Exam (elaborations)
Civil Procedure 2 Multiple Choice
- Course
- Institution
Civil Procedure 2 Multiple Choice
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
modockochieng06
Content preview
Civil Procedure 2 Multiple ChoiceD wins. Improper under Pennoyer v. Neff. Not served inside the state of IN - correct
answer-P is resident of IN, D is a citizen of NY. D has some land in IN. P sues D in IN. P
personally serves D in NY. D moves to dismiss for lack of Personal Jurisdiction, who wins?
D wins under same analysis. Not properly served inside the state (IN) - correct answer-P is
resident of IN. D is resident of NY. D has land in IN. P sues D in IN. P personally serves D in
NY. D defaults and the court enters judgment against D. P tries to enforce the judgment in
NY. D appears in the NY enforcement action and argues the judgement is invalid. Who
Wins?
P wins. D was in the state when served. - correct answer-P is resident of IN. D is resident of
NY. D has land in IN. P sues D in IN. P serves D while D is traveling through IN on business.
D was in IN for less than a day. D moves to dismiss for a lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Who
wins?
P wins. Full Faith and Credit- states of the Union will enforce legitimate judgments in all
other states. - correct answer-P resident of IN. D resident of NY. D has land in IN. P sues D
in IN. P serves D while D is traveling through IN on business. D was in IN for less than a day.
D defaults and P gets a judgment. P files an enforcement action in NY. D moves to dismiss.
Who wins?
P wins. Attaching property Quasi-In-Rem #2 Makes it valid - correct answer-P resident of IN.
D is resident of NY and has land in IN. P sues D in IN. P attached D's land in IN before
suing, provides constructive notice, and obtains a judgment against D. P then seeks to sell
the land to satisfy the judgment. D sues to stop the sale arguing no Personal Jurisdiction
because D did not know the lawsuit, who wins under a Pennoyer analysis?
Technically YES. D is in IN when he is served under Pennoyer - correct answer-P resident of
IN sues D a resident of NY with land in IN. D is flying from NY to Seattle. While over IN, D is
served. Does the IN court have Jurisdiction?
A- the jurisdiction is specific to the accident. - correct answer-A truck loaded w/ shoes owned
by Shoe Co. driven by employee is driving through WYO. Truck accident w/ farmer's tractor.
Farmer injured, sues Shoe Co in WYO alleging negligence. Does WYO court have
Jurisdiction?
A. Yes, the Court has specific JD
B. Yes the Court has general JD
C. No, the court does not have either
D. No, unless the DEF consents to JD
A. Firing occurred in MZ, HQ is in MZ, so specific and general JD in MZ. - correct
answer-Former employee of Shoe Co. lives in WYO, used to work in MZ HQ. Claims
wrongful discharge of job. Files suit against Shoe Co. in WYO, does WYO Court have
jurisdiction?
,A. No, b/c the contacts are slim, and are unrelated to the claim.
B. No, Although related to the claim, contacts are insufficient for PJ
C. Yes, Contacts are sufficient, even if unrelated to the claim.
D. Yes, the contacts are sufficient and are related to the claim.
A. General Jurisdiction in MZ because that is where Shoe Co. HQ. - correct answer-Former
Employee of Shoe Co. lives in WYO and worked at MZ HQ. Claims wrongful discharge and
files suit against Shoe Co. in MZ. Does MZ court have JD?
A. Yes. The Court has General JD
B. Yes. The Court has Specific JD only
C. No. Court has neither Gen/Sp. JD
D. No. The claim should be filed in WYO because of PL domicile.
A. State of Incorporation is sufficient contact and gives automatic jurisdiction - correct
answer-Former Shoe Co. employee lives in WYO, worked in MZ. Claims wrongful discharge
and files suit in DEL, where Shoe Co. is incorporated. Does the DEL court have Jurisdiction?
A. Yes. Gen. JD b/c DEL is where Shoe Co. is INC.
B. Yes Specific JD. b/c DEL is where Shoe Co is INC.
C. No. DEL is unconnected to the place where discharge occurred (MZ).
D. No, DEL is not where the defendant is domiciled.
D. We care only about DEF's contacts. G has specific and general JD in NY. - correct
answer-Q11: P who lives in CA gives speeches in CA, NY, and TX. En route to NY law
school accident with G in NY, where G lives. P brings suit against G in CA. P has continuous
and systematic contacts w/ CA. Does the CA court have Jurisdiction?
A. Yes. General Jurisdiction
B. Yes. Specific Jurisdiction
C. No. B/c PL does not have continuous and systematic NY contacts
D. No. No evidence of sufficient contacts exists for CA court to have JD.
A. NO- need US citizen on at least one side
B. YES
C. YES
D. YES. Same foreign country is irrelevant
E. NO. Need citizen vs. citizen to add parties. Foreign v foreign not allowed in alienage
F. YES. Classic case of alienage jurisdiction. Citizen v. foreigner for alienage - correct
answer-Q12: Assuming the amount in controversy is met, in which of the following would
there be proper Diversity Jurisdiction?
A. A citizen of Mexico sues a citizen of Japan
B. A citizen of IN sues citizens of Mexico and Japan
C. A citizen of CA and Mexico sue citizen of NY and Japan
D. A citizen of IN and Mexico sue citizen of IL and Mexico
E. Citizen of IN and Canada sue citizen of France
F. Citizen of IN and CA sue a German citizen
Diversity Jurisdiction does not exist b/c they are not citizens of different states technically.
But also not US citizen vs. Foreign citizen either? - correct answer-P and D both driving, car
, accident in NY. P sues D for negligence. P citizen of NY and D was born in US but now lives
in France. P sues D in FED Ct. for over $75k, Does the Federal Court have Jurisdiction?
NO. You have someone from Connecticut on both sides, destroys diversity. Constitutionally
allowed, but not allowed under §1332. - correct answer-Paul from NY, Pam from NJ, Phil
from CT, and Peter from MA sue Dave from PA, Doug from MD, Diedre from CT, and Dawn
from RI. Each Amount in controversy met for state law claims, does the Court have
Jurisdiction?
A. Karen is still domiciled in Kansas because no physical presence yet in NY. - correct
answer-Karen always lived in KA, decided to move to NYC. Started getting home delivery of
NY Times and is looking for job and apt. While on road to move to NY involved in serious
accident in OH. Where is Karen domiciled at this point in time?
A. Kansas
B. Ohio, given her injuries she will be there indefinitely
C. New York. She has made the decision that NY is her home
D. Karen is in transit, at the moment she has no domicile
D. Colorado. Physical presence and intent to remain. No plans to leave. - correct
answer-Marla grew up in MT, moved to Denver CO after high school for 2-year program but
not sure what she wants to do. She figured she would stay if liked it and get a job in CO or
somewhere else in the west, or she would leave the program and look for work in Denver
CO. After moving to Denver, Marla would be domiciled
A. In MT since the program is only for two years
B. In MT because she may return there
C. In MT because she was domiciled there before going to CO
D. In CO because she resides there and intends to remain
No. The federal claim D is raising is only a defense. This is not a Federal question so the
case could not have been brought to SD of IN so it cannot be removed there (Mottley). -
correct answer-P and D both domiciled in IN. P sues D for defamation in Monroe Cty. Ct., D
believes statement protected under 1st Amendment, can D remove to Fed Ct. SD of IN?
NO. Hometown rule. Since D is a citizen of IN we assume he will get fair treatment in state
court. So even though diversity exists, no power to remove under 1441(b)(2). - correct
answer-P, Citizen of NY sues D of IN on personal injury state law claim in Monroe Cty. Ct. P
seeks over $75k. Can D remove this case to Federal SD of IN?
YES. This is now a Federal Question case and can be removed under 1441(b)&(c) - correct
answer-P of NY sues D of IN on state law claim in Monroe Cty. Ct. meeting AIC. P also
claims D violated Federal Civil Rights based on same facts. Can D remove to SD of IN?
No. Even though A is of NV D is still from IN so the hometown rule applies None of the DEF
can be citizens of the forum state for proper removal under §1441(b). - correct answer-P of
NY sues D of IN and A of NV on personal injury state claim in Monroe Cty. Ct. meeting AIC.
Can A remove to the SD of IN?
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller modockochieng06. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75323 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now