Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Subject Matter JurisdictionQuestion 1 of 20

A farmer in Iowa filed a lawsuit in Iowa state court against a pesticide manufacturer, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri. The complaint alleged that the manufacturer's product was defective and caused crop damage, a state-law tort claim. The complaint also stated that the pesticide's labeling failed to comply with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), a federal statute.

Can the manufacturer properly remove the case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction? Select one.

Yes, because the complaint explicitly references a violation of a federal statute.
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.
Yes, because the interpretation of FIFRA is a central and disputed issue in the state-law claim.
No, because the parties are diverse, so the case can only be removed based on diversity jurisdiction.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Practice Subject Matter Jurisdiction 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 Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 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

A farmer in Iowa filed a lawsuit in Iowa state court against a pesticide manufacturer, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri. The complaint alleged that the manufacturer's product was defective and caused crop damage, a state-law tort claim. The complaint also stated that the pesticide's labeling failed to comply with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), a federal statute.

Can the manufacturer properly remove the case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the complaint explicitly references a violation of a federal statute.
  2. 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. (correct answer)
  3. Yes, because the interpretation of FIFRA is a central and disputed issue in the state-law claim.
  4. No, because the parties are diverse, so the case can only be removed based on diversity jurisdiction.
Explanation: 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.

Question 2

A pedestrian from State A was struck by a car driven by a motorist from State B. The pedestrian suffered a broken leg. The pedestrian's spouse, also a citizen of State A, witnessed the accident and suffered severe emotional distress. The pedestrian and spouse join as plaintiffs in a single action against the motorist in federal court. The pedestrian claims $80,000 for personal injuries. The spouse claims $40,000 for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over the spouse's claim? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the spouse's claim can be aggregated with the pedestrian's claim to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
  2. Yes, because the spouse's claim arises from the same nucleus of operative fact as the pedestrian's claim, allowing for supplemental jurisdiction.
  3. No, because multiple plaintiffs cannot aggregate their separate and distinct claims to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. (correct answer)
  4. No, because the presence of two plaintiffs from State A against one defendant from State B destroys complete diversity.
Explanation: 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.

Question 3

A computer programmer sued her former employer in state court, alleging wrongful termination in violation of state law. The employer removed the case to federal court, arguing that the programmer's claim is preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) because her termination was allegedly to prevent her pension benefits from vesting. The programmer has filed a motion to remand the case to state court.

How is the court most likely to rule on the programmer's motion to remand? Select one.

  1. Grant the motion, because the programmer's complaint on its face does not state a federal claim.
  2. Grant the motion, because the employer, as the defendant, cannot raise a federal question.
  3. Deny the motion, because the defense of federal preemption creates federal question jurisdiction.
  4. Deny the motion, because the programmer's claim falls under a federal statute that provides for complete preemption. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 4

A citizen of New York filed a lawsuit in federal court against a citizen of New Jersey, asserting a claim under the federal Lanham Act for trademark infringement. In the same complaint, the plaintiff joined a state-law claim for unfair competition against the same defendant. Both claims arise from the defendant's marketing of a similar product. The state-law claim does not independently meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.

Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over the state-law unfair competition claim? Select one.

  1. Yes, under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, because it arises from a common nucleus of operative fact as the federal claim. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because the parties are from different states, establishing diversity jurisdiction over the entire case.
  3. No, because every claim in a federal lawsuit must have its own independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.
  4. No, because the state-law claim does not meet the amount in controversy requirement of more than $75,000.
Explanation: 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.

Question 5

A citizen of Illinois sued a citizen of Wisconsin in federal court, properly invoking diversity jurisdiction for a claim of $100,000. The defendant then filed a compulsory counterclaim against the plaintiff, arising from the same transaction, but seeking only $50,000 in damages. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

  1. Grant the motion, because the counterclaim does not independently satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
  2. Grant the motion, because counterclaims cannot be brought in federal court unless they present a federal question.
  3. Deny the motion, because the amount of the original claim and the counterclaim can be aggregated to exceed $75,000.
  4. Deny the motion, because a compulsory counterclaim falls within the court's supplemental jurisdiction. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 6

An author, a citizen of Oregon, believes a film studio, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California, is about to release a film that infringes her copyright. To clarify her rights, she files a lawsuit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the film studio's forthcoming movie does not infringe her copyright. The studio moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

  1. Grant the motion, because the author's complaint does not allege that the studio has violated any federal law.
  2. Grant the motion, because the parties are not diverse and the amount in controversy is not established.
  3. Deny the motion, because the coercive action that would have been brought by the defendant studio would arise under federal copyright law. (correct answer)
  4. Deny the motion, because all cases involving copyrights must be heard in federal court.
Explanation: 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).

Question 7

A plaintiff from State A sued a defendant from State B in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendant then filed a proper third-party complaint against a company from State A, seeking indemnification. After the third-party complaint was filed, the original plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to add a direct claim against the third-party defendant company. This new claim arises from the same incident but would not independently satisfy federal jurisdiction requirements because both the plaintiff and the third-party defendant are from State A.

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

  1. Yes, because the third-party defendant was already properly part of the action.
  2. Yes, because the claim falls under the court's supplemental jurisdiction as it arises from the same transaction.
  3. No, because allowing the claim would violate the requirement of complete diversity. (correct answer)
  4. No, because plaintiffs are never permitted to assert claims against third-party defendants.
Explanation: 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.

Question 8

A plaintiff from Wyoming sued a defendant from Colorado in federal court for breach of contract, seeking $80,000. After some discovery, the plaintiff realized that his damages were only $60,000 and amended his complaint accordingly. The defendant then moved to dismiss the entire action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

  1. Grant the motion, because the amount in controversy no longer exceeds $75,000.
  2. 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. (correct answer)
  3. Grant the motion, but only if the plaintiff's original claim was made in bad faith.
  4. Deny the motion, because the defendant waived any objection to subject matter jurisdiction by participating in discovery.
Explanation: 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.

Question 9

A citizen of Florida sued two defendants, a corporation and its employee, in Florida state court. The plaintiff's claim, seeking $1 million, arises from a single car accident. The corporation is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Georgia. The employee is a citizen of Florida. The corporation timely files a notice of removal to federal court, and the employee consents.

Is removal proper? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the corporation is diverse from the plaintiff and the amount in controversy is met.
  2. Yes, because the primary defendant, the corporation, is not a citizen of the forum state.
  3. No, because removal based on diversity jurisdiction is not permitted when any defendant is a citizen of the forum state. (correct answer)
  4. No, because complete diversity is lacking between the plaintiff and the defendants.
Explanation: 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.

Question 10

A plaintiff (citizen of State A) sued Defendant 1 (citizen of State B) on a federal question claim in federal court. The plaintiff properly joined Defendant 2 (also a citizen of State A) on a related state-law claim that arose from the same transaction. Defendant 2 now moves to dismiss the claim against him.

What is the basis for the court's jurisdiction over the claim against Defendant 2? Select one.

  1. Diversity jurisdiction, because Defendant 1 is diverse from the plaintiff.
  2. Supplemental jurisdiction, because the claim against Defendant 2 is part of the same case or controversy as the federal question claim. (correct answer)
  3. Federal question jurisdiction, because the claim against Defendant 2 is factually related to a federal claim.
  4. There is no subject matter jurisdiction over the claim against Defendant 2 because complete diversity is lacking.
Explanation: 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.

Question 11

A corporation, incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters and executive offices in California, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The suit is against an individual who is a lifelong domiciliary of California. The corporation's complaint alleges a state-law trade secret violation and seeks $500,000 in damages. The defendant has moved to dismiss the case.

What is the most likely basis for the defendant's motion to dismiss? Select one.

  1. Lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
  2. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (correct answer)
  3. Improper venue in the Central District of California.
  4. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Explanation: 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.

Question 12

A limited liability company (LLC) is organized under the laws of Nevada. Its three members are citizens of Arizona, California, and Utah. The LLC files a lawsuit for breach of contract, seeking $100,000 in damages, in federal district court against a corporation. The defendant corporation is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in California. The corporation moves to dismiss.

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

  1. Grant the motion, because the LLC is considered a citizen of every state where its members are citizens, destroying complete diversity. (correct answer)
  2. Grant the motion, because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.
  3. Deny the motion, because an LLC is a citizen only of its state of organization, and Nevada is diverse from Delaware and California.
  4. Deny the motion, because the majority of the LLC's members are citizens of states other than California, preserving diversity.
Explanation: 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.

Question 13

A citizen of New York filed a lawsuit in federal court against a citizen of New Jersey, asserting a claim under the federal Lanham Act for trademark infringement. In the same complaint, the plaintiff joined a state-law claim for unfair competition against the same defendant. Both claims arise from the defendant's marketing of a similar product. The state-law claim does not independently meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.

Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over the state-law unfair competition claim? Select one.

  1. Yes, under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, because it arises from a common nucleus of operative fact as the federal claim. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because the parties are from different states, establishing diversity jurisdiction over the entire case.
  3. No, because every claim in a federal lawsuit must have its own independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction.
  4. No, because the state-law claim does not meet the amount in controversy requirement of more than $75,000.
Explanation: 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.

Question 14

A citizen of Illinois sued a citizen of Wisconsin in federal court, properly invoking diversity jurisdiction for a claim of $100,000. The defendant then filed a compulsory counterclaim against the plaintiff, arising from the same transaction, but seeking only $50,000 in damages. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

  1. Grant the motion, because the counterclaim does not independently satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
  2. Grant the motion, because counterclaims cannot be brought in federal court unless they present a federal question.
  3. Deny the motion, because the amount of the original claim and the counterclaim can be aggregated to exceed $75,000.
  4. Deny the motion, because a compulsory counterclaim falls within the court's supplemental jurisdiction. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 15

An environmental group, a non-profit corporation from State A, sued a manufacturing company from State B in federal court. The suit alleges the manufacturer is violating a state anti-pollution law. The complaint seeks an injunction ordering the manufacturer to install new filtration equipment. The environmental group values the ecological benefit of the injunction at over $100,000. The cost for the manufacturer to comply with the injunction would be $70,000. The manufacturer has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Assuming the court values the injunction from the plaintiff's viewpoint, what is the likely outcome of the motion? Select one.

  1. Granted, because the cost of compliance for the defendant is less than the jurisdictional minimum.
  2. Granted, because injunctions cannot satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
  3. Denied, because the value of the injunction to the plaintiff exceeds $75,000. (correct answer)
  4. Denied, because the case raises an important federal environmental issue.
Explanation: 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.

Question 16

A plaintiff from California filed a class action lawsuit in California state court against a national retail chain. The chain is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Arkansas. The lawsuit alleges violations of California's consumer protection laws on behalf of a class of California residents. The total amount of damages sought for the entire class is $10 million. The defendant removed the case to federal court.

Is removal proper under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)? Select one.

  1. Yes, because there is minimal diversity and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because there is complete diversity between the named plaintiff and the defendant.
  3. No, because the claims are based entirely on state law.
  4. No, because the defendant is an in-state defendant.
Explanation: 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.

Question 17

A pedestrian from State A was struck by a car driven by a motorist from State B. The pedestrian suffered a broken leg. The pedestrian's spouse, also a citizen of State A, witnessed the accident and suffered severe emotional distress. The pedestrian and spouse join as plaintiffs in a single action against the motorist in federal court. The pedestrian claims $80,000 for personal injuries. The spouse claims $40,000 for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over the spouse's claim? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the spouse's claim can be aggregated with the pedestrian's claim to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
  2. Yes, because the spouse's claim arises from the same nucleus of operative fact as the pedestrian's claim, allowing for supplemental jurisdiction.
  3. No, because multiple plaintiffs cannot aggregate their separate and distinct claims to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. (correct answer)
  4. No, because the presence of two plaintiffs from State A against one defendant from State B destroys complete diversity.
Explanation: 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.

Question 18

A plaintiff from Texas sues a defendant from Louisiana in Texas state court for $200,000. The defendant is properly served and timely files a notice of removal to the federal district court for the district where the state court sits. The plaintiff then files a motion to remand the case to state court.

What is the strongest basis for the plaintiff's motion to remand? Select one.

  1. The amount in controversy is insufficient for federal jurisdiction.
  2. The parties lack complete diversity.
  3. The defendant is a citizen of the forum state, which bars removal.
  4. There is no basis for remand; removal was proper. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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)aremetandnodefendantisacitizenoftheforumstate.Here,thepartiesarediverse(Texasv.Louisiana),andtheamountincontroversyismet(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.

Question 19

A plaintiff from State A sued a defendant from State B in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendant then filed a proper third-party complaint against a company from State A, seeking indemnification. After the third-party complaint was filed, the original plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to add a direct claim against the third-party defendant company. This new claim arises from the same incident but would not independently satisfy federal jurisdiction requirements because both the plaintiff and the third-party defendant are from State A.

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

  1. Yes, because the third-party defendant was already properly part of the action.
  2. Yes, because the claim falls under the court's supplemental jurisdiction as it arises from the same transaction.
  3. No, because allowing the claim would violate the requirement of complete diversity. (correct answer)
  4. No, because plaintiffs are never permitted to assert claims against third-party defendants.
Explanation: 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.

Question 20

A plaintiff from California filed a class action lawsuit in California state court against a national retail chain. The chain is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Arkansas. The lawsuit alleges violations of California's consumer protection laws on behalf of a class of California residents. The total amount of damages sought for the entire class is $10 million. The defendant removed the case to federal court.

Is removal proper under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)? Select one.

  1. Yes, because there is minimal diversity and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. (correct answer)
  2. Yes, because there is complete diversity between the named plaintiff and the defendant.
  3. No, because the claims are based entirely on state law.
  4. No, because the defendant is an in-state defendant.
Explanation: 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.