Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Venue And Transfer

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Venue And TransferQuestion 1 of 20

A plaintiff sued a defendant corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The defendant is a large national corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in California, but it has a major regional office in the Eastern District of Virginia. The plaintiff's claim arises from a product defect, and the product was purchased and caused injury in the Western District of Virginia. The defendant moves to transfer the case to the Western District of Virginia.

Which of the following statements provides the strongest basis for granting the transfer motion? Select one.

The original venue in the Eastern District is improper because the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Western District.

The transfer should be granted under § 1406 because the plaintiff made a mistake in choosing the venue.

The transfer should be granted under § 1404 because the location of the injury and likely witnesses makes the Western District a more convenient forum.

The transfer should be denied because the defendant's major regional office in the Eastern District makes that venue perfectly proper.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Venue And Transfer

Practice Venue And Transfer 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 Venue And Transfer, 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 statements provides the strongest basis for granting the transfer motion? Select one.

The original venue in the Eastern District is improper because the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Western District.
The transfer should be granted under § 1406 because the plaintiff made a mistake in choosing the venue.
The transfer should be granted under § 1404 because the location of the injury and likely witnesses makes the Western District a more convenient forum. (correct answer)
The transfer should be denied because the defendant's major regional office in the Eastern District makes that venue perfectly proper.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The original venue in the Eastern District of Virginia is proper. For venue purposes, a corporation resides in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction. With a major regional office, the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction and thus 'resides' in the Eastern District. Therefore, any transfer would be governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows for transfer from one proper venue to another for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Since the injury and evidence are in the Western District, it is a more convenient forum. A is incorrect because the original venue is proper due to the defendant's corporate presence. B is incorrect because § 1406 applies only to improper venues. D is incorrect because the propriety of the original venue is the starting point for a § 1404 analysis, not a reason to deny a transfer for convenience.

Question 2

A plaintiff sued a defendant in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The defendant believed that venue was improper. The defendant filed an answer to the complaint, which included several affirmative defenses and a counterclaim against the plaintiff, but made no mention of venue. Two months later, after some initial discovery, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue under FRCP 12(b)(3).

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

Grant the motion, because an objection to venue can be raised at any time before trial.
Grant the motion, because the discovery process revealed that the Southern District of Florida was not a convenient forum.
Deny the motion, because the defendant waived the defense of improper venue. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because filing a counterclaim makes any venue proper under the doctrine of consent.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The defense of improper venue is a waivable defense under FRCP 12(h)(1). It must be raised in the defendant's first responsive pleading (the answer) or in a pre-answer motion under FRCP 12(b). By filing an answer that omitted the venue defense, the defendant waived the right to object to venue later. A is incorrect because it misstates the rule; venue objections are waived if not raised in a timely manner. B is incorrect because convenience relates to a § 1404 transfer, not a dismissal for improper venue, and in any case, the objection was waived. D is an overstatement; while filing a permissive counterclaim can be seen as waiving venue objections, the more direct reason for the denial is the failure to raise the defense in the first responsive pleading as required by FRCP 12(h)(1).

Question 3

A plaintiff sued a defendant in a federal district court where venue was proper. The defendant, believing another district was more convenient, moved to transfer under § 1404(a). However, the defendant could not have been served with process in the proposed transferee district at the time the lawsuit was filed. Both parties now agree that the proposed transferee district is the most convenient forum for the litigation and are willing to proceed there.

May the court transfer the case to the proposed transferee district? Select one.

No, because a court can only transfer a case to a district where it 'might have been brought,' which requires that the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction there.
No, because the defendant's consent to a transfer does not cure a lack of personal jurisdiction in the transferee forum.
Yes, because the 'interest of justice' standard in § 1404(a) allows a court to override the personal jurisdiction requirement.
Yes, because § 1404(a) allows transfer to any district to which all parties have consented, even if the action could not have been brought there originally. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The general rule for a § 1404(a) transfer is that the case can only be transferred to a district where the action 'might have been brought.' This means the transferee court must have had proper venue and personal jurisdiction over the defendant when the action was initiated. However, the statute was amended to add a crucial exception: a case may also be transferred 'to any district or division to which all parties have consented.' This provision allows parties to agree to transfer a case to a more convenient forum even if that forum would not have initially had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. A is incorrect because it states the general rule but ignores the consent exception. B is incorrect because the defendant's consent, combined with the plaintiff's, is precisely what makes the transfer permissible under the statute. C is incorrect as the 'interest of justice' does not independently override the statutory requirements for the transferee forum; rather, consent is the explicit statutory basis.

Question 4

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a defendant in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Both venue and personal jurisdiction were proper in Massachusetts. The defendant successfully moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of the witnesses. After the transfer, the New Hampshire court must decide a novel issue of contract law. There is conflicting precedent between the First Circuit (which includes both Massachusetts and New Hampshire) and other federal circuits, but no controlling state supreme court decision in either state.

Which state's law should the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire apply to the substantive legal issues in the case? Select one.

New Hampshire law, because it is the state where the transferee court sits.
Massachusetts law, because it is the state where the transferor court sits. (correct answer)
Federal common law, because there is no controlling state precedent.
The law of the state with the most significant relationship to the contract.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Under the rule of Van Dusen v. Barrack and its progeny, when a defendant obtains a transfer under § 1404(a) from a district where venue and jurisdiction were proper, the transferee court must apply the same substantive law, including choice-of-law rules, that the transferor court would have applied. This prevents defendants from using transfers for convenience as a tool for forum-shopping for more favorable law. Therefore, the District of New Hampshire must apply the law that the District of Massachusetts would have applied. A is incorrect because it states the rule for transfers from an improper venue (§ 1406). C is incorrect because under the Erie doctrine, federal courts in diversity cases must apply state substantive law. D is a choice-of-law test, but the threshold question is which state's choice-of-law rules to apply; the answer is the transferor state's (Massachusetts).

Question 5

A driver, a resident of the Southern District of New York, was involved in a car accident in the District of New Jersey with a truck driver, a resident of the Eastern District of New York. The driver suffered severe injuries and filed a lawsuit against the truck driver in federal court in the Southern District of New York, alleging negligence. The suit is based on diversity jurisdiction, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The truck driver has moved to dismiss the case for improper venue.

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

Grant the motion, because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of New Jersey.
Grant the motion, because venue is only proper in the Eastern District of New York where the defendant resides.
Deny the motion, because the plaintiff resides in the Southern District of New York, making venue proper there.
Deny the motion, because venue is proper in any district where a defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located. Here, there is only one defendant, the truck driver, who resides in the Eastern District of New York. Because the plaintiff filed suit in the Southern District of New York, within the same state, venue is proper under this rule. (Note: The rule applies even if there's only one defendant). A is incorrect because while venue would also be proper in the District of New Jersey under § 1391(b)(2), that does not make venue improper in the Southern District of New York. B is incorrect because it misstates the rule; venue is proper in any district where a defendant resides if all are in the same state, not just the specific district of residence. C is incorrect because the plaintiff's residence is generally not a basis for determining venue in federal court (with some statutory exceptions not applicable here).

Question 6

A plaintiff, a resident of Florida, sued a defendant, a resident of Colorado, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The claim arose from a defamatory blog post written by the defendant in Colorado. The post was read by people nationwide, including a small number in Arizona, but the plaintiff's reputational harm occurred primarily in Florida, where he lives and works. The defendant has no other contacts with Arizona. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the case.

What is the defendant's strongest argument for challenging the plaintiff's choice of forum? Select one.

The District of Arizona is an improper venue because the defendant does not reside there and a substantial part of the events did not occur there. (correct answer)
The District of Arizona lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the parties are not diverse and the claim does not arise under federal law.
The case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 because the District of Colorado is a more convenient forum for the defendant.
The case should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens because Florida is the more appropriate forum.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Under § 1391(b), venue is proper in (1) a district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are in the same state, or (2) a district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Here, the defendant resides in Colorado, not Arizona. The events giving rise to the claim (writing the post) occurred in Colorado, and the primary harm occurred in Florida. The mere fact that the post was read by a few people in Arizona is likely insufficient to constitute a 'substantial part' of the events. Therefore, venue is likely improper in Arizona, making a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(3) or transfer under § 1406 the proper recourse. B is incorrect because the facts state the parties are from Florida and Colorado, so diversity jurisdiction exists. C is incorrect because a § 1404 transfer is only available if the original venue is proper. Since venue is likely improper, § 1406 is the correct statute. D is incorrect because forum non conveniens is for dismissal in favor of a court in a different judicial system, not another federal court.

Question 7

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a district with a one-year statute of limitations on the claim. Venue was improper in that district. The defendant moved to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, where venue was proper. The Oklahoma district has a two-year statute of limitations. The court granted the transfer. After the transfer, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations of the transferor court (Texas). The suit was filed 18 months after the claim accrued.

How should the transferee court in Oklahoma rule on the motion for summary judgment? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the law of the transferor court, including its statute of limitations, applies after any transfer.
Grant the motion, because the plaintiff waived the right to a longer statute of limitations by filing in an improper venue.
Deny the motion, because when a case is transferred due to improper venue, the transferee court applies its own choice-of-law rules. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because federal courts sitting in diversity must always apply the statute of limitations of the state in which they sit.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. When a case is transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) because the original venue was improper, the transferee court applies its own choice-of-law rules, as if the case had been originally filed there. This means the Oklahoma federal court will apply Oklahoma's choice-of-law rules, which would likely lead to the application of Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations. Because the suit was filed within two years, the claim is not time-barred. The rule from Van Dusen v. Barrack—that the transferor court's law applies—is limited to transfers under § 1404(a) from a proper venue. A is incorrect because it states the rule for § 1404 transfers, not § 1406 transfers. B is incorrect because while the plaintiff made an error, the remedy is applying the law of the proper forum, not penalizing the plaintiff by applying the law of the improper one. D is a misstatement of the Erie doctrine; a federal court in diversity applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it sits, which may direct it to apply another state's substantive law, including its statute of limitations.

Question 8

A plaintiff, a resident of Arizona, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against a corporation. The corporation is incorporated in Delaware, has its principal place of business in the Eastern District of Texas, and sells its infringing products nationwide, including in the District of Arizona. The plaintiff filed the suit in the District of Arizona. The corporation moves to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas, arguing that its headquarters, engineers, and corporate records are all located there, making it a far more convenient forum.

Assuming the court agrees that the Eastern District of Texas is a more convenient forum, how should it rule on the motion to transfer? Select one.

Grant the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), because the original venue is proper and the proposed venue is more convenient. (correct answer)
Grant the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), because the original venue is improper.
Deny the motion, because the plaintiff's choice of a proper forum is entitled to absolute deference.
Deny the motion, because a patent infringement case may only be brought where the defendant has its principal place of business.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. This scenario calls for a transfer analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which applies when the original venue is proper. Venue was proper in Arizona because, for a corporation, venue is proper in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction. By selling infringing products in Arizona, the corporation is subject to specific personal jurisdiction there. Because the original venue is proper, a transfer for convenience is governed by § 1404(a), which allows transfer for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice. B is incorrect because the original venue was proper. C is incorrect because while a plaintiff's choice of forum is given weight, it is not absolute and can be overcome by a strong showing of inconvenience. D is an incorrect statement of the patent venue statute, which allows suits where the defendant resides or where it has committed acts of infringement and has a regular place of business.

Question 9

Which state's law should the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire apply to the substantive legal issues in the case? Select one.

New Hampshire law, because it is the state where the transferee court sits.
Massachusetts law, because it is the state where the transferor court sits. (correct answer)
Federal common law, because there is no controlling state precedent.
The law of the state with the most significant relationship to the contract.

Question 10

Which of the following statements provides the strongest basis for granting the transfer motion? Select one.

The original venue in the Eastern District is improper because the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Western District.
The transfer should be granted under § 1406 because the plaintiff made a mistake in choosing the venue.
The transfer should be granted under § 1404 because the location of the injury and likely witnesses makes the Western District a more convenient forum. (correct answer)
The transfer should be denied because the defendant's major regional office in the Eastern District makes that venue perfectly proper.

Question 11

A plaintiff, a resident of Montana, filed a class action lawsuit against a national retail chain in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the state of the chain's incorporation. The lawsuit alleges deceptive advertising practices that affected consumers nationwide. The defendant moves to transfer the case to the Southern District of California, where its corporate headquarters, marketing department, and relevant documents are located. The plaintiff opposes the transfer, arguing that Delaware is a proper venue and that the plaintiff's choice of forum should be respected.

In deciding the motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), how should the court weigh the plaintiff's choice of forum? Select one.

The plaintiff's choice is the single most important factor and is rarely disturbed if the chosen forum is a proper venue.
The plaintiff's choice is irrelevant because the defendant's convenience is the primary focus of the § 1404(a) analysis.
The plaintiff's choice is given reduced weight because this is a class action and the plaintiff's connection to the forum is minimal. (correct answer)
The plaintiff's choice must be upheld unless the defendant can show that the plaintiff chose the forum in bad faith.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. While a plaintiff's choice of forum is typically given substantial deference in a § 1404(a) analysis, that deference is significantly reduced when the plaintiff is representing a class and/or when the chosen forum is not the plaintiff's home forum and has little connection to the operative facts of the lawsuit. Here, the plaintiff is from Montana and has sued in Delaware (the defendant's state of incorporation), a forum with no connection to the plaintiff or the specific facts of the case. In such representative actions, the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the location of evidence (here, California) often take precedence over the nominal plaintiff's choice. A and D overstate the deference given. B understates the deference, as the plaintiff's choice is always a factor to be considered.

Question 12

A ship owned by a Panamanian corporation collided with a ship owned by a Japanese corporation in international waters. The Panamanian corporation's vessel subsequently docked in Houston, Texas, for repairs. The Japanese corporation filed a lawsuit against the Panamanian corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, obtaining personal jurisdiction over the defendant by serving process on the ship's captain while the vessel was in port. All of the evidence and witnesses related to the collision are located in Panama and Japan. The defendant corporation moves to dismiss the case.

What is the defendant's strongest basis for its motion to dismiss? Select one.

Improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens. (correct answer)
Transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to dismiss a case, even if it has jurisdiction and venue is proper, when a foreign court is a more convenient and appropriate forum for the litigation. Here, the parties are foreign, the event occurred abroad, and the witnesses and evidence are located abroad. A U.S. court would likely find that a court in Panama or Japan is the more appropriate forum and dismiss the case on FNC grounds. A is incorrect because venue is likely proper. Under the fallback provision of § 1391(b)(3), if there is no other district where the action may be brought, venue is proper in any district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Furthermore, under § 1391(c)(3), a defendant not resident in the U.S. may be sued in any judicial district. B is incorrect as federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over admiralty claims. D is incorrect because § 1404(a) allows for transfer to another U.S. district court, not dismissal in favor of a foreign court.

Question 13

A tourist from France was injured at a theme park in the Middle District of Florida. The theme park is operated by a corporation incorporated and headquartered in Delaware. The tourist returned to France and filed a lawsuit against the corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking damages for negligence. The corporation believes that litigating in Florida would be far more convenient because all the witnesses (employees and paramedics) and physical evidence are located there. The corporation moves to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida.

Can the District Court for the District of Delaware transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida? Select one.

No, because the plaintiff is a foreign citizen, and the case must be heard in the defendant's state of incorporation.
No, because the plaintiff did not consent to the transfer, and the case could not have been originally brought in Florida by a foreign plaintiff.
Yes, because the Middle District of Florida is a district where the action might have been brought originally. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the court first dismisses the case for forum non conveniens, allowing the plaintiff to refile in Florida.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any other district where it might have been brought. An action 'might have been brought' in a district if, at the time the suit was filed, the transferee district would have had proper venue and personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Here, the injury occurred in the Middle District of Florida, making it a district where a 'substantial part of the events' occurred. Thus, venue would have been proper there under § 1391(b)(2). The corporation operates the park there and would be subject to personal jurisdiction there. Therefore, the case could have been brought in the Middle District of Florida, and a § 1404(a) transfer is permissible. A is incorrect; the plaintiff's foreign citizenship does not restrict transfer to a proper and more convenient U.S. federal court. B is incorrect; plaintiff's consent is not required for a § 1404 transfer to a district where the action might have been brought. Plaintiff's alienage does not prevent them from filing suit in a proper federal venue. D is incorrect because transfer under § 1404 is the correct mechanism between federal courts; forum non conveniens is not applicable here.

Question 14

A plaintiff brings an action against a single defendant, a U.S. citizen who is a permanent resident of France. The claim arose from a tort that occurred in Italy. The plaintiff files suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, serving the defendant while he was temporarily visiting Washington, D.C. The defendant moves to dismiss for improper venue.

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

Grant the motion, because the defendant does not reside in the U.S. and the events occurred outside the U.S.
Grant the motion, because the case should be heard in Italy under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Deny the motion, because venue is proper in the plaintiff's home district when the defendant is a non-resident.
Deny the motion, because venue is proper in any judicial district where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, if there is no other proper district. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. This scenario triggers the fallback provision of the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3). This provision applies when venue cannot be established under (b)(1) (residency of defendants) or (b)(2) (location of events). Here, the defendant does not reside in a U.S. judicial district, so (b)(1) does not apply. The events occurred in Italy, so (b)(2) does not apply. Therefore, under (b)(3), venue is proper in any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the action. Because the defendant was served with process while physically present in the District of Columbia, the court has personal jurisdiction over him (transient 'tag' jurisdiction). Thus, venue is proper there. A is incorrect because it fails to consider the fallback provision. B is a plausible but incorrect argument; while FNC might be raised later, the immediate question is whether venue is statutorily proper, which it is. C misstates the law; plaintiff's residence is not a basis for venue.

Question 15

What is the defendant's strongest argument for challenging the plaintiff's choice of forum? Select one.

The District of Arizona is an improper venue because the defendant does not reside there and a substantial part of the events did not occur there. (correct answer)
The District of Arizona lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the parties are not diverse and the claim does not arise under federal law.
The case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 because the District of Colorado is a more convenient forum for the defendant.
The case should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens because Florida is the more appropriate forum.

Question 16

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

Grant the motion, because an objection to venue can be raised at any time before trial.
Grant the motion, because the discovery process revealed that the Southern District of Florida was not a convenient forum.
Deny the motion, because the defendant waived the defense of improper venue. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because filing a counterclaim makes any venue proper under the doctrine of consent.

Question 17

An author who lives in Wyoming wrote a novel. The novel's publisher, a corporation with its principal place of business in the Southern District of New York, breached the publishing contract by failing to promote the book. The contract was signed in New York. The author filed a breach of contract action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. The publisher has moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York, presenting evidence that all its employees involved in the contract, as well as all relevant documents, are located in New York.

Which of the following facts is most critical for the court in Wyoming to determine before ruling on the motion to transfer? Select one.

Whether the publisher is subject to personal jurisdiction in Wyoming. (correct answer)
Whether New York law or Wyoming law governs the contract.
Whether the author's choice of forum is given special weight in contract disputes.
Whether the court in Wyoming or the court in New York has a more congested docket.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Before a court can analyze a § 1404 or § 1406 motion, it must first determine if the plaintiff's chosen forum is proper. This requires determining both venue and personal jurisdiction. Here, venue in Wyoming is questionable. The defendant does not reside there, and it's unclear if a 'substantial part of the events' (the failure to promote) occurred there. More critically, the court must have personal jurisdiction over the publisher. If the publisher's only contact with Wyoming is the contract with the author, personal jurisdiction may be lacking. If venue is improper or the court lacks personal jurisdiction, the transfer would be under § 1406 or § 1631. If venue and jurisdiction are proper, the transfer would be analyzed for convenience under § 1404. Therefore, determining personal jurisdiction is the threshold question that dictates the entire analysis. B and D are relevant factors in a § 1404 convenience analysis, but they are secondary to the court's power to hear the case. C is incorrect as there is no special rule for author's forum choices.

Question 18

A plaintiff, resident of Oregon, sues Defendant A, a resident of the Northern District of California, and Defendant B, a resident of the Southern District of California. The lawsuit, based on diversity jurisdiction, arises from a business deal that went wrong. All negotiations and the alleged breach occurred during a business trip in the District of Hawaii. The plaintiff files the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Is venue proper in the Central District of California? Select one.

Yes, because both defendants are residents of California, so venue is proper in any district in the state.
Yes, because it is a neutral district located between the districts where the two defendants reside.
No, because a substantial part of the events occurred in Hawaii, making that the only proper venue.
No, because while venue is proper in California, it lies only in the districts where the defendants actually reside. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), if all defendants reside in the same state, venue is proper in a judicial district where any defendant resides. Here, both defendants reside in California. Therefore, venue is proper in the Northern District of California (where Defendant A resides) and the Southern District of California (where Defendant B resides). However, venue is not proper in the Central District of California, as neither defendant resides there and no substantial part of the events occurred there. A is incorrect because the statute does not permit venue in any district within the state, only in a district where one of the defendants resides. B is incorrect as geographical convenience between defendants' residences is not a basis for venue. C is incorrect because while Hawaii would be a proper venue under § 1391(b)(2), it is not the only proper venue; the residency provision of (b)(1) also provides a basis for venue in the Northern and Southern Districts of California.

Question 19

How should the transferee court in Oklahoma rule on the motion for summary judgment? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the law of the transferor court, including its statute of limitations, applies after any transfer.
Grant the motion, because the plaintiff waived the right to a longer statute of limitations by filing in an improper venue.
Deny the motion, because when a case is transferred due to improper venue, the transferee court applies its own choice-of-law rules. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, because federal courts sitting in diversity must always apply the statute of limitations of the state in which they sit.

Question 20

Your client, a company based in Iowa, was sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho by a former employee who now lives in Idaho. The lawsuit alleges wrongful termination. Your client has never done business in Idaho, and the employee worked exclusively at your client's Iowa facility. The employment contract was signed in Iowa and contained a forum-selection clause designating the state courts of Iowa as the exclusive forum for any disputes. Your client wishes to have the case heard in Iowa state court.

What is the most appropriate initial motion for your client to file in the federal court in Idaho? Select one.

A motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
A motion to dismiss for improper venue under FRCP 12(b)(3), based on the forum-selection clause.
A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under FRCP 12(b)(2).
A motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that the Iowa state court is the proper forum. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The Supreme Court in Atlantic Marine held that when parties have a valid forum-selection clause pointing to a specific state or foreign court, the proper way to enforce it in federal court is through the doctrine of forum non conveniens (resulting in dismissal), not a motion to dismiss for improper venue or a transfer. A § 1404 transfer is used when the clause points to another federal court. A is incorrect because the clause points to a state court, not a federal one. B is incorrect because a forum-selection clause does not render venue 'improper' under the federal venue statutes; it is a matter of contract enforcement. C is a strong alternative argument, as personal jurisdiction is likely lacking, but the forum-selection clause is most directly addressed by an FNC motion to dismiss, which is the preferred procedural mechanism for enforcing such clauses when they point to a non-federal forum.