Hypothetical

Bob is suing Priya on a diversity claim (arising under state law) in S.D. Fl. Assuming Priya is properly served, which is true?

A.The federal court may exercise jurisdiction only if Priya would be subject to PJ in Florida state court.

B.The federal court may exercise jurisdiction only if Priya would be subject to PJ of the county in which the federal court sits.

C.The federal court may exercise jurisdiction only if Priya was served in Florida or 100 miles from the Florida border.

D.The federal court may exercise jurisdiction only if Priya has minimum contacts with the United States.

Harper (TX) sues WidgetCo (AZ) on a diversity (state law) breach of contract claim in S.D. Tex. WidgetCo files a third-party claim pursuant to FRCP 14 against MexiCo, a Mexican corporation with its principal place of business in Matamoros, Mexico, about 3 miles from the S.D. Tex. courthouse in Brownsville. Assuming that MexiCo is not subject to the personal jurisdiction of a Texas state court, which is true?

A.MexiCo is subject to PJ if it has sufficient contacts with the United States that the exercise of PJ comports with due process.

B.MexiCo is not subject to PJ in S.D. Tex.

C.MexiCo is subject to PJ because it was served less than 100 miles from the courthouse.

D.MexiCo is subject to PJ if the court concludes that it is not unduly burdensome to require it to litigate in S.D. Tex.

ShipCo (NY) owns a shipping fleet that transports goods around the world. In 2023, one of its ships collided with a tanker owned by TankCo (UK). ShipCo files a claim under federal admiralty law in S.D.N.Y. Assuming TankCo is not subject to PJ in NY state court, which is true?

A.The S.D.N.Y. court cannot assert PJ over TankCo.

B.The S.D.N.Y. court can assert PJ over TankCo if it was foreseeable after the accident that TankCo might be sued in New York.

C.The S.D.N.Y. court can assert PJ over TankCo if TankCo has sufficient contacts with the United States that exercising PJ comports with due process.

D.The S.D.N.Y. court can assert PJ over TankCo if 1) TankCo is not subject to PJ in the court of any state; and 2) TankCo has sufficient contacts with the United States that exercising PJ comports with due process.

Marc (VT) and his cousin Ron (NH) are playing ball at Marc’s house. Ron hits Marc in the head with a bat, causing injury. Marc wants to sue Ron for battery. Under Pennoyer, which is (/are) true?:

A.Marc can sue in VT court and personally serve Ron in NH because the incident occurred in VT.

B.Marc can sue Ron in NH court and personally serve Ron in NH.

C.Marc can sue Ron in VT court and personally serve Ron the next time he is in VT.

D.Marc cannot sue Ron in any state.

Joe (OH) and Joanne (MI) contract for Joanne to sell a painting to Joe. After receiving Joe’s payment, Joanne refuses to give him the painting. Joe files a complaint in OH state court. Joanne voluntarily appears in that proceeding and files an answer asserting several affirmative defenses. Under Pennoyer:

A.The court must dismiss the action because it lacks PJ over Joanne.

B.The court may proceed with the action because Joanne consented to personal jurisdiction.

C.The court may proceed with the action only if the painting is physically present in OH.

Peter (NY) and Barbara (MA) were traveling in Texas when Barbara allegedly stole Peter’s horse. Barbara owns a bank account at a bank in NY. Peter wants to sue Barbara for conversion (theft) in NY state court. Assuming Barbara cannot be personally served in NY, under Pennoyer:

A.The court can attach Barbara’s bank account, but Peter’s recovery is limited to the amount in that account.

B.The NY court cannot hear this action.

C.The court can attach Barbara’s bank account and can order her to pay the judgment in full, even if it exceeds the amount in the NY account.

Sara (WY) filed an action in Wyoming state court against Maria (LA) for breach of contract. Maria was personally served with process at her home in Baton Rouge, LA. Which two of the following statements are true?

1.Under Pennoyer, the WY court lacks in personam jurisdiction over Maria.

2.Under Pennoyer, the WY court could have in personam jurisdiction  over Maria depending on the nature of Maria’s contacts with Wyoming.

3.Under International Shoe, the WY court lacks in personam jurisdiction over Maria.

4.Under International Shoe, the WY court could have in personam jurisdiction over Maria depending on the nature of Maria’s contacts with Wyoming.