Civil Procedure Keyed to Coundback
0 of 5 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.
Paul sued his employer, Acme Corporation, in the proper U.S. District Court in State X, claiming that (1) Dan (an Acme supervisor) had defamed him by informing the president of Acme that Paul was an ineffectual employee, and that this statement was within the scope of Dan’s employment at Acme, and (2) Acme owed Paul $15,000 in unused vacation pay. As a consequence of both harms, Paul claimed damages in the aggregate amount of $80,000. Acme responded to Paul’s complaint on the ground that Dan was an indispensable party and that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking since the two claims aggregated by Paul to satisfy the “in excess of $75,000” requirement did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. (You may assume that the court could not obtain personal jurisdiction over Dan.) This motion was denied. Acme then filed an answer that admitted Dan’s statement, but denied that it was made within the scope of Dan’s employment and asserted the affirmative defense of truth.
Paul then filed a summary judgment motion, with his personal supporting affidavit, describing facts that demonstrated that he had performed his job competently. Acme failed to respond to Paul’s summary judgment motion.
Is Dan an indispensable party?Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.
In a three-car collision, P’s car was rear-ended by D, who was in turn rear-ended by E. P brought an action against D in the U.S. District Court in the state in which P was domiciled. P sought to recover $80,000 for damages to his Mercedes. D filed a counterclaim against P, seeking $852 for damages to his Volkswagen. D also filed two claims against E, the driver behind him, one seeking $80,000 in the event that D was liable to P, and the other seeking $852 for the damages caused to D’s Volkswagen. P and D are both citizens of State X; E is a citizen of State Y. Judgment was entered for P against D, but all of the other claims were found to be without merit.
E has now filed a lawsuit against P and D in the U.S. District Court in X, seeking $1 million for personal injuries suffered in the earlier auto accident. P and D have each counterclaimed, seeking $1 million for their own personal injuries, and have filed similar cross-claims against each other.
Is there subject matter jurisdiction for all claims?Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.
F, a citizen of Idaho, brings a multimillion-dollar diversity action for wrongful death in the proper U.S. District Court against her husband’s employer, M Construction Company, a Washington corporation. He alleges that M negligently allowed the scaffolding to collapse while her husband was walking beneath it. M impleads the manufacturer of the scaffolding, S, alleging that it would have a right to indemnity from S as a consequence of the latter’s negligent manufacture of the equipment in question. S is an Idaho corporation. F was granted leave to file an amended complaint alleging negligent manufacture against S. Thereafter, S moved to dismiss F’s action against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Should the motion be granted?Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.
Plaintiff, a citizen of California, sues The Bank of Nevada (“Bank”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Bank has its only place of business in Nevada. Plaintiff seeks an order-directing Bank to deliver the proceeds of a savings account in the amount of $85,000 to her. She alleges an agreement between her and Fergie, also a California citizen, whereby they each deposited an equal amount of money in the account, to be held solely in the name of Fergie. She further alleges that Fergie has asked Bank to split the account equally and to deliver a passbook to her, but that Bank refused to do this. The Bank answers by alleging that it refused to make the transfer because Fergie claims that plaintiff assigned her interest in the account to him as repayment for a loan. Bank makes a motion to dismiss for failure to join Fergie as a party. At a hearing on this issue, the court orders joinder of Fergie and then dismisses for lack of complete diversity.
Will plaintiff be barred from re-filing?Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.
North America Insurance Company (“NAIC”), an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in New York, is sued by five of its policyholders in a class action that alleges that NAIC overcharged them and 2,000 other persons in their states for automobile insurance. The action seeks a refund of the overcharges. The plaintiffs in the action are Allan (“A”), a citizen of Arizona; Byron (“B”), a student who is domiciled in California; Colin (“C”), a citizen of Colorado; David (“D”), a citizen of Delaware; and Eli (“E”), a citizen of Florida. The amounts of the overcharges claimed by the named plaintiffs are: A, $15,000; B, $10,000; C, $50,000; D, $29,000; and E, $14,000.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.Grading can be reviewed and adjusted.