaw in the notice of deposition.
C It should file a motion for a protective order.
D It should designate a person who will testify on its <correct answer>The franchisee
corporation should designate a person who will testify on its behalf about its accounting
methods and records. When giving notice of deposition to an organization, a party may
name the organization and state with reasonable particularity the matters to be covered.
The organization then should designate individuals to testify on its behalf. [Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30(b)(6)] Therefore, (A), (B), and (C) are incorrect because the notice to an
organization does not have to name a person to be deposed.
An investor owned two adjacent lots in a downtown area, one fronting directly on a
public street and the other behind the first. The investor ran a small dry cleaning
business on the lot next to the street, and had built a café on the rear lot. Because the
rear lot had no access to any public street, the investor used the parking lot of the dry
cleaning business, which extended from the street all the way back to the rear lot, for
access to the café. The café was only open during the tourist season, from May through
September. After several years, the investor sold the rear lot to a chef by a deed that
A criminal suspect filed an action in federal district court against the police officer who
arrested him and the city that employed the officer, claiming that the officer beat him
even though he was not resisting arrest. The suspect's action asserted a battery claim
against the police officer and a federal statutory claim against the city for violation of the
suspect's civil rights. The suspect and the police officer are citizens of State A, and the
city in which the arrest took place is in State A. The action seeks $50,000 each from the
police officer and the city.
Does the federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction over either of the claims?
A The court has federal question jurisdiction over the federal statutory claim against the
city and supplemental jurisdiction over the tort claim against the police officer.
B The court has federal question jurisdiction over the federal statutory claim against the
<correct answer>The court has subject matter jurisdiction over both claims. Federal
question jurisdiction is available when the plaintiff, in his well-pleaded complaint, alleges
a claim that arises under federal law. Here, the suspect claims that his civil rights were
violated, which is a valid federal claim; thus, the court has federal question jurisdiction
over that claim. The battery claim against the police officer does not arise under federal
law, but rather under state law. However, when the federal court has subject matter
jurisdiction over one claim, it has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
related claims that derive from the same common nucleus of fact and are such that a
plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in a single judicial proceeding. Here,
the suspect's claim against the city is derived from the officer's battery, which is the
basis of the state law claim. As a result, the two claims arise from the same nucleus of
common fact. Thus, the battery claim may be heard in federal court under supplemental
jurisdiction. (B) and (D) are incorrect for similar reasoning. It is true that diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction does not exist because the claims are too small (and complete
diversity does not exist between the parties); however, there is no minimum amount in
controversy requirement for supplemental claims. Likewise, (C) is incorrect because
, complete diversity is not an issue at all when the underlying claim (i.e., the claim
invoking the court's original jurisdiction) is based on federal question jurisdiction.
A national fast food franchisor filed an action against one of its franchisees, alleging
breach of contract. Both parties are corporations. The franchisor alleged that the
franchisee had failed to pay the franchisor the requisite percentage of the franchisee's
profits as required by the franchise contract. The franchisor timely served on the
franchisee corporation a notice of deposition, which named the franchisee corporation
as the deponent and which stated that the deposition would inquire into the accounting
methods and accounting records of the franchisee corporation.
How should the defendant franchisee corporation respond to the fact that the notice of
deposition does not name a person to be deposed?
A It may safely ignore the notice.
B It should alert the franchisor to the flaw in the notice of deposition.
C It should file a motion for a protective order.
D It should designate a person who will testify on its <correct answer>The franchisee
corporation should designate a person who will testify on its behalf about its accounting
methods and records. When giving notice of deposition to an organization, a party may
name the organization and state with reasonable particularity the matters to be covered.
The organization then should designate individuals to testify on its behalf. [Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30(b)(6)] Therefore, (A), (B), and (C) are incorrect because the notice to an
organization does not have to name a person to be deposed.
An investor owned two adjacent lots in a downtown area, one fronting directly on a
public street and the other behind the first. The investor ran a small dry cleaning
business on the lot next to the street, and had built a café on the rear lot. Because the
rear lot had no access to any public street, the investor used the parking lot of the dry
cleaning business, which extended from the street all the way back to the rear lot, for
access to the café. The café was only open during the tourist season, from May through
September. After several years, the investor sold the rear lot to a chef by a deed that
