Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS

    2.           P has filed suit against D in the U.S. district court for Nevada. The suit asserts a federal claim, that D committed racial discrimination against P in Dallas (which is located in the Northern District of Texas). D is a citizen of California (he lives in San Francisco, in the Northern District of California). P lives in Nevada. D has now moved for a change of venue to the Northern District of California, or alternatively, to the Northern District of Texas. Which of the following is correct?

    (A) The court may properly transfer the action to the Northern District of California but not to the Northern District of Texas.

    (B) The court may properly transfer the action to either the Northern District of California or to the Northern District of Texas.

    (C) The court must dismiss the action, since it was commenced in an improper forum.

    (D) The court may, in its discretion, either retain the action for trial in Nevada, transfer it to the Northern District of California, or transfer it to the Northern District of Texas.

    3.           Pedro, a citizen of Illinois, has filed suit against David in an Illinois state court located in Chicago. The suit alleges that David committed acts in Missouri which violated Pedro’s rights under federal employment-discrimination statutes. David is a citizen of Illinois, living in Springfield, Ill. (located, for federal-district-court purposes, in the Central District of Illinois). David has filed a petition for removal to the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois (encompassing Chicago). Pedro has opposed the removal petition. Should the action be removed?

    (A) No, because the action could not have originally been brought in the U.S. district court for the Northern District of Illinois, the court to which removal has been requested.

    (B) Yes, because Pedro’s action arises under a federal statute, and the action would be removed to the federal district encompassing the place where the state action is pending.

    (C) Yes, because state courts, even those of general jurisdiction, do not have subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims.

    (D) No, because David is a citizen of Illinois, the state containing the district to which the action would be removed.

    4.           Dressco, a corporation, manufactures ladies’ dresses. In the state of Arkansas, Dressco does not maintain any official office. Dressco conducts no advertising directed at Arkansas residents, and derives only a small portion of its total revenues from that state. Dressco’s sole activities in the state consist of the activities of Jones, a commission salesman for Dressco, who works out of his house soliciting orders from Arkansas-based department stores. When an Arkansas department store places an order, the order is not accepted by Jones, but is instead sent to Dressco’s home office in New York for approval. All orders are shipped from New York directly to the department store which placed the order. Dilbert’s, an Arkansas department store that placed one order with Dressco via Jones, received what it believed to be defective merchandise, and sued Dressco in the Arkansas courts. May the Arkansas courts constitutionally take jurisdiction over Dressco in the action brought by Dilbert’s?

    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following