1. Porter, a New York resident, became violently ill shortly after having lunch in a restaurant in Beverly Hills, California owned by Dave, a California resident. As a result of his illness, Porter spent two weeks in the hospital in California. After being released from the hospital, Porter then returned to New York and consulted an attorney regarding his right to sue Dave, claiming damages for personal injury as a result of eating contaminated food in Dave's restaurant. After properly establishing that Porter had suffered at least $150,000 in damages, the attorney advised Porter that his lawsuit could be brought in several different courts.
Which of the following statements, if made by the attorney to Porter, are accurate?
I. A California state court would have personal jurisdiction over Dave.
II. A California state court would have subject matter jurisdiction over the action.
III. A federal district court in California would have subject matter jurisdiction over the action.
IV. A federal district court in California would have personal jurisdiction over Dave.
A I and II only.
B I, II and IV only.
C II and III only.
D I, II, III and IV.
2. Dora, a Nevada resident, manufactures and sells automobiles in Nevada. Barry, a Texas resident, purchased an automobile in Nevada from Dora and drove it back to Texas. Two years, later, Barry sold the automobile to Pell (a Missouri resident) who drove the automobile to Missouri from Texas. While driving back to his home in Missouri, Pell was injured when the gas tank of the automobile suddenly exploded when his car was struck from the rear in St. Louis, Missouri. The explosion was caused by a dangerous defect present in the automobile gas tank when it was manufactured. Pell brought a personal injury action against Dora in the Missouri federal district court.
Assume for purposes of this question only that Missouri has a "specific acts" type of long-arm statute that permits the courts in Missouri to exercise jurisdiction over claims that "arise out of a tortious act committed in this state." If Dora moves to dismiss the action claiming that the Missouri federal district court has no personal jurisdiction over her, the court should:
A grant the motion, because Dora has not taken advantage of the benefits and protections of Missouri law.
B deny the motion, if the Missouri statute has been interpreted to include tortious acts that are performed outside the forum that produce injury inside the forum as within the language of this long-arm statute regardless of whether the court also finds sufficient minimum contacts exist between Dora and Missouri.
C deny the motion, because even if Dora lacks sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Missouri, the federal district court will have jurisdiction based on federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and the state long-arm statute.
D grant the motion, unless the Missouri statute has been interpreted to include tortious acts that are performed outside the forum that produce injury inside the forum as within the language of this long-arm statute and the court also finds sufficient minimum contacts exist between Dora and Missouri.
3. Original fact pattern:
Dora, a Nevada resident, manufactures and sells automobiles in Nevada. Barry, a Texas resident, purchased an automobile in Nevada from Dora and drove it back to Texas. Two years, later, Barry sold the automobile to Pell (a Missouri resident) who drove the automobile to Missouri from Texas. While driving back to his home in Missouri, Pell was injured when the gas tank of the automobile suddenly exploded when his car was struck from the rear in St. Louis, Missouri. The explosion was caused by a dangerous defect present in the automobile gas tank when it was manufactured. Pell brought a personal injury action against Dora in the Missouri federal district court.
Assume for purposes of this question only that Dora also moves to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district court. The court should:
A grant the motion, because diversity of citizenship jurisdiction cannot be invoked by a plaintiff bringing an action in his/her own home state.
B grant the motion, because there is no "federal question" present in this product liability lawsuit.
C deny the motion, because the federal court will have jurisdiction to hear cases brought between citizens of different states provided that the amount in controversy requirement is met.
D deny the motion, because a federal question is presented when an article of interstate commerce causes injury to a party while moving in interstate commerce.
4. P and D were business associates who frequently worked together on various business ventures. Recently, P and D were cooperating on the development of a medical device. The cooperation ceased when P claimed that P owned the patent rights to the medical device. P brought suit in federal court to assert P's patent rights to the medical device. Prior to the time when D filed an answer and prior to expiration of the time limit for an amended complaint, P amended his complaint to add a breach of contract claim P alleged occurred as a result of a prior unrelated business deal P and D entered into six months prior to the time they began development of the medical device.
Assuming that the court has proper subject matter jurisdiction to hear the contract claim, may P assert the additional claim in this amended complaint?
A No, because the additional claim did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the initial claim.
B No, because P did not first obtain leave from the court to amend his complaint.
C Yes, because a party is free to amend his complaint to add as many claims as he has against the opposing party.
D Yes, because the claim was substantially related to the patent claim since it involved a business venture between the same two parties.
5. A passenger bus owned and operated by Travelco was involved in a collision with an automobile owned and operated by Polly. Polly suffered a broken leg and other personal injuries as a result of the collision. Polly brought suit in federal district court (properly based on diversity of citizenship) against Travelco, claiming that as a result of Travelco's negligence, she suffered injury. An investigation of the accident and the bus revealed that the accident occurred as a result of a tire blowout due to a defective tire manufactured by Rubberco.
Travelco now seeks to add Rubberco to the Polly v. Travelco lawsuit, claiming that if Travelco is found liable to Polly, it is because of the defective tire manufactured by Rubberco.
Will Travelco be permitted to join Rubberco in this lawsuit?
A Yes, because Rubberco is or may be liable for all or part of any judgment entered against Travelco.
B Yes, but only if the addition of Rubberco does not destroy diversity.
C No, because the accident may have been at least partially caused by the negligent operation of the Travelco bus.
D No, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit the defendant in an action to add additional parties to the lawsuit without obtaining consent from the plaintiff.