MBE Civil Procedure Flashcards

A plaintiff from Texas sues a defendant from Oklahoma in federal court for the District of Hawaii, alleging a breach of contract. The amount in controversy is $100,000. The defendant's only connection to Hawaii is that they operate a website that is accessible to residents of Hawaii and have sold products to ten Hawaiian residents over the past five years, none of which are related to the current lawsuit. The defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Which of the following is the most likely outcome?

Answer: The court will grant the motion because the defendant's contacts with Hawaii are insufficient for general personal jurisdiction and the lawsuit does not arise from the defendant's contacts with the forum.

The correct answer is that the motion will be granted. For a federal court to exert personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' This can be established through general jurisdiction (if the defendant's contacts are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home) or specific jurisdiction (if the lawsuit arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum). Here, selling a few products unrelated to the lawsuit is not enough for general jurisdiction. Since the breach of contract claim does not arise from the defendant's website sales in Hawaii, specific jurisdiction is also lacking. While diversity jurisdiction (parties from different states and amount in controversy over $75,000) exists, it does not confer personal jurisdiction.

In a diversity action filed in federal court, which of the following issues is a federal judge most likely to decide by applying state law under the Erie doctrine?

Answer: The statute of limitations for the underlying claim.

The Erie doctrine requires federal courts sitting in diversity to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. Statutes of limitations are considered substantive for Erie purposes because they can determine the outcome of the case. The other options—time for filing an appeal, discovery limits (number of depositions), and deadlines for motions—are procedural matters governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and federal statutes.

A plaintiff properly files a complaint in federal court against a single defendant. Twenty-five days after the defendant is served with the summons and complaint, the plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to add a new claim against the defendant that arises from the same transaction. Which of the following is true regarding the plaintiff's ability to amend the complaint?

Answer: The plaintiff must seek leave of court or the defendant's written consent to file the amended complaint.

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Since 25 days have passed since service and no responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion is mentioned, the plaintiff's window to amend as a matter of course has closed. Therefore, the plaintiff must obtain the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave to amend.

A plaintiff sues a defendant in federal court. After the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the defendant believes that the plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in the plaintiff's favor. What motion should the defendant make at this point?

Answer: A motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a).

A motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under FRCP 50(a) is the correct motion to make during trial when one party believes the other has failed to present a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion is a pretrial motion challenging the sufficiency of the complaint. A Rule 56 motion for summary judgment is also a pretrial motion made before the trial begins. A Rule 59 motion for a new trial is a post-trial motion.

A driver from California and a passenger from California are injured in a car accident in Nevada caused by a truck driver from Arizona. The passenger's damages are estimated at $50,000, and the driver's damages are estimated at $80,000. The driver files a lawsuit against the truck driver in federal court in Arizona based on diversity jurisdiction. The passenger now wishes to join the lawsuit as a co-plaintiff. Can the passenger's claim be joined to the driver's lawsuit?

Answer: No, because the passenger's claim does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.

While federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are part of the same case or controversy (28 U.S.C. § 1367), the statute explicitly prohibits exercising supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs joined under Rule 20 if doing so would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). In a diversity case, each plaintiff must independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. The passenger's claim of $50,000 is below the required $75,000 threshold. Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the passenger's claim, and it cannot be joined.

Plaintiff wins a breach of contract case against Defendant in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Defendant does not appeal. One year later, Defendant files a new lawsuit against Plaintiff in the same court, alleging that the contract was invalid due to fraud in the inducement, a claim Defendant failed to raise as a defense in the first action. Which of the following doctrines will most likely bar the Defendant's new lawsuit?

Answer: Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents the same parties from relitigating the same claims that have already been decided or that could have been decided in a prior action. The defendant's claim of fraudulent inducement is directly related to the validity of the contract, which was the subject of the first lawsuit. Because this defense could and should have been raised in the initial action, claim preclusion will bar the second lawsuit. Collateral estoppel applies to issues, not entire claims, that were actually litigated and decided. Stare decisis is about following precedent in different cases, and law of the case relates to rulings within the same ongoing case.