US â Civil Procedure â Quiz 1
US civil procedure â personal & subject-matter jurisdiction, the Erie doctrine, pleadings, and the FRCP.
- 1.
Paula, a citizen of Texas, sues Dana, a citizen of Texas, in federal district court in Texas, alleging that Dana breached a contract worth $150,000. Dana moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule?
- 2.
A Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California is sued in federal court in Ohio by an Ohio citizen for $90,000 in tort damages. The defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the corporation is a 'citizen' of Ohio because it does substantial business there. How should the court rule?
- 3.
Neff, domiciled in California, owns land in Oregon. Swift, an Oregon attorney, obtained a default judgment against Neff in an Oregon state court after serving Neff by publication. Swift then purchased the Oregon land at a sheriff's sale to satisfy the judgment. Neff sues to recover the land. Which principle, established in Pennoyer v. Neff, most directly invalidates Swift's default judgment?
- 4.
After a plaintiff serves a complaint, the defendant timely files a Rule 12(b)(3) motion asserting improper venue but omits any objection to personal jurisdiction. The court denies the venue motion. May the defendant later raise lack of personal jurisdiction in its answer?
- 5.
Anna sues Bob in state court for breach of a sales contract, and the court enters judgment for Bob. Anna then files a new federal diversity action against Bob asserting a fraud claim arising from the same transactionâthe saleâthat she could have pleaded in the first suit but did not. Bob moves to dismiss on res judicata grounds. How should the court rule?
- 6.
A plaintiff's complaint asserts a single claim that the defendant violated a federal environmental statute. Plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief. The defendant is a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff, and no diversity exists. Does the federal district court have subject-matter jurisdiction?
Questions & answers
1. Paula, a citizen of Texas, sues Dana, a citizen of Texas, in federal district court in Texas, alleging that Dana breached a contract worth $150,000. Dana moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule?
Answer: Grant the motion, because complete diversity is absent when both parties are citizens of the same state.
Federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversityâno plaintiff may share state citizenship with any defendant. Because both Paula and Dana are Texas citizens, complete diversity is absent regardless of the amount in controversy. Subject-matter jurisdiction defects may be raised at any time, so option D misstates the rule, and options A, C, and E each ignore the citizenship requirement.
2. A Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California is sued in federal court in Ohio by an Ohio citizen for $90,000 in tort damages. The defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the corporation is a 'citizen' of Ohio because it does substantial business there. How should the court rule?
Answer: Deny the motion, because a corporation is a citizen only of its state of incorporation and its principal place of business, neither of which is Ohio.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is deemed a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. Substantial business activity does not create citizenship; only the state of incorporation (Delaware) and principal place of business (California) count. Because the Ohio plaintiff and the Delaware/California corporation are completely diverse and the amount exceeds $75,000, jurisdiction is proper.
3. Neff, domiciled in California, owns land in Oregon. Swift, an Oregon attorney, obtained a default judgment against Neff in an Oregon state court after serving Neff by publication. Swift then purchased the Oregon land at a sheriff's sale to satisfy the judgment. Neff sues to recover the land. Which principle, established in Pennoyer v. Neff, most directly invalidates Swift's default judgment?