Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Joinder Of Claims

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Joinder Of ClaimsQuestion 1 of 20

A pedestrian from Ohio sued both the driver of a car and the driver of a bus in federal court based on diversity of citizenship. The pedestrian alleged that both drivers were negligent in a traffic accident that resulted in the pedestrian's injuries. Both drivers are citizens of Kentucky. The car driver has filed an answer to the pedestrian's complaint. Now, the car driver wishes to file a claim against the bus driver, alleging that the bus driver's negligence was the sole cause of the accident and seeking damages for the car driver's own injuries.

Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the car driver's proposed claim against the bus driver? Select one.

The claim is a proper crossclaim, and the court will have supplemental jurisdiction over it.

The claim is an improper attempt at joinder because co-defendants from the same state cannot sue each other in a diversity case.

The claim must be brought as a third-party claim under Rule 14, not as a crossclaim.

The claim is a compulsory counterclaim that will be waived if not asserted in this action.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Joinder Of Claims

Practice Joinder Of Claims in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Joinder Of Claims, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the car driver's proposed claim against the bus driver? Select one.

The claim is a proper crossclaim, and the court will have supplemental jurisdiction over it. (correct answer)
The claim is an improper attempt at joinder because co-defendants from the same state cannot sue each other in a diversity case.
The claim must be brought as a third-party claim under Rule 14, not as a crossclaim.
The claim is a compulsory counterclaim that will be waived if not asserted in this action.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The car driver and bus driver are co-parties. A claim by one co-party against another is a crossclaim under FRCP 13(g), provided it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the original action. This claim, for injuries sustained in the same accident, meets that requirement. Crossclaims fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they are part of the same case or controversy. The fact that the co-defendants are not diverse from each other does not defeat supplemental jurisdiction. B is incorrect because supplemental jurisdiction allows for such claims between non-diverse co-parties. C is incorrect because a third-party claim (impleader) under Rule 14 is used to bring in a new party for derivative liability (e.g., indemnity or contribution), not to assert a claim against an existing co-party for one's own damages. D is incorrect because the claim is a crossclaim, not a counterclaim (which is asserted against an opposing party), and crossclaims are always permissive, never compulsory.

Question 2

A citizen of France, currently residing in New York, sued a corporation incorporated and headquartered in California in federal court in New York. The plaintiff's claim is for breach of contract, seeking $500,000 in damages. The defendant corporation wishes to assert a counterclaim against the plaintiff for defamation, a state-law tort claim entirely unrelated to the contract dispute. The corporation estimates its damages from the defamation at $50,000.

Assuming the court has proper jurisdiction over the original claim, may the defendant corporation properly assert its defamation counterclaim in the pending federal action? Select one.

Yes, because the claim is a permissive counterclaim and can be supported by supplemental jurisdiction.
Yes, because the amount of a permissive counterclaim does not need to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement if the original claim does.
No, because counterclaims against foreign nationals are not permitted in federal court without a treaty allowing them.
No, because the claim is a permissive counterclaim that lacks its own independent basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The original suit is in federal court under alienage jurisdiction, a form of diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2)). The defendant's proposed counterclaim is unrelated to the main claim, making it a permissive counterclaim under FRCP 13(b). A permissive counterclaim requires an independent basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Here, the counterclaim is a state-law tort claim for $50,000. It does not raise a federal question, and it does not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity/alienage jurisdiction (over $75,000). Because it is unrelated to the main claim, it cannot receive supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. A is incorrect because supplemental jurisdiction generally does not extend to permissive counterclaims that do not share a common nucleus of operative fact with the main claim. B is incorrect; permissive counterclaims must independently satisfy the jurisdictional amount. C is incorrect as there is no general prohibition on counterclaims against foreign nationals.

Question 3

A driver from State A sued a trucking company from State B in federal court in State A, seeking $200,000 for personal injuries sustained in a highway collision. The basis for subject-matter jurisdiction was diversity of citizenship. The trucking company believes the driver was at fault and wants to sue the driver for $95,000 to cover the damage to its truck from the same collision. The trucking company filed its answer but did not include any claims against the driver. Six months later, the trucking company filed a separate lawsuit against the driver in the same federal court.

The driver has moved to dismiss the trucking company's lawsuit. What is the most likely outcome of the motion? Select one.

The motion will be denied, because under Federal Rule 18, the trucking company was permitted, but not required, to join its claim in the original action.
The motion will be denied, because the trucking company's claim for property damage is factually and legally distinct from the driver's claim for personal injury.
The motion will be granted, because the trucking company's claim was a compulsory counterclaim under Federal Rule 13(a) and is now barred. (correct answer)
The motion will be granted, because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the trucking company's claim as it does not present a federal question.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a), a counterclaim is compulsory if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim and does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Here, the trucking company's claim for property damage arises from the exact same collision as the driver's personal injury claim. Therefore, it was a compulsory counterclaim. The failure to raise a compulsory counterclaim in the initial lawsuit bars a party from asserting that claim in a subsequent action. A is incorrect because Rule 18 governs the joinder of multiple claims by a party, but Rule 13(a) governs compulsory counterclaims, which must be brought. B is incorrect because a claim for property damage and a claim for personal injury arising from the same accident are considered to arise from the same transaction or occurrence. D is incorrect because the court would have had supplemental jurisdiction over the compulsory counterclaim, and even if filed separately, the claim meets the requirements for diversity jurisdiction (diverse parties and amount in controversy over $75,000). The reason for dismissal is not lack of jurisdiction, but the bar on subsequent assertion of a compulsory counterclaim.

Question 4

A homeowner sued a general contractor in federal court for $1 million, alleging faulty construction of a new home. The basis for jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. The general contractor believes that any defects in the foundation were the fault of the concrete subcontractor it hired for that part of the project. The contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor includes an indemnification clause requiring the subcontractor to cover any losses incurred by the general contractor due to the subcontractor's faulty work.

What is the proper procedural step for the general contractor to take to include the subcontractor in the lawsuit? Select one.

File a motion to join the subcontractor as a necessary party under Rule 19.
File a crossclaim against the subcontractor under Rule 13(g).
File a third-party complaint against the subcontractor under Rule 14. (correct answer)
File an amended answer naming the subcontractor as an alternative defendant.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This is a classic scenario for impleader under FRCP 14. A defending party (the general contractor) may bring in a non-party (the subcontractor) who is or may be liable to the defending party for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against it. The general contractor's claim for indemnification is precisely this type of derivative liability. A is incorrect because a party like the subcontractor, who may be liable for indemnity, is typically not considered a required party under Rule 19; the court can grant complete relief between the existing parties without the subcontractor's presence. B is incorrect because a crossclaim is filed against an existing co-party, and the subcontractor is not yet a party to the action. D is incorrect because a defendant cannot simply name an alternative defendant in its answer; joinder must be accomplished through the proper procedural device like Rule 14.

Question 5

A plaintiff from State A sued a defendant from State B in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendant filed a proper third-party complaint against a third-party defendant, also from State B, seeking contribution. The third-party defendant now wishes to assert a state-law claim directly against the plaintiff from State A, alleging that the plaintiff's own negligence caused the third-party defendant's separate damages in the same incident.

May the third-party defendant assert this claim against the plaintiff in the current action? Select one.

Yes, the claim is permitted by the rules, and the court will have jurisdiction over it. (correct answer)
No, because the third-party defendant and the defendant are not diverse, so the court lacks jurisdiction over any claims by the third-party defendant.
No, because a third-party defendant may only assert claims against the defendant who impleaded them.
Yes, but only if the claim is compulsory, otherwise it must be filed in a separate action.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of third-party practice and supplemental jurisdiction in federal court. When you encounter impleader scenarios, focus on both the procedural rules allowing claims and whether the court has jurisdiction over those claims. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)(2), a third-party defendant may assert claims directly against the original plaintiff, provided those claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence that forms the basis of the plaintiff's original claim. Here, the third-party defendant's negligence claim against the plaintiff stems from the same incident underlying the original lawsuit, so the rule permits this claim. For jurisdiction, the court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the third-party defendant's claim shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the original diversity action. The statute allows federal courts to hear related state-law claims even when they don't independently satisfy federal jurisdiction requirements. Answer B incorrectly focuses on diversity between the defendant and third-party defendant. While they're both from State B, this doesn't defeat jurisdiction over the third-party defendant's claim against the plaintiff from State A, which falls under supplemental jurisdiction. Answer C is wrong because Rule 14(a)(2) specifically allows third-party defendants to assert claims against original plaintiffs, not just against the defendant who impleaded them. Answer D incorrectly suggests the claim must be compulsory - Rule 14(a)(2) permits but doesn't require such claims. Remember: In impleader questions, third-party defendants have broader claim options than you might initially think. They can sue both the original defendant and the original plaintiff, as long as the claims arise from the same occurrence.

Question 6

A brother and sister are the sole beneficiaries of a trust established by their late mother. The trust assets include a unique, valuable painting. The brother sued the trustee in federal court (based on diversity) to compel the trustee to distribute the painting to him. The sister, who is not a party to the lawsuit, claims that under the terms of the trust, the painting should be distributed to her. The sister's joinder in the lawsuit would destroy diversity of citizenship. The trustee moves to dismiss the action for failure to join the sister.

How should the court rule on the trustee's motion to dismiss? Select one.

Deny the motion, because the sister can protect her interest by filing her own separate lawsuit against the trustee later.
Deny the motion, because the trustee can adequately represent the sister's interests in the litigation.
Grant the motion, because the sister is a party whose absence prevents the court from according complete relief and whose joinder is not feasible. (correct answer)
Grant the motion, because the brother should have filed an interpleader action instead of a direct suit against the trustee.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This problem requires a two-step analysis under FRCP 19. First, under Rule 19(a), the sister is a required ('necessary') party because she claims an interest relating to the subject of the action (the painting), and proceeding without her could impair her ability to protect that interest. Second, because her joinder is not feasible (it would destroy diversity), the court must determine under Rule 19(b) whether she is 'indispensable.' Given that the dispute is over ownership of a unique piece of property between two claimants, a judgment in the sister's absence would be highly prejudicial to her. The court cannot grant complete relief as the trustee would face a substantial risk of incurring double or inconsistent obligations. Thus, the sister is an indispensable party, and the action must be dismissed. A is incorrect because the risk of inconsistent judgments and impairment of her interest is exactly what Rule 19 aims to prevent. B is incorrect because the trustee, who has a duty to both beneficiaries, cannot adequately represent the sister's specific claim to the painting against the brother. D discusses a possible alternative action but does not correctly analyze the Rule 19 motion before the court.

Question 7

A plaintiff sued a defendant in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendant sought to implead a third-party defendant under Rule 14. The third-party defendant is a citizen of New Jersey and conducts no business in New York. The third-party defendant was personally served with the summons and third-party complaint at her office in Newark, New Jersey, which is 10 miles from the federal courthouse in Manhattan. The third-party defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

How should the court rule on the motion to dismiss? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the third-party defendant lacks minimum contacts with New York, the forum state.
Deny the motion, because the third-party defendant was served within 100 miles of the courthouse. (correct answer)
Grant the motion, unless the New York long-arm statute provides a basis for jurisdiction over the third-party defendant.
Deny the motion, because federal courts have nationwide personal jurisdiction over third-party defendants.

Explanation: When you encounter questions about personal jurisdiction over third-party defendants in federal court, remember that special rules apply under the "100-mile bulge rule" found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(B). The court should deny the motion because the third-party defendant was served within 100 miles of the courthouse. This rule creates an exception to normal personal jurisdiction requirements specifically for third-party defendants under Rule 14. Since Newark, New Jersey is only 10 miles from the Manhattan federal courthouse, service falls within the 100-mile radius, giving the court personal jurisdiction regardless of the defendant's contacts with New York. Answer A is incorrect because while the third-party defendant may lack minimum contacts with New York, the 100-mile bulge rule bypasses the traditional minimum contacts analysis for Rule 14 defendants served within the geographic limit. Answer C is wrong because you don't need to rely on New York's long-arm statute when the federal 100-mile bulge rule applies. The bulge rule provides an independent basis for personal jurisdiction. Answer D overstates federal power—federal courts don't have blanket nationwide personal jurisdiction over third-party defendants. They're still bound by Rule 4's service requirements, but the 100-mile bulge rule expands their reach beyond state borders in specific circumstances. Remember this key distinction: while regular defendants must satisfy traditional personal jurisdiction requirements, third-party defendants under Rule 14 can be subject to jurisdiction through the 100-mile bulge rule, even if served outside the forum state. This rule frequently appears on bar exams testing federal civil procedure.

Question 8

How should the court rule on the motion to dismiss? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the third-party defendant lacks minimum contacts with New York, the forum state.
Deny the motion, because the third-party defendant was served within 100 miles of the courthouse. (correct answer)
Grant the motion, unless the New York long-arm statute provides a basis for jurisdiction over the third-party defendant.
Deny the motion, because federal courts have nationwide personal jurisdiction over third-party defendants.

Question 9

The driver has moved to dismiss the trucking company's lawsuit. What is the most likely outcome of the motion? Select one.

The motion will be denied, because under Federal Rule 18, the trucking company was permitted, but not required, to join its claim in the original action.
The motion will be denied, because the trucking company's claim for property damage is factually and legally distinct from the driver's claim for personal injury.
The motion will be granted, because the trucking company's claim was a compulsory counterclaim under Federal Rule 13(a) and is now barred. (correct answer)
The motion will be granted, because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the trucking company's claim as it does not present a federal question.

Question 10

An insurance company, incorporated and with its principal place of business in Ohio, issued a $500,000 life insurance policy. After the insured's death, two individuals, both citizens of Michigan, made competing claims for the proceeds. To avoid the risk of double liability, the insurance company wants to have a federal court determine which claimant is entitled to the money.

Which statement best describes the insurance company's ability to bring an interpleader action in federal court? Select one.

The company may not bring an interpleader action because the claimants are not diverse from each other.
The company may bring a statutory interpleader action because there is diversity between the stakeholder and the claimants.
The company may bring a Rule 22 interpleader action because there is diversity between the stakeholder and the claimants and the amount exceeds $75,000. (correct answer)
The company may not bring a Rule 22 interpleader action because the claimants are not diverse from each other.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. There are two types of interpleader in federal court: statutory interpleader (28 U.S.C. § 1335) and rule interpleader (FRCP 22). For Rule 22 interpleader, subject-matter jurisdiction must be established through either a federal question or complete diversity. Here, there is no federal question. For diversity, the stakeholder's citizenship is compared to the claimants'. The insurance company (Ohio) is diverse from both claimants (Michigan). Since the amount in controversy ($500,000) exceeds $75,000, the requirements for a Rule 22 interpleader action based on diversity are met. A and D are incorrect because for Rule 22 interpleader, diversity is tested between the stakeholder and the claimants, not among the claimants themselves. B is incorrect because statutory interpleader requires only 'minimal diversity' between any two claimants, which is lacking here as both claimants are from Michigan. The diversity between the stakeholder and claimants is what allows Rule 22 interpleader, not statutory interpleader.

Question 11

A Florida plaintiff sued a Georgia corporation in Florida state court for product liability. The plaintiff also joined his local Florida-based doctor as a defendant, alleging medical malpractice in treating the injuries caused by the product. The Georgia corporation removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The corporation argued that the claim against the Florida doctor had no factual basis and was added solely to prevent removal by defeating complete diversity.

What is the strongest argument for the federal court to deny the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court? Select one.

The corporation can show that the plaintiff has no possibility of success on the claim against the doctor, meaning the doctor's citizenship can be ignored for diversity purposes. (correct answer)
The court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against the doctor because it is part of the same case or controversy as the claim against the corporation.
The claim against the doctor does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the claim against the corporation, making joinder improper under Rule 20.
The claim against the corporation involves a greater amount in controversy than the claim against the doctor, making the corporation the primary defendant.

Explanation: When you encounter removal questions involving diversity jurisdiction, focus on the complete diversity requirement and the fraudulent joinder doctrine. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction only when parties are citizens of different states and no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant. Here, the Florida plaintiff sued both a Georgia corporation and a Florida doctor, which destroys complete diversity since both plaintiff and doctor are Florida citizens. However, the corporation can argue fraudulent joinder - that the doctor was added solely to defeat removal, not because of a legitimate claim. Answer A correctly identifies the strongest argument: if the corporation can demonstrate the plaintiff has no reasonable possibility of success against the doctor, the court will disregard the doctor's citizenship for diversity purposes. Under the fraudulent joinder doctrine, courts look beyond pleadings to determine whether a claim has any factual or legal basis. If it doesn't, the non-diverse defendant is ignored. Answer B misapplies supplemental jurisdiction, which doesn't cure diversity problems - you need an independent basis for federal jurisdiction first. Answer C incorrectly focuses on Rule 20 joinder requirements, but even if joinder were improper, that wouldn't establish federal jurisdiction or prevent remand. Answer D invents a non-existent "primary defendant" rule based on damages amounts, which isn't how diversity jurisdiction works. Study tip: Remember that fraudulent joinder requires showing the plaintiff cannot possibly succeed against the non-diverse defendant - it's a high standard, but when met, it preserves federal jurisdiction despite apparent diversity problems.

Question 12

Assuming the court has proper jurisdiction over the original claim, may the defendant corporation properly assert its defamation counterclaim in the pending federal action? Select one.

Yes, because the claim is a permissive counterclaim and can be supported by supplemental jurisdiction.
Yes, because the amount of a permissive counterclaim does not need to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement if the original claim does.
No, because counterclaims against foreign nationals are not permitted in federal court without a treaty allowing them.
No, because the claim is a permissive counterclaim that lacks its own independent basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. (correct answer)

Question 13

A plaintiff from Florida sued a defendant from Georgia in federal court, based on diversity of citizenship, for injuries from a product defect. The defendant properly impleaded a third-party defendant (the component manufacturer) from Florida, seeking indemnification. The plaintiff now wishes to amend her complaint to assert a claim directly against the third-party defendant for the same product defect.

Does the federal court have subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's proposed claim against the third-party defendant? Select one.

Yes, because the claim arises from the same transaction as the original suit and is therefore supported by supplemental jurisdiction.
Yes, because once a party is properly in a case, they may be sued by any other party regardless of citizenship.
No, because the plaintiff and the third-party defendant are not diverse, and supplemental jurisdiction is barred in this situation. (correct answer)
No, because a plaintiff is never permitted to assert a direct claim against a party brought in through impleader.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The plaintiff's direct claim against the third-party defendant falls squarely within the exception to supplemental jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). That section prohibits supplemental jurisdiction in diversity-only cases over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14 (impleader) if exercising such jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. Here, the plaintiff (Florida) and the third-party defendant (Florida) are not diverse. Allowing the claim would destroy complete diversity. Therefore, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this specific claim. A is incorrect because it overlooks the specific prohibition in § 1367(b). B is incorrect as it misstates the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction. D is incorrect because plaintiffs are permitted to assert such claims under FRCP 14(a)(3), but only if there is an independent basis for jurisdiction (which is lacking here).

Question 14

An environmental group sued a manufacturing company in federal court, alleging that its factory is discharging pollutants into a river in violation of a federal statute. A landowner whose property is downstream from the factory now seeks to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff. The landowner claims that the same discharge has contaminated his property, constituting a state-law trespass and nuisance. The landowner is a citizen of the same state as the manufacturing company.

What is the strongest basis for the landowner to join the ongoing federal lawsuit? Select one.

Intervention as of right under Rule 24(a), because the disposition of the action may impair his property interest, which is not adequately represented.
Permissive joinder under Rule 20, because his claim arises from the same series of transactions as the environmental group's claim.
Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), because his state-law claim shares a common question of fact with the main action. (correct answer)
Joinder as a necessary party under Rule 19, because complete relief cannot be granted without him.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is the most likely successful route. The landowner's state-law claims for trespass and nuisance share a common question of fact with the environmental group's federal statutory claim: whether the company is discharging pollutants. The court has discretion to permit intervention. Importantly, permissive intervention does not require an independent basis for jurisdiction; the court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the landowner's state-law claims as they arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact. A is incorrect because intervention as of right is harder to establish. While the landowner has an interest, a court might find the environmental group, seeking to stop the same pollution, adequately represents his interest in that specific goal. B is incorrect because Rule 20 governs the joinder of parties at the commencement of an action, not joining an existing one. D is incorrect because the landowner is not a required party under Rule 19; the court can grant the relief sought by the environmental group (an injunction) without his presence.

Question 15

A citizen of State X sued a citizen of State Y in federal court on a federal question claim. The defendant now wants to assert two state-law claims against the plaintiff. The first is a counterclaim for breach of contract arising out of the same business deal that is the subject of the plaintiff's federal claim. The second is a completely unrelated counterclaim for personal injury from a car accident that occurred two years prior.

Assuming both counterclaims can be asserted under the Federal Rules, does the federal court have subject-matter jurisdiction over them? Select one.

The court has jurisdiction over both counterclaims through supplemental jurisdiction.
The court has jurisdiction over the contract counterclaim but not the personal injury counterclaim. (correct answer)
The court has jurisdiction over the personal injury counterclaim but not the contract counterclaim.
The court lacks jurisdiction over both counterclaims because they are state-law claims.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The contract claim is a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a) because it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim. As such, it falls within the court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The personal injury claim is a permissive counterclaim under Rule 13(b) because it is unrelated to the main claim. A permissive counterclaim requires an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Here, the claim is based on state law, so it would need diversity jurisdiction. Although the parties are diverse, the facts do not state the amount in controversy for this claim. However, even if it did exceed $75,000, the key distinction is that its jurisdiction must be independent. Since it lacks a basis on its face and cannot use supplemental jurisdiction, the court lacks jurisdiction over it. A is incorrect because supplemental jurisdiction does not cover unrelated, permissive counterclaims. C is incorrect for reversing the jurisdictional analysis. D is incorrect because supplemental jurisdiction explicitly allows federal courts to hear related state-law claims.

Question 16

Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the car driver's proposed claim against the bus driver? Select one.

The claim is a proper crossclaim, and the court will have supplemental jurisdiction over it. (correct answer)
The claim is an improper attempt at joinder because co-defendants from the same state cannot sue each other in a diversity case.
The claim must be brought as a third-party claim under Rule 14, not as a crossclaim.
The claim is a compulsory counterclaim that will be waived if not asserted in this action.

Question 17

Two individuals were fired from their jobs at a large corporation on the same day. The first individual, a senior executive, claims she was fired due to age discrimination in violation of a federal statute. The second individual, a junior analyst, claims he was fired in breach of his written employment contract, a state-law claim. They wish to save money by filing a single lawsuit as co-plaintiffs against the corporation in federal court.

Is the joinder of these two plaintiffs in a single action proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? Select one.

Yes, because their claims both arise from being fired by the same defendant on the same day.
Yes, because the court will have federal question jurisdiction over the age discrimination claim and can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claim.
No, because their claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and do not share a common question of law or fact.
No, because their claims do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. Under FRCP 20(a), persons may join as plaintiffs if they assert a right to relief arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, AND if any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. Here, while they were fired on the same day by the same defendant, the underlying events and legal theories are entirely different. An age discrimination claim for an executive and a breach of contract claim for an analyst are unlikely to be considered part of the same 'series of transactions or occurrences' because the proof and relevant facts will be completely separate. A is incorrect because being fired on the same day is not, by itself, sufficient to constitute the same transaction. C is an overstatement; they might share a common fact (e.g., who made the firing decision), but they fail the first prong of the Rule 20 test. B addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, not the propriety of the joinder under Rule 20, which is the threshold question. Even if SMJ could be established, the joinder itself is improper.

Question 18

A plaintiff sued two defendants, a corporation and its CEO, in federal court for securities fraud. The plaintiff alleged the defendants acted in concert. The corporation wishes to assert a claim against the CEO, arguing that if the corporation is found liable, it is entitled to indemnification from the CEO because the CEO acted outside the scope of his authority. The plaintiff, corporation, and CEO are all citizens of different states.

What is the proper procedural device for the corporation to use to assert its indemnification claim against the CEO? Select one.

A third-party complaint under Rule 14.
A compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13(a).
A crossclaim under Rule 13(g). (correct answer)
A motion for leave to amend the answer to add the claim.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The corporation and the CEO are co-parties (co-defendants) in the lawsuit. A claim asserted by one party against a co-party is a crossclaim under FRCP 13(g). The rule allows a party to state a crossclaim against a co-party if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action, which an indemnification claim related to the main fraud claim does. A is incorrect because a third-party complaint (impleader) under Rule 14 is used to bring a new, non-party into the action; the CEO is already a party. B is incorrect because a counterclaim is asserted against an opposing party (i.e., the plaintiff), not a co-party. D is incorrect because while amending the answer might be the physical document used, the substantive legal authority for the claim itself is the rule on crossclaims, which is the most precise answer.

Question 19

A bank, a citizen of State A, holds funds claimed by two different corporations. Claimant Corporation 1 is a citizen of State B. Claimant Corporation 2 is a citizen of State C. The amount in controversy is $1 million. The bank files a statutory interpleader action against both claimants in federal court in State A.

Which of the following statements is most accurate regarding the court's jurisdiction over this action? Select one.

The court lacks jurisdiction because a statutory interpleader action requires the amount in controversy to be deposited with the court.
The court has jurisdiction because there is minimal diversity between the claimants and the amount exceeds $500. (correct answer)
The court lacks jurisdiction because the stakeholder's citizenship is irrelevant for statutory interpleader.
The court has jurisdiction because there is complete diversity between the stakeholder and all claimants.

Explanation: Statutory interpleader is a special federal procedure that allows a stakeholder holding disputed funds to force competing claimants to litigate their claims in a single action. The key jurisdictional requirements differ significantly from typical diversity cases. For statutory interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335, you need only minimal diversity (at least two claimants must be citizens of different states) and an amount in controversy exceeding $500. Here, Claimant Corporation 1 (State B) and Claimant Corporation 2 (State C) are citizens of different states, satisfying minimal diversity. The $1 million amount far exceeds the $500 threshold. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction, making answer B correct. Let's examine why the other options fail: A is wrong because statutory interpleader doesn't require depositing funds with the court—that's a procedural option, not a jurisdictional requirement. C misunderstands the diversity analysis. While the stakeholder's citizenship is indeed irrelevant for determining diversity in statutory interpleader (unlike regular diversity jurisdiction), this doesn't defeat jurisdiction—it actually makes it easier to establish. D applies the wrong diversity standard. This describes complete diversity, which is required for regular federal diversity jurisdiction but not for statutory interpleader. Statutory interpleader only requires minimal diversity between claimants. Study tip: Remember that statutory interpleader has relaxed requirements compared to regular diversity cases: minimal (not complete) diversity, $500 (not $75,000) amount in controversy, and the stakeholder's citizenship doesn't matter. These lower barriers reflect Congress's policy of encouraging efficient resolution of competing claims.

Question 20

May the third-party defendant assert this claim against the plaintiff in the current action? Select one.

Yes, the claim is permitted by the rules, and the court will have jurisdiction over it. (correct answer)
No, because the third-party defendant and the defendant are not diverse, so the court lacks jurisdiction over any claims by the third-party defendant.
No, because a third-party defendant may only assert claims against the defendant who impleaded them.
Yes, but only if the claim is compulsory, otherwise it must be filed in a separate action.