Civil Procedure Keyed to Coundback
0 of 4 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.
A homeowner from State A filed a breach of contract and negligence action against a State B architect in federal district court, seeking damages for problems with the homeowner’s house. In designing the house, the architect relied on calculations performed by a State B engineer whom the architect hired to assist him with the project. The architect believes that incorrect calculations by the engineer caused any defects in the design.
May the architect assert and maintain an indemnity claim against the engineer in the pending federal action?CorrectIncorrect
A senior engineer and junior engineer worked for the same employer. In the course of their employment, the engineers had access to the design of some valuable equipment developed by their employer, which equipment constituted a trade secret. Conspiring together, the engineers secured copies of the blueprints for the equipment and removed it from the employer’s premises. The senior engineer then sold a copy of the prints to one of the employer’s competitors, and the junior engineer sold a copy to a different competitor. The employer intends to sue both engineers in federal district court, asserting misappropriation of trade secrets tort claims, seeking $150,000 in damages from the senior engineer and $100,000 in damages from the junior engineer. The employer is a citizen of State A. The engineers are both citizens of State B.
Can the employer assert and maintain its claims against both engineers in the same action in federal court?CorrectIncorrect
In federal court, the plaintiff, a distributor of digitized music, brought a single suit against ten individuals, alleging that, in violation of federal law, they “pirated” music that plaintiff sought to distribute in exchange for payment. Plaintiff alleged that all of the defendants effected their piracy by using one particular software package. Plaintiffs did not know one another, had not communicated with one another and, among them, engaged in the acts of alleged privacy over a 6-month period. Each took the position that s/he was a first-time violator. Defendants moved to sever for improper joinder, as well as to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. In support of the latter motion, defendants argued for an interpretation of the relevant federal law that excepted first-time violators from liability.
How should the court rule on the motion to sever?CorrectIncorrect
A citizen of State A sued a police officer in federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1983, alleging violation of her civil rights. The citizen sought to join a defamation claim against the police officer’s wife arising from a public altercation in which the two were involved. The claim against the police officer seeks $100,000 in damages, and the claim against the officer’s wife seeks $85,000 in damages. All three parties are citizens and residents of State A. The operative facts applicable to the two claims are unrelated. The police officer and his wife filed a motion to dismiss the action both for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper joinder of parties.
How should the court rule?CorrectIncorrect