Civ Pro Hypos

In most states, the plaintiff commences litigation by filing a pleading called a [BLANK] in the trial court, setting forth their claims against the defendant.

complaint

Both Federal district courts and state trial courts are courts of original jurisdiction.

True

Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction.

True

Why might a lawyer choose to sue in federal rather than state court?

convenience, familarity, speedfamiliarity,

Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution did which of the following?

Created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to create inferior federal courts if they so chose.

Lucy, a citizen of Texas, plans to sue Cooper, a citizen of Virginia, alleging a claim under a federal antidiscrimination statute. She Seeks $200,000 in damages. Which statement best describes the available subject matter jurisdiction options?

Lucy may sue in either state court or federal court.

Phillip grew up in Fayetteville, Arkansas. In August 2024, he left for college in Kansas. After starting college, Phillip registered his car in Kansas and established a bank account. He also receives health care through his university, has an apartment with a one-year lease, and has a local job with state taxes taken out of his paycheck. His plan is to complete a two-year associates degree and then return to Fayetteville, where his fiancé lives. Three months after
arriving in Kansas, Phillip brings suit against a Arkansas surgeon for a knee injury suffered during a surgery performed in Arkansas a year before. He sues in federal court on the basis of diversity. The court will probably conclude that Phillip is domiciled in:

Arkansas, since he intended to return to there when he finishes his degree.

Janel from Utah brings a diversity action in federal court against Michael from Pennsylvania for injuries suffered during a car crash. Janel claims she suffered a badly sprained ankle due to Michael’s negligent driving. Janel claims $100,000 in damages.

The AIC is met if a court determines that a reasonable jury could award more than
$75,000 for the injuries Janel alleges.

Which of the following cases could be properly brought in federal court?

Samir (SC) sues Wes (NC) and Max (NC) for injuries he suffered during a car wreck
with defendants. Samir claims that one or both of them were negligent and seeks
$100,000 in damages.

Holly, a citizen of NY, files suit in NY state court against Delta Corp., a corporation incorporated in and with its principal place of business in NY. Holly’s complaint alleges that Delta wrongfully terminated her employment in violation of New York’s employment discrimination statute. The complaint also anticipates that Delta will argue it was required to terminate Holly to comply with federal safety regulations issued under a federal statute. Holly seeks reinstatement and damages.

Delta removes the case to the federal district court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Which of the following statements best describes whether the federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331?

The federal district court will not have federal subject matter jurisdiction because the
plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint asserts only a state law cause of action, and federal
law appears solely as a potential defense.

Geoff (DE) sues Bart (PA) and Zed (NJ) in Pennsylvania state court and alleges state breach of contract causes of action and damages of $100,000. Zed files a notice of removal in federal district court. The federal court should:

Remand the case because removal is not permitted in this circumstance.

GreenTech Solutions, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in California. Alex Rivera is domiciled in California. On January 10, GreenTech files suit against Rivera in California state court, asserting breach of contract and seeking $100,0000 in damages. On April 5, GreenTech files an amended complaint adding a claim under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) based on the same underlying conduct. Rivera is served with the amended complaint on April 8. Two weeks later, Rivera files a notice of removal with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Greentech moves to remand. Which of the following is the best answer?

Removal was proper because the amended complaint first made the case removable
on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, and Rivera filed the notice of removal
within 30 days of service of the amended complaint.

Bella from New York sues Palmer from New Jersey in federal court for $100,000, alleging violations of federal employment discrimination law. In the same complaint, Bella also asserts a state-law defamation claim against Palmer arising out of statements made during the same employment dispute. The defamation claim seeks $20,000 in damages. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over the state law defamation claim?

Yes, because the state law claim forms part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim.

Sophia Martinez (MI) files suit in Michigan state court against AeroLift, Inc., which is incorporated and has its PPB in Ohio. Martinez alleges that she was injured when a cargo lift manufactured and operated by AeroLift malfunctioned at a warehouse. Martinez brings a state law negligence claim, alleging that AeroLift breached its duty of care by failing to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety regulations governing the inspection and maintenance of cargo lifts used in interstate air transport. The complaint alleges that compliance with the FAA regulations establishes the applicable standard of care and that AeroLift’s violation of those regulations caused Martinez’s injuries. AeroLift files a notice of removal.

Removal is improper because the federal regulatory issue is not substantial to the
federal system as a whole and exercising jurisdiction would risk upsetting the
congressionally approved balance between state and federal courts.

Jay (MI) sues Pets, Inc. (an Ohio corporation with its PPB in Iowa) for damages based on a state law claim of defamation. Jay sues in federal court for $100,000. Pets, Inc. impleads David, a former supervisor for the company who allegedly made the actual statements on which Jay’s claim is based. Pets, Inc. seeks indemnification (a state law theory of recovery) from David, an Iowa citizen, for any damages it is ordered to pay to Jay. David moves to dismiss the claim against him for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claim under §1367(a), and §1367(b)
does not bar the court from hearing the claim.

Nancy, from California, went to Oregon and met with Matt, a lawyer, about a claim that
Nancy had against Juan. Matt did some work on Nancy’s case and sent her a bill for $5,000.
Nancy left Oregon directly after her meeting with Matt and has not been back since. Nancy
has never paid Matt’s bill. Matt sues Nancy in an Oregon state court for his fee. Matt
properly serves Nancy in California. Assuming the action is permitted by the Oregon long-
arm statute, does the Oregon court have personal jurisdiction over Nancy?

Yes, because Nancy has sufficient “minimum contacts” with Oregon.

Evan, a resident of Maine, owns three rental properties in Vermont. He advertises the
properties on a website directed at Vermont residents, travels to Vermont several times a
year to inspect the properties, and earns substantial rental income there.

While driving his personal vehicle in New Hampshire, Evan allegedly ran a red light and
injured Priya, a resident of Vermont. The accident occurred in New Hampshire and the
police report, witnesses, and medical treatment are all located there.

Priya files a negligence action against Evan in Vermont state court. Evan moves to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction based on his rights under the 14th amendment.

How should the court rule?

Grant the motion, because Priya’s claim does not arise out of or relate to
Evan’s contacts in Vermont.

Noah, a freelance blogger who lives and works in Ohio, publishes an allegedly defamatory
post about Ava, a well-known fitness influencer who lives and operates her primary
business in Pennsylvania.

Before publishing the post, Noah interviewed several of Ava’s former clients in
Pennsylvania and referenced disputes involving her Pennsylvania fitness studio. Noah
knew that Ava’s largest subscriber base and primary source of sponsorship revenue were
located in Pennsylvania. Noah’s website is accessible nationwide and he published the
post from his home in Ohio.

Ava files a defamation action against Noah in Pennsylvania state court. Noah moves to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Deny the motion, because Noah purposefully directed allegedly tortious
conduct at Pennsylvania and he knew the brunt of the injury would be felt there.

Titan Drill Co., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oklahoma,
manufactures specialized oil drilling rigs. Titan Drill does not maintain offices, employees,
or property in Texas and does not sell directly to customers there.

Titan Drill sells its rigs through regional wholesale distributors and selected one of the
distributors, Lonestar, specifically to target the Texas market. Titan Drill provides LoneStar
with a rebate for any rigs sold in Texas. However, Titan Drill does not control where any
particular rig is ultimately sold.

LoneStar resells five Titan Drill rigs to Big T’s Extraction, a Texas-based oil company. While
using the rig at a drilling site in Texas, an employee, Miguel, is injured when a component in
the rig malfunctions. Miguel files a products liability action against Titan Drill in Texas state
court. Titan Drill moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Which of the following statements is most accurate description of the Texas court’s
authority over Titan Drill under the due process clause?

The Texas court can assert personal jurisdiction because Titan Drill
purposefully engaged in conduct calculated to serve the market for its products
in Texas.

Value-Mart, Inc. is incorporated in Nevada and has its principal place of business in
Illinois. It operates large retail warehouse stores throughout the Midwest. Approximately
35% of its total annual revenue comes from Illinois, 25% from Missouri, 20% from Iowa,
and 20% from Kansas.

Value-Mart does not operate any stores in Colorado, but it is registered to do business
there, maintains a registered agent for service of process in Colorado as required by state
law, and runs targeted digital advertising campaigns aimed at Colorado residents in
anticipation of opening stores there within the next two years.

Paula, a Colorado resident, is injured when a shelf collapses at a Value-Mart store she was
shopping at in Kansas. After returning home, Paula files a negligence action against Value-
Mart in Colorado state court. Assume Colorado’s long-arm statute reaches the limits of the
due process clause.

May a Colorado court exercise personal jurisdiction over Value-Mart?

No, because Value-Mart is neither incorporated nor has its principal place of
business in Colorado, and its contacts there are insufficient to render it at
home for purposes of general jurisdiction.

Jefferson brings suit against Belvadere for battery in state court. Jefferson’s counsel looks
up the state’s Civil Procedure Rule for service of process and finds that the rule authorizes
service of process by first class mail. He serves the complaint and summons on Belvadere
by mailing them, first class, to Belvadere at his home address.

If Belvadere files a motion to dismiss claiming that service of process was improper under
the Due Process Clause, the court will likely:

Deny the motion because service of process by first class mail is constitutionally sufficient.

Robotics, Inc. (incorporated in Delaware; principal place of business in the Northern
District of Illinois) sued Metro Distribution LLC (principal place of business in the Southern
District of Texas) and Gizmos, Inc. (principal place of business in the Eastern District of
Texas) in a federal diversity action.

Metro contracted to supply goods to Robotics for delivery to Robotics’ warehouse in the Northern District of Georgia. Metro purchased component parts from Gizmos in the Eastern District of Texas. Robotics alleges the goods delivered in Georgia were defective due to faulty components.

In which of the following federal districts is venue proper?

Southern District of Texas, Eastern District of Texas, and Northern District of Georgia

Pure Water, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in the
Northern District of California.

Littles Farms, LLC is incorporated and has its principal place of business in the District of
Arizona. Littles Farms purchases supplies for its farm from vendors in several states,
including Delaware, several times per year.

After months of negotiations by phone and email between Arizona and California, the
parties entered into a contract under which Pure Water would custom-manufacture
irrigation equipment in California. Littles Farms agreed to make installment payments to
Pure Water’s California bank account. The contract required shipment and installation of
the system at Littles Farms’ farm in Arizona.

Pure Water manufactured the system in California and shipped it to Arizona. Littles Farms
alleges the system malfunctioned in Arizona and stopped making payments due in
California.

Pure Water files a federal diversity action for breach of contract. In which federal district(s)
may the action properly be brought?

Northern District of California or District of Arizona

Martha, a citizen of Florida, sued Leo, a citizen of New York, in Florida state court for breach
of a contract negotiated and performed entirely in New York. The contract concerned
consulting services unrelated to any property. Leo owns a vacation condominium in
Florida, but he does not live there and the property is unrelated to the contract dispute.
Martha seeks to establish jurisdiction by attaching Leo’s Florida condominium at the outset
of the suit.

Leo moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. How should the court rule?

Grant the motion, because there are not sufficient minimum contacts to
warrant subjecting Leo to personal jurisdiction.

Paula was born and raised in Georgia, where she lived continuously until August 2023. In that month, Paula moved to Massachusetts to attend a three-year doctoral program. She rented an apartment near campus, obtained a Massachusetts library card, and joined a local gym. Paula kept her Georgia driver’s license, remained registered to vote in Georgia, and told her parents that she planned to “see where things stand after graduation.” In February 2024, Paula filed a diversity action in federal court.

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Paula is a citizen of:

Georgia only

Linda lived in Arizona for most of her life. In January 2024, she moved to Oregon for a one-year fellowship. At the time of the move, Linda intended to return to Arizona at the end of the fellowship. In March 2024, Linda filed a diversity action. In June 2024, she decided she wanted to stay in Oregon permanently.

For purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, Linda is domiciled in:

Arizona, because she intended to return there when the complaint was filed

Which of the following statements best describes the intent requirement for establishing domicile for purposes of diversity jurisdiction?

The individual must intend to remain in the state indefinitely, even if plans
may later change

Jordan sues Kelly in federal court for $200,000. Jordan enlisted in the U.S. Army
while domiciled in Georgia. He is currently stationed in SC, where he lives on
base. Jordan has registered to vote in SC, obtained a SC driver’s license, and
stated to friends that he hopes to remain in SC after his service ends, though he
has not taken steps to secure post-service employment. Kelly is a citizen of
Georgia.

Does diversity jurisdiction exist?

Yes, because Jordan has established a new domicile in SC

Nina files a diversity action in federal court against Oliver, seeking $300,000. Nina grew up in Connecticut and lived there until three years ago, when she moved to Massachusetts to attend a PhD program expected to last six years. Nina rents an apartment in MA, works as a teaching assistant, and has a MA driver’s license. She remains registered to vote in CT, files CT tax returns, and spends summers at her parents’ home in CT. Nina states that she is “open to staying in MA after graduation but has not decided.” Oliver is a citizen of CT.

Is diversity jurisdiction proper?

No, because Nina remains domiciled in CT.

Molly from Georgia sues Han also from Georgia claiming a violation of the federal
Age Discrimination Act.

Does a federal court have subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ)?

Yes

Molly from Georgia sues Han from Louisiana claiming a violation of a state antidiscrimination law and seeking damages of $100,000.

Does a federal court have subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ)?

Yes

Pretty Pets, Inc. (DE, OK) sues Elsie (OK) for breach of an employment contract. Elsie counterclaims for damages under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Does a federal court have subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ)?

No

Wes, a local influencer, sues the Daily, a local newspaper for libel based in a story
stating that Wes was pulled over for a DUI. The Daily claims a 1st Amd privilege
which bars recovery for libel of a public figure unless plaintiff can prove the paper
acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Wes claims the privilege does not apply
to online influencers. Whether the privilege applies is an important and unresolved
issue of federal law.

Does a federal court have subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ)?

No

Elsie threatens to sue Pretty Pets, Inc. claiming that it failed to make its premises accessible to persons with disabilities, as required under federal law. Pretty Pets brings suit in federal court for a declaratory judgement asking the court to find that it is not subject to the requirements of the federal law.

Does a federal court have subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ)?

Yes

Jimmy from Nevada sues John from Nevada in federal court under state fraud law, alleging that the defendant misrepresented compliance with a federal environmental regulation during the sale of land.

Does a federal court have subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ)?

No

Andrew (TX) sues Nora (TX) in federal court under state fraud law, alleging that the sale of land is void because the EPA regulation defining “wetlands” is invalid under the Clean Water Act.

Does a federal court have subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ)?

Yes

Rachel, a citizen of Texas, purchased a home exercise machine from FitCore, Inc., a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Illinois. Rachel ordered the machine through FitCore’s interactive website while living in Texas. FitCore regularly ships products to customers in Texas and runs targeted digital advertisements directed at Texas residents. The machine allegedly malfunctioned and injured Rachel while she was using it at her home in Texas.

Rivera files suit in federal district court in Texas asserting state-law products liability claims and seeking $90,000 in damages.

FitCore moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and improper venue.

While the case is pending, Rachel moves to add a claim for breach of warranty against Lone Star Retailers, a Texas corporation that serviced the machine after purchase. Rachel’s attorney serves Lone Star by mailing the complaint and summons first class to Lone Star’s CEO. Lone Star later claims it never received the papers and argues service was constitutionally inadequate.

Is personal jurisdiction over FitCore in Texas proper?

Yes, because FitCore purposefully directed sales and advertising into Texas and the claim arises out of those contacts.

Rachel, a citizen of Texas, purchased a home exercise machine from FitCore, Inc., a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Illinois. Rachel ordered the machine through FitCore’s interactive website while living in Texas. FitCore regularly ships products to customers in Texas and runs targeted digital advertisements directed at Texas residents. The machine allegedly malfunctioned and injured Rachel while she was using it at her home in Texas.

Rivera files suit in federal district court in Texas asserting state-law products liability claims and seeking $90,000 in damages.

FitCore moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and improper venue.

While the case is pending, Rachel moves to add a claim for breach of warranty against Lone Star Retailers, a Texas corporation that serviced the machine after purchase. Rachel’s attorney serves Lone Star by mailing the complaint and summons first class to Lone Star’s CEO. Lone Star later claims it never received the papers and argues service was constitutionally inadequate.

Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over Rachel’s original claim against FitCore?

Yes, because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Rachel, a citizen of Texas, purchased a home exercise machine from FitCore, Inc., a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Illinois. Rachel ordered the machine through FitCore’s interactive website while living in Texas. FitCore regularly ships products to customers in Texas and runs targeted digital advertisements directed at Texas residents. The machine allegedly malfunctioned and injured Rachel while she was using it at her home in Texas.

Rivera files suit in federal district court in Texas asserting state-law products liability claims and seeking $90,000 in damages.

FitCore moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and improper venue.

While the case is pending, Rachel moves to add a claim for breach of warranty against Lone Star Retailers, a Texas corporation that serviced the machine after purchase. Rachel’s attorney serves Lone Star by mailing the complaint and summons first class to Lone Star’s CEO. Lone Star later claims it never received the papers and argues service was constitutionally inadequate.

If Rachel successfully joins Lone Star Retailers (a Texas corporation) as a defendant, what is the effect on subject matter jurisdiction?

Diversity jurisdiction would likely be destroyed because Rachel and Lone Star are both Texas
citizens.

Rachel, a citizen of Texas, purchased a home exercise machine from FitCore, Inc., a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Illinois. Rachel ordered the machine through FitCore’s interactive website while living in Texas. FitCore regularly ships products to customers in Texas and runs targeted digital advertisements directed at Texas residents. The machine allegedly malfunctioned and injured Rachel while she was using it at her home in Texas.

Rivera files suit in federal district court in Texas asserting state-law products liability claims and seeking $90,000 in damages.

FitCore moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and improper venue.

While the case is pending, Rachel moves to add a claim for breach of warranty against Lone Star Retailers, a Texas corporation that serviced the machine after purchase. Rachel’s attorney serves Lone Star by mailing the complaint and summons first class to Lone Star’s CEO. Lone Star later claims it never received the papers and argues service was constitutionally inadequate.

Was service on Lone Star adequate under the FRCP?

Yes, if service by first-class mail is permitted under Texas rule.

Rachel, a citizen of Texas, purchased a home exercise machine from FitCore, Inc., a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Illinois. Rachel ordered the machine through FitCore’s interactive website while living in Texas. FitCore regularly ships products to customers in Texas and runs targeted digital advertisements directed at Texas residents. The machine allegedly malfunctioned and injured Rachel while she was using it at her home in Texas.

Rivera files suit in federal district court in Texas asserting state-law products liability claims and seeking $90,000 in damages.

FitCore moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and improper venue.

While the case is pending, Rachel moves to add a claim for breach of warranty against Lone Star Retailers, a Texas corporation that serviced the machine after purchase. Rachel’s attorney serves Lone Star by mailing the complaint and summons first class to Lone Star’s CEO. Lone Star later claims it never received the papers and argues service was constitutionally inadequate.

Was service on Lone Star constitutionally sufficient under the due process clause?

Yes, because service by first class mail is reasonably likely to confer notice.

Rachel, a citizen of Texas, purchased a home exercise machine from FitCore, Inc., a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Illinois. Rachel ordered the machine through FitCore’s interactive website while living in Texas. FitCore regularly ships products to customers in Texas and runs targeted digital advertisements directed at Texas residents. The machine allegedly malfunctioned and injured Rachel while she was using it at her home in Texas.

Rivera files suit in federal district court in Texas asserting state-law products liability claims and seeking $90,000 in damages.

FitCore moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and improper venue.

While the case is pending, Rachel moves to add a claim for breach of warranty against Lone Star Retailers, a Texas corporation that serviced the machine after purchase. Rachel’s attorney serves Lone Star by mailing the complaint and summons first class to Lone Star’s CEO. Lone Star later claims it never received the papers and argues service was constitutionally inadequate.

Assuming Rachel’s suit remains only against FitCore (the Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois), and she files in the Northern District of Texas, is venue proper?

Yes, under § 1391(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim
occurred in Texas, where the product was delivered and the injury occurred.

In 2021, Paula, a resident of State A, was injured in a car accident allegedly caused by
Daniel, a resident of State B.

State A law provides that personal injury claims must be filed within two years of the injury.
Paula files a negligence lawsuit two years and three months after the accident in federal court
under diversity jurisdiction. Daniel moves to dismiss, arguing the claim is barred by the state
statute of limitations. The FRCP does not contain a statute of limitations, thus the claim would
be timely in federal court.

What action should the federal court take?

Apply State law to dismiss the claim because the statute of limitations is treated as
substantive under the Erie doctrine.

In 2021, Paula, a resident of State A, was injured in a car accident allegedly caused by
Daniel, a resident of State B.

State A law provides that personal injury claims must be filed within two years of the injury.
Paula files a negligence lawsuit two years and three months after the accident in federal court
under diversity jurisdiction. Daniel moves to dismiss, arguing the claim is barred by the state
statute of limitations. The FRCP does not contain a statute of limitations, thus the claim would
be timely in federal court.

State A law provides: A defendant must be personally served with process. Service by leaving the summons at the defendant’s home is not valid. Paula files her lawsuit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. She serves Daniel by leaving the summons and complaint with an adult at Daniel’s residence, which is permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Daniel moves to dismiss, arguing that service was improper because it did not comply with State A’s personal service requirement.

What is the best explanation for how the court should respond to Daniel’s motion?

The court should deny the motion because FRCP 4 conflicts with state law and is valid
under the Rules Enabling Act.

Paula, a resident of State A, sues Daniel, a resident of State B, in federal court under diversity
jurisdiction for a tort claim arising under State A law. State A law provides: Punitive damages may not exceed $100,000.

After trial, the jury awards Paula:
• $100,000 in compensatory damages
• $500,000 in punitive damages

Paula argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) allows a court to grant any relief to which a party is entitled, so the federal court should enter judgment for the full $500,000 punitive damages. Daniel argues that the state statutory cap applies.

Which is the best answer?

The federal court should apply the state damages cap because FRCP 54 does not actually
conflict with the state rule limiting punitive damages.

Paula, a resident of State A, sues Daniel, a resident of State B, in federal court under diversity
jurisdiction for a negligence claim arising under State A law. State A law provides: Civil juries must consist of 12 members.However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48 provides that: A civil jury must have at least 6 and no more than 12 members.

The federal judge empanels a 6-person jury over Daniel’s objection. Daniel argues that the case involves state law claims, so the federal court must follow the state rule requiring a 12-person jury.

Which rule should the federal court apply?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48 applies because it directly addresses jury size and is
valid under the Rules Enabling Act.

Geoff, a life-long resident of WV, left his home there with his possessions and his wife Lucy to settle on a family- owned property across the border in PA. After arriving in PA, Lucy became ill that very day. The following day they went back to the WV house to spend the night. Geoff then fell ill and died two weeks later, still at the WV house. Where is Geoff domiciled (for purposes of administration of his estate)?

Pennsylvania

Jeremy retired from his job in Tennessee. He wanted to live near the water and spend the
majority of his days on a boat. He moved to Beaufort, SC, leased a condo and bought a boat. Jeremy kept his apartment in Tennessee, where he planned to retreat during hurricane season. Sadly, on his very first trip out to sea, Jeremy’s boat sank, allegedly due to misrepresentations by the seller about whether it would withstand rough weather. Jeremy raised the boat and returned to his TN apartment. He hoped to recover damages from the seller such that he could repair the boat and resume his lifelong dream of the “boat life.”

Where is Jeremy domiciled?

Need more facts

Pam, a citizen of Florida, is injured in an automobile accident caused by Diego, a citizen of Florida. Pam sues Diego’s liability insurer, ABC Insurance Co., directly, as permitted under Florida law, without naming Diego as a defendant. ABC Insurance Co. is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Illinois.

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, ABC Insurance Co. is a citizen of:

Florida, Delaware, and Illinois

Mitchell files a contract claim for $20,000, and a tort claim for $65,000, against Neff in federal court. Does federal court have SMJ over both claims?

YES! One plaintiff can aggregate the amounts of all of his claims against one defendant to meet the AIC, regardless of any relationship among them.

Mitchell and Walter were both damaged by Neff for $50,000 each.

Can they aggregate their claims against Neff to file in federal court?

No

What if Mitchell sues Neff for breach of contract seeking a total of $20,000? Can Mitchell also sue Donner, who was a party to the contract for $60,000 and keep all claims in federal court?

No

Betty (SC) is rear-ended in a multi-car accident suffering $100,000 in damages.
Betty, not knowing who is most at fault, sues Jeb (OH) and Mel (OH) each for $100,000.

Would a federal court have subject matter jurisdiction of this case?

Yes

John Paul (MN) sues Dylan (OH) for failing to deliver a custom guitar, worth $50,000. John Paul alleges breach of contract for damages of $50,000 and negligence with damages of $50,000.

Can John Paul’s suit meet the AIC requirement for federal court?

No

Deborah was seriously injured when she spilled scalding hot coffee on her lap in the
drive through at McDonalds. She sues McDonalds for $100,000 based on damages from her physical injuries. Her husband joins a claim alleging $10,000 in damages for loss of consortium? Assume all parties are diverse.

Does the husband’s claim meet the AIC requirement?

Yes

Mike, Dustin, and Max jointly own a single waterfront parcel in SC as joint tenants. They use the land exclusively for recreation and have never subdivided it. They file a nuisance suit to prevent Brenner Industries(DE, CA) from building a waste treatment plant next to their property claiming that the plant would reduce property values by $200,000.

Would their suit meet subject matter jurisdiction requirements for federal court?

Yes

Plaintiff sues 4 defendants for more than $75k each and one defendant for $20k. Diversity is met. Does the court have jurisdiction over all claims?

No

Rosa sues Dave in state court, claiming that Dave fired her based on her age, a violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The state court should:

Hear the case

Hatfield, a police officer, arrests McCoy, and a scuffle takes place during the arrest. Officer Hatfield sues McCoy for battery and points to injuries sustained during the scuffle. McCoy asserts a counterclaim alleging excessive force and unreasonable seizure under the 4th Amd. Would a federal court have jurisdiction based on
§1331?

No

Pat sues Don, a non-diverse defendant, for breach of a licensing agreement. Don counterclaims for patent infringement. If counterclaim rule applies, the case cannot be removed since Pat’s claim does not arise under federal law. Can the state court hear the patent counterclaim?

No

The Mottleys allege the following in their complaint: “We assert a claim for breach of contract because the Railroad told us that it would not honor the contract due to the newly adopted federal law.

Is there federal question jurisdiction?

No

A plaintiff wants to file a federal antidiscrimination suit and claims damages of $50,000. Which courts would have subject matter jurisdiction?

Both state and federal courts

Plaintiff (MA) wants to file a federal antidiscrimination claim and state antidiscrimination claim against Defendant (MA) and will allege damages of $100,000. Which courts would have subject matter jurisdiction?

Both state and federal courts

Patty sues the Sunday Times in federal court and alleges a state law claim for defamation. The Sunday Times asserts that it had a first amendment right to publish the news story that led to Patty’s claim. The Sunday times moves to dismiss the claim on subject matter jurisdiction grounds.

Assuming there is not basis for diversity jurisdiction, the motion should be:

Granted

The Mottleys sue to renew their passes. RR raises federal statute barring passes in its defense. Mottleys’ argument is that 1) federal statute does not apply to passes issued prior to its enactment, 2) if it does, the statute is unconstitutional under the 5th Amd. Assume these important issues have never been resolved by federal courts.

Applying the Grable factors, a federal court:

Does not have “arising under” jurisdiction because the complaint does not assert a federal claim or require plaintiffs to establish an important issue of federal law to recover.

What if the defendant is mailed a copy of the pleadings on April 5th, but is formally served on April 10th? Which date starts the clock for removal?

April 5th

What if Jana (SC) sues Paul (NC) on May 1 and 4 weeks later sues Joe (PA). Can Joe remove?

Yes

Sonia (AZ) sues Juan (NM) and Dorian (AZ) in AZ state court. After 14 months, Sonia settles with and dismisses the case against Dorian. Can Juan now remove?

No

Sonia (AZ) sues Juan (NM) and Dorian (AZ) in AZ state court. After 14 months, Sonia settles with and dismisses the case against Dorian. Discovery shows Sonia never
served Dorian, conducted no discovery as Dorian, and emails reveal that Sonia kept Dorian in the case to block removal.

Removal permissible, bad faith

Alice (SC) sues John (Alaska) and Beth (Missouri) in Missouri state court under state
tort law. Alice seeks $100,000.

Assuming John gets Beth’s permission, can John remove?

No

Alice (SC) sues John (Alaska) and Beth (Missouri) in Missouri state court based on federal cause of action. Alice seeks $100,000.

Assuming John gets Beth’s permission, can John remove?

Yes

Alice (SC) sues John (Alaska) and Beth (Missouri) in SC state court under state tort
law. Alice seeks $100,000.

Assuming John gets Beth’s permission, can John remove?

Yes

Alice (SC) sues John (Alaska) and Beth (Missouri) in SC state court under state tort law. Alice seeks $100,000. Beth answers the complaint 10 days later. John files a notice of removal to federal court 10 days after Beth answers. Two months later, Beth files to remand to state court on ground that she did not agree to removal.

Should Beth’s motion be granted?

No

Alice (SC) sues John (Alaska) in SC state court under state tort law. Alice seeks $100,000. John removes.

Alice then adds Beth (MO) 60 days later. Can Beth remand?

Yes

Amber (a Massachusetts citizen) sues Bobby (Massachusetts citizen) for employment discrimination under federal law in federal district court. Amber also sues Bobby for negligence after Bobby hit Amber in an unrelated car accident.

Can both claims be brought in federal court?

No

Amber (MA) sues Bobby (MA) for employment discrimination under federal law in federal district court. Amber also sues Bobby for state law breach of contract related to her firing.

Can both claims be brought in federal court?

Yes

Amber sues Bobby and Carol in federal district court. Amber sues Bobby under federal antitrust law and Carol (a non diverse defendant) under a state law unfair practices act. Both claims stem from an alleged unlawful conspiracy against her.

Can both claims be brought in federal court?

Yes

Under the Pennoyer framework, would an Ohio state court have in personam jurisdiction over Neff if Mitchell sued Neff in Ohio and personally served Neff in Ohio while Neff was visiting there on vacation?

Yes

Under the Pennoyer framework, would an Oregon state court have had in personam jurisdiction over Neff if Neff had been served personally at his home in California prior to the start of the case?

No

Under the Pennoyer framework, would an Oregon state court have had in rem jurisdiction over Neff’s property in California if the California property had been attached prior to the start of the case?

No

Assume Hess visited MA once and got into an accident. Under International Shoe, would a MA court have jurisdiction over Hess?

Yes, because the action arose directly out of Hess’s contacts in the MA.

Assume Fancy Pets, Inc. (PA, PA) entered into a contract with Darla in PA. Fancy Pets breaches and Darla moves to DE and sues Fancy for breach in DE. Fancy only has 1 contact in DE – a driver drives through the state on one of his routes to MD.

Does a DE court have personal jurisdiction over Fancy?

No

Fancy is still (PA, PA). Now assume Fancy’s driver got into an accident while driving in DE. Would a Pennsylvania court have personal jurisdiction over Fancy?

Yes

Fancy Pets (PA,PA) sends Fancy dog food to Darla in CA. Darla’s dog gets sick and she sues Fancy in CA.

If Darla sues Fancy in CA is her claim seeking specific or general personal jurisdiction?

Specific

Darla moves to Utah after her dog gets sick and decides to sue Fancy in a Utah state court. Fancy does not currently have any customers in Utah and Fancy does not advertise in Utah.

Would a Utah court have personal jurisdiction over Fancy?

No

Fancy begins advertising in Utah and a Utah customer sues based on fraudulent claims in mailed flier.

Would a Utah court have personal jurisdiction over Fancy?

Yes

Assume Mitchell sues Neff in Oregon, alleging Neff hired Mitchell for legal services in Oregon and failed to pay him. Assume the suit arose after International Shoe and that Mitchell found Neff in California and served Neff with process there.

Would it be constitutional for the Oregon court to exercise in personam jurisdiction over Neff?

Yes, because Neff had a contact with Oregon and the claim arose out of that contact.

Talk Inc. is a Boston business that sells and repairs used cell phones. It operates only in
Boston. Each year, Talk imports hundreds of used cell phones from other countries. Talk
replaces the batteries in each phone and then resells the phones to the public. Talk does
not advertise its services and only sells phones in person at its Boston location.

Talk sells a used cell phone to Alison while she is visiting MA. She brings it with her back
home to Nevada. After arriving in Nevada, the battery overheats burning Alison’s face.
She sues Talk in Nevada state court. Assume that the Nevada long arm statute confers
personal jurisdiction in Nevada “over any defendant whose conduct may have resulted in
an injury to a resident of Nevada.”

Would an NV court have personal jurisdiction over Talk?

No, because the defendant did not have sufficient contacts in the forum state.

Talk is a Boston business that sells and repairs used cell phones. Talk replaces the
batteries in each used phone and then resells the phones to the public, both at Talk’s
location in Boston and over the Internet nationwide. Talk purchases the batteries from
Batteries, Inc., a company that has its exclusive operations in France. The only sales
Batteries, Inc. makes outside of France are to Talk.

Alison purchases a used cell phone from Talk using their website from her home in
Nevada. Talk ships the phone to her. The battery in the phone overheats resulting in a
burn on Alison’s face. She sues Batteries, Inc. in Nevada state court (same long-arm).

Does the NV court have jurisdiction?

The answer is unclear because SCOTUS has not resolved the test for jurisdiction in
this circumstance.

Donald has a website from which he sells baseball shirts with the names of major league
baseball teams. Donald operates this website in Alaska, makes all of the shirts in Alaska,
and has no physical operations anywhere else in the U.S. He sells the shirts over his
website to people who live in all 50 states, including in New York. He then mails the shirts
to the customers where they live. The New York Yankees sue Donald in a New York federal district court for trademark infringement. Does the NY court have personal jurisdiction over Donald?

Yes, because the defendant did have sufficient contacts in the forum state, the claim
arose out of or relates to those contacts, and fairness factors do not prevent
jurisdiction.

P (NC) files claim against D (CA) in NC based on a car accident that occurred in California. P asks NC court to attach D’s NC money market account. Assume the account is completely unrelated P’s claims and that D has no other contacts in NC. Would an NC court have personal jurisdiction over D?

No

P (NC) files claim against D (CA) in NC state court based on an injury P suffered while jogging on a rental property in NC that D owned. P asks NC court to attach D’s NC property which is valuable enough to cover P’s damages. Assume D owns the property but has never been to NC and has no other contacts with NC. Would the NC court have personal jurisdiction over D?

Yes

NC Supreme Court held, in Hugo v. Decker from 1920, that trespasser on RR
right of way could not recover unless she established RR actions were willful or
wanton. Assume P injured in similar accident in 2025 and sues in NC state court alleging negligence, but not willful or wanton conduct.

What should trial court do?

Dismiss the case

Now assume P sues in federal court. Remember precedential case is from 1920.
Assume the federal court finds dicta in recent NC supreme court cases suggesting the
willful/wanton rule is outdated and favor due care standard. Federal judge is convinced that if the issue came before the NC Supreme Court today, it would apply due care.

Can she can apply the due care standard?

Yes

P sues in federal court. The Federal trial judge, applying the state supreme court predictive approach concludes that the NC supreme court would overrule Hugo and adopt a due care standard. She applies the due care standard.

Six months later, a new plaintiff, Greg, sues the RR on a similar claim in NC state trial court.

What law should the NC state trial court judge apply?

Willful/wanton standard because it is bound by precedent Hugo v. Decker.

Food Tiger operates grocery stores in South Carolina. Jai Patel worked as a store manager at Food Tiger’s Fort Mill, South Carolina location. When he was hired, he signed a noncompete agreement prohibiting him from working for a competing grocery store within 50 miles for one year after leaving the company.

Food Tiger later fired Patel without cause. Shortly afterward, Patel accepted a job with Hoggly Woggly, a competing grocery chain, at its Charlotte, North Carolina store.

Food Tiger alleges that Patel’s new employment violates the noncompete agreement and sues him in the District Court of South Carolina seeking damages for breach of contract based in diversity. There is no federal statute governing noncompete agreements.

• North Carolina refuses to enforce noncompetes when the employee was fired without cause;

• South Carolina generally enforces noncompetes and has no rule about termination without cause.

Under the holding of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, which source of law governs whether the noncompete agreement is enforceable?

State substantive law

Food Tiger operates grocery stores in South Carolina. Jai Patel worked as a store manager at Food Tiger’s Fort Mill, South Carolina location. When he was hired, he signed a noncompete agreement prohibiting him from working for a competing grocery store within 50 miles for one year after leaving the company.

Food Tiger later fired Patel without cause. Shortly afterward, Patel accepted a job with Hoggly Woggly, a competing grocery chain, at its Charlotte, North Carolina store.

Food Tiger alleges that Patel’s new employment violates the noncompete agreement and sues him in the District Court of South Carolina seeking damages for breach of contract based in diversity. There is no federal statute governing noncompete agreements.

• North Carolina refuses to enforce noncompetes when the employee was fired without cause;

• South Carolina generally enforces noncompetes and has no rule about termination without cause.

Patel argues that because the case is filed in federal court in South Carolina, Erie requires the court automatically to apply South Carolina law.

Erie held that federal courts must apply state law rather than federal general common law, but did not itself resolve how to choose between competing state laws.

Food Tiger operates grocery stores in South Carolina. Jai Patel worked as a store manager at Food Tiger’s Fort Mill, South Carolina location. When he was hired, he signed a noncompete agreement prohibiting him from working for a competing grocery store within 50 miles for one year after leaving the company.

Food Tiger later fired Patel without cause. Shortly afterward, Patel accepted a job with Hoggly Woggly, a competing grocery chain, at its Charlotte, North Carolina store.

Food Tiger alleges that Patel’s new employment violates the noncompete agreement and sues him in the District Court of South Carolina seeking damages for breach of contract based in diversity. There is no federal statute governing noncompete agreements.

• North Carolina refuses to enforce noncompetes when the employee was fired without cause;

• South Carolina generally enforces noncompetes and has no rule about termination without cause.

Suppose the federal judge believes that enforcing non-competes promotes
commercial stability and that North Carolina’s refusal to enforce non- competes after termination without cause is misguided policy. There is no federal statute on point.

Apply state substantive law even if the federal judge disagrees with the policy behind it.

On the facts of Erie (Plaintiff injured in PA suing RR based in NY in NY district court)

Choice of Law Rules:
• Assume that NY’s choice of law rule for torts cases requires NY courts to use its own tort law, as long as the case has a connection to NY.
• PA choice of law is lexi loci – place of injury

• NY law tort law holds RR owes duty of care to trespasser
• PA tort rules says only liable if you can prove willful/wanton conduct

Tompkins sues for his PA accident in NY state court.

What state law tort law would the court apply?

New York

On the facts of Erie (Plaintiff injured in PA suing RR based in NY in NY district court)

Choice of Law Rules:
• Assume that NY’s choice of law rule for torts cases requires NY courts to use its own tort law, as long as the case has a connection to NY.
• PA choice of law is lexi loci – place of injury

• NY law tort law holds RR owes duty of care to trespasser
• PA tort rules says only liable if you can prove willful/wanton conduct

Plaintiff sues in NY federal court.

What state law tort law would the court apply?

New York