Civil Procedure Keyed to Coundback
0 of 6 questions completed
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to pass the previous Module’s quiz in order to start this quiz:
you have successfully completed the quiz.
The plaintiff and defendant were involved in a car accident in which the plaintiff’s vintage sports car was severely damaged. The plaintiff sued the defendant in federal court for $200,000 in damages, alleging that the defendant had run a red light and caused the accident. The defendant claimed that the light was green. The plaintiff files a motion for summary judgment supported by an authenticated surveillance video that clearly shows the defendant driving through the red light, as well as an affidavit from a vintage car expert who described the value of the plaintiff’s car and the cost of repairing the damage. The defendant opposes the motion for summary judgment but offers no supporting evidence regarding the color of the light. He does, however, offer affidavits from two car experts who stated that the plaintiff’s car was not nearly as valuable as he claimed and that only $50,000 worth of damage was done to it.
May the court grant the motion for summary judgement?CorrectIncorrect
Plaintiff Patrick, a citizen of Washington, brings a diversity action against Defendant Debbie, a citizen of California, in California federal court. Patrick’s single count complaint seeks damages for injuries he suffered from a car accident in Oregon when he was a passenger in Debbie’s automobile. Oregon’s guest statute provides a valid defense to Patrick’s claim. California does not have a guest statute.
Which of the following is true?CorrectIncorrect
Assume that there is only one federal district court in Illinois and only one in Iowa. Plaintiff sued defendant in the federal district court of Illinois, on a state law claim that arose in Illinois, where most of the evidence remains. Defendant moved for a change of venue to the federal district court of Iowa, the state in which both plaintiff and defendant reside. Plaintiff opposed the motion. Under Illinois’ choice of law principles, Illinois law will govern the claim. Had the suit been filed in Iowa, under Iowa’s choice of law principles, Iowa law would have governed the claim.
Under these circumstances, should the federal district court in Illinois grant defendant’s motion to transfer?CorrectIncorrect
A restaurant owner in State A bought two large freezers from a manufacturer of commercial refrigeration equipment with its principal place of business in State B. Within one week and after being fully stocked with meat, one of the freezers broke down. The restaurant owner filed a state-based products liability action against the manufacturer in federal court in State A, and included a demand for a jury trial. Under the law in State A, jury verdicts do not need to be unanimous, but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require jury verdicts to be unanimous.
At trial, the restaurant owner makes a motion asking the court to apply the State A law.
How should the court rule on the motion?CorrectIncorrect
An electrician from State A was hired by a commercial builder from State B to install all the electricity in a new strip mall located in State A. Upon completion, the builder refused to pay the electrician, claiming the installation was not up to the building code. The electrician filed a diversity action in federal court sitting in State A against the builder for breach of contract. Al- though the action was filed within the applicable statute of limitations period, the electrician failed to serve the summons and complaint on the builder until after the statute of limitations on the claim expired.
Under the law in State A, an action is “commenced” for purposes of the state’s statute of limitations when the defendant is served with the summons and complaint. However, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an action is “commenced” in federal court when the plaintiff files the complaint in federal court. The builder filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for exceeding the statute of limitations period, arguing the state law governs.
How should the court rule?CorrectIncorrect
A citizen of Wisconsin filed a breach of contract action against a citizen of Illinois in a Wisconsin state trial court. The Illinois defendant timely and properly removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the action based on insufficient service of process. Following a hearing, the court found that service was proper and denied the motion. The defendant then filed her answer, responding to the merits of the complaint and asserting that the case should be dismissed on the grounds that another action was pending between the same parties for the same cause in an Illinois state court. The Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party waives the right to seek dismissal on that ground if the party files a pre-answer motion to dismiss and does not assert that ground in the motion.
Should the federal court hold that the defendant has waived the right to seek dismissal based on the pendency of the same cause in another court?CorrectIncorrect