Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Bar Exam Uniform

1. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over the state-law unfair competition claim? Select one.
   Answer: Yes, under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, because it arises from a common nucleus of operative fact as the federal claim. The correct answer is A. The court has federal question jurisdiction over the Lanham Act claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are so related to the federal claim that they form part of the same case or controversy. This is generally understood as arising from a 'common nucleus of operative fact.' Since both claims arise from the same marketing activities, supplemental jurisdiction is proper. B is incorrect because while the parties are diverse, the state-law claim does not meet the amount in controversy, so diversity jurisdiction fails for that claim. C is incorrect as it misstates the principle of supplemental jurisdiction. D is incorrect because the amount in controversy is not required for a claim brought under supplemental jurisdiction attached to a federal question claim.
2. What is the most likely basis for the executor's motion to dismiss? Select one.
   Answer: The probate exception to federal diversity jurisdiction. The correct answer is A. Federal courts have a long-standing exception to diversity jurisdiction for probate matters. This exception prevents federal courts from probating a will, administering an estate, or disposing of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. A lawsuit against an executor for breach of fiduciary duty in managing estate assets falls squarely within this exception because it interferes with the probate proceedings. B is incorrect because all plaintiffs (from Virginia) are diverse from the defendant (from Maryland). C is incorrect because multiple plaintiffs can aggregate their claims when they are asserting a common, undivided interest, which beneficiaries suing over a single estate's assets would likely have. D may be a valid argument, but A presents a direct bar to the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
3. How should the court rule on the motion to dismiss? Select one.
   Answer: Deny the motion, because the coercive action that would have been brought by the defendant studio would arise under federal copyright law. The correct answer is C. In a declaratory judgment action, for purposes of federal question jurisdiction, the court looks to whether jurisdiction would exist in a coercive action brought by the defendant (the party who would otherwise be the plaintiff). Here, the defendant film studio could bring a coercive action against the author seeking a declaration that its movie does not infringe the author's copyright, or the author could bring a coercive action for copyright infringement. An infringement action clearly arises under federal copyright law. Therefore, federal question jurisdiction exists. A is incorrect because it misapplies the well-pleaded complaint rule in the context of a declaratory judgment. B is incorrect because diversity jurisdiction is irrelevant when federal question jurisdiction exists. D is too broad; while copyright infringement cases are exclusive to federal courts, not every case involving a copyright belongs there (e.g., a contract dispute over royalties).
4. How is the court most likely to rule on the programmer's motion to remand? Select one.
   Answer: Deny the motion, because the programmer's claim falls under a federal statute that provides for complete preemption. The correct answer is D. This question tests the 'complete preemption' doctrine, which is an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule. While ordinarily a federal defense (like preemption) does not create federal question jurisdiction, Congress has so completely preempted certain areas, such as claims for benefits under ERISA, that any civil complaint raising this type of claim is necessarily federal in character. Thus, the case is removable. A is incorrect because this is an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule. B is incorrect because defendants can raise federal questions in the context of removal. C is incorrect because ordinary preemption is a defense and does not confer jurisdiction; only complete preemption does.
5. How should the court rule on the defendant's motion to dismiss? Select one.
   Answer: Deny the motion, because jurisdiction is determined at the time the complaint is filed and is not lost by a subsequent reduction in the amount claimed. When you encounter federal jurisdiction questions involving amount in controversy requirements, the critical principle is that jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing, not based on later developments in the case. Federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Here, the plaintiff initially sued for $80,000, satisfying both requirements. The key rule is that once proper jurisdiction is established at filing, subsequent events that might have defeated jurisdiction don't destroy it. This protects the judicial system from having cases bounced out of court due to developments that occur after litigation begins. Answer B correctly states this fundamental principle - jurisdiction is locked in at the time the complaint is filed and survives later reductions in claimed damages. Answer A represents a common misconception that jurisdiction must be continuously satisfied throughout litigation. While the amount in controversy is now only $60,000, this doesn't retroactively destroy jurisdiction that was properly established initially. Answer C incorrectly suggests bad faith is relevant to this jurisdictional analysis. Bad faith might matter if the original $80,000 claim was completely fabricated to create jurisdiction, but discovering your damages are lower than expected through legitimate discovery is not bad faith. Answer D misapplies waiver doctrine. While defendants can waive certain objections by participating in litigation, subject matter jurisdiction is different - it can never be waived and can be challenged at any time. Remember: for amount in controversy requirements, focus on what the plaintiff claimed when they filed, not what they ultimately recover or later discover their damages to be.
6. Is removal proper? Select one.
   Answer: No, because removal based on diversity jurisdiction is not permitted when any defendant is a citizen of the forum state. The correct answer is C. This question tests the 'in-state defendant rule' of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction may not be removed if any of the properly joined and served defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought. Here, the action was brought in Florida state court, and one of the defendants (the employee) is a citizen of Florida. Therefore, removal is improper. D is also a correct statement of the jurisdictional defect (plaintiff from Florida, defendant-employee from Florida), but C states the specific procedural rule that bars removal in this situation, making it the better answer explaining why removal itself is improper.
7. Is removal proper under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)? Select one.
   Answer: Yes, because there is minimal diversity and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The correct answer is A. The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) grants federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over class actions where there is 'minimal diversity' (any class member is diverse from any defendant), the class has at least 100 members, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Here, the plaintiff from California is diverse from the defendant (a citizen of Delaware and Arkansas), so minimal diversity exists. The amount in controversy is $10 million. Thus, CAFA's requirements are met. B is incorrect because CAFA requires only minimal, not complete, diversity. C is incorrect because CAFA was specifically designed to bring large state-law class actions into federal court. D is incorrect because the in-state defendant rule of traditional diversity removal does not apply to cases removed under CAFA.
8. What is the most likely basis for the defendant's motion to dismiss? Select one.
   Answer: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The correct answer is B. Federal courts must have subject matter jurisdiction. One basis is diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy over $75,000. For diversity purposes, a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state where it has its principal place of business. Here, the corporation is a citizen of Delaware (incorporation) and California (principal place of business). Because the defendant is also a citizen of California, complete diversity is lacking, and the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. A is incorrect because the defendant is a domiciliary of California, so a federal court in California would certainly have personal jurisdiction. C is incorrect because venue would be proper in a district where the defendant resides. D is incorrect as the motion would challenge the court's power to hear the case, not the merits of the trade secret claim.
9. What is the most likely outcome of the motion to remand? Select one.
   Answer: The motion will be denied, if the manufacturer can show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The correct answer is C. When a plaintiff's complaint does not specify an amount of damages or seeks an amount below the jurisdictional threshold, a defendant seeking removal must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is met. The manufacturer can do this by presenting evidence about the value of similar claims. A is incorrect because the demand in the complaint is not controlling when it is indeterminate. B is incorrect because the manufacturer is a citizen of Michigan, not the forum state of New York. D is incorrect; ambiguities are generally resolved in favor of remand, not federal jurisdiction.
10. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction? Select one.
    Answer: No, because for diversity purposes, an alien admitted for permanent residence is deemed a citizen of the state in which the alien is domiciled. The correct answer is C. This question tests alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). While federal courts generally have jurisdiction over suits between citizens of a state and citizens of a foreign state, the statute includes a proviso: 'an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.' Here, the French citizen is a lawful permanent resident domiciled in California. For diversity purposes, she is deemed a citizen of California. Because the defendant is also a citizen of California, there is no diversity, and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. A ignores the statutory proviso. B states the effect of the proviso but reaches the wrong conclusion. D is an incorrect statement of law.
11. The defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What is the defendant's strongest argument? Select one.
    Answer: The student had formed the intent to remain in California and was physically present there when the lawsuit was filed, making her a citizen of California. The correct answer is C. Diversity of citizenship is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed. Citizenship for an individual is their domicile, which is established by physical presence in a state combined with the intent to remain there indefinitely. At the time the suit was filed, the student was physically present in California and had formed the intent to remain, establishing a new domicile. Therefore, she was a citizen of California, just like the defendant, destroying diversity. A is incorrect because physical presence alone is not sufficient. B is incorrect because jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing. D is an incorrect statement of law; a student's domicile does not automatically change.
12. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over the spouse's claim? Select one.
    Answer: No, because multiple plaintiffs cannot aggregate their separate and distinct claims to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. The correct answer is C. When two or more plaintiffs have separate and distinct claims, they cannot aggregate them to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. Each plaintiff's claim must independently satisfy the jurisdictional amount. Here, the spouse's claim for $40,000 does not. A is incorrect because it describes aggregation, which is not permitted here. B is incorrect because under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b), in a case based solely on diversity, supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to claims by plaintiffs joined under Rule 20 if their claims do not independently satisfy the jurisdictional requirements (including amount in controversy). D is incorrect because having multiple plaintiffs from the same state does not destroy diversity as long as all plaintiffs are diverse from all defendants.
13. How should the court rule on the motion to dismiss? Select one.
    Answer: Grant the motion, because the LLC is considered a citizen of every state where its members are citizens, destroying complete diversity. The correct answer is A. For diversity jurisdiction, an LLC is considered a citizen of every state of which its members are citizens. Here, the LLC has members from Arizona, California, and Utah. Therefore, the LLC is a citizen of all three states. The defendant corporation is a citizen of Delaware and California. Because both the plaintiff LLC and the defendant corporation are citizens of California, complete diversity does not exist, and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. B is incorrect because the amount sought is $100,000, which satisfies the requirement. C is incorrect because it states the rule for corporations, not LLCs. D is incorrect because diversity requires that no plaintiff be a citizen of the same state as any defendant; a 'majority' rule does not exist.
14. Can the manufacturer properly remove the case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction? Select one.
    Answer: No, because the plaintiff's cause of action is a state-law tort, and the federal issue does not create a federal cause of action. Federal question jurisdiction allows removal to federal court when a case "arises under" federal law. The key test isn't whether federal law is mentioned, but whether federal law creates the cause of action or is essential to the plaintiff's claim. Here, the farmer's lawsuit is fundamentally a state-law tort claim for defective products causing crop damage. While the complaint mentions FIFRA violations in the labeling, this federal issue doesn't create a separate federal cause of action—it's merely additional evidence supporting the state tort claim. The case can proceed entirely under state law without resolving any federal questions, since state tort law provides the complete legal framework for the defective product claim. Choice A is wrong because simply referencing a federal statute in a complaint doesn't automatically create federal question jurisdiction. The federal law must be the source of the plaintiff's right to relief, not just supporting evidence. Choice C misapplies the "embedded federal issue" doctrine. Even if FIFRA interpretation were central and disputed, that alone doesn't grant federal jurisdiction unless the federal question is also substantial to the federal system and won't disturb the federal-state balance. Here, the state tort claim remains the primary issue. Choice D incorrectly suggests that diversity jurisdiction somehow prevents federal question removal. These are independent bases for federal jurisdiction—having diverse parties doesn't eliminate the possibility of federal question jurisdiction if it existed. Remember: for federal question removal, ask whether federal law creates the cause of action itself, not whether federal law might be relevant to proving a state-law claim.
15. What is the basis for the court's jurisdiction over the claim against Defendant 2? Select one.
    Answer: Supplemental jurisdiction, because the claim against Defendant 2 is part of the same case or controversy as the federal question claim. The correct answer is B. The court has original jurisdiction over the claim against Defendant 1 based on a federal question. The court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over claims against other parties that are part of the same case or controversy. The limitation in § 1367(b) on claims that destroy diversity does not apply here, because the anchor claim is based on federal question jurisdiction, not diversity. Therefore, the lack of diversity between the plaintiff and Defendant 2 does not defeat supplemental jurisdiction. A and D are incorrect because diversity is not the basis for jurisdiction here. C is incorrect because being factually related does not confer federal question jurisdiction on a state-law claim.
16. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's proposed claim against the third-party defendant? Select one.
    Answer: No, because allowing the claim would violate the requirement of complete diversity. The correct answer is C. This scenario is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). In a case founded solely on diversity jurisdiction, the court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14 (impleader) if doing so would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of § 1332. Here, allowing the plaintiff from State A to sue the third-party defendant from State A would destroy complete diversity. Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over that specific claim. A is incorrect because the propriety of the impleader does not automatically grant jurisdiction for all subsequent claims. B is incorrect because it ignores the § 1367(b) carve-out. D is an overstatement and incorrect.
17. What is your best argument in opposition to the motion to dismiss? Select one.
    Answer: The plaintiff's good faith allegation of damages in the complaint controls the amount in controversy determination. The correct answer is A. The general rule is that the amount in controversy is determined by the plaintiff's good faith claim stated in the complaint. The case will only be dismissed if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount. While the state statute is a strong defense that may limit recovery, it does not automatically mean the plaintiff's claim was made in bad faith or that recovery above $75,000 is a legal certainty. The plaintiff can argue the statute is inapplicable or unconstitutional. B is a possible argument on the merits, but A is the correct procedural standard for jurisdiction. C is incorrect because a statutory cap directly affects potential liability. D is a correct statement about Erie but doesn't directly address why jurisdiction exists despite the cap; the 'good faith allegation' rule is the direct answer.
18. Assuming the court values the injunction from the plaintiff's viewpoint, what is the likely outcome of the motion? Select one.
    Answer: Denied, because the value of the injunction to the plaintiff exceeds $75,000. The correct answer is C. For diversity jurisdiction, when a plaintiff seeks an injunction, the amount in controversy is typically measured by the value of the relief to the plaintiff or the cost of compliance for the defendant. Courts are split, but many will find the requirement met if either valuation exceeds $75,000. The question specifies that the court adopts the plaintiff's viewpoint. Since the plaintiff values the benefit of the injunction at over $100,000, the amount in controversy requirement is met. A is incorrect because the defendant's cost is not the only measure, and the question directs the analysis to the plaintiff's viewpoint. B is incorrect; the value of injunctive relief can satisfy the amount requirement. D is incorrect because the complaint alleges a violation of a state law, so no federal question is presented.
19. How should the court rule on the motion to dismiss the counterclaim? Select one.
    Answer: Deny the motion, because a compulsory counterclaim falls within the court's supplemental jurisdiction. The correct answer is D. Compulsory counterclaims (those arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim) are within the court's supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, a compulsory counterclaim does not need to meet the amount in controversy requirement or have any other independent jurisdictional basis. A is incorrect for this reason. B is an incorrect statement of law. C is incorrect because aggregation is not the correct analysis; supplemental jurisdiction is the proper basis for the court to hear the claim.
20. What is the strongest basis for the plaintiff's motion to remand? Select one.
    Answer: There is no basis for remand; removal was proper. The correct answer is D. Removal based on diversity jurisdiction is proper if the requirements of diversity (complete diversity and amount in controversy > $75,000) are met and no defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Here, the parties are diverse (Texas v. Louisiana), and the amount in controversy is met ($200,000). The suit was filed in Texas state court. The defendant is from Louisiana, not Texas. Therefore, the in-state defendant rule does not apply. Removal was proper, and there is no basis for remand. A and B are factually incorrect. C misapplies the in-state defendant rule, which applies only when a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought.

Start this quiz