Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
20. Should the court grant the corporation's motion to dismiss?
The corporation filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the illustrator's employment contract claim.
An illustrator from State B sued his former employer, a State A corporation, in a federal district court in State B. The illustrator had worked at the corporation's headquarters in State B. The complaint asserted that the corporation: (i) violated federal employment law; and (ii) breached the illustrator's employment contract. The illustrator is seeking $50,000 in damages.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
C is correct. Here, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal employment law claim and the contract claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence. Therefore, the court may hear the contract claim under supplemental jurisdiction.
A is incorrect. The basis for subject-matter jurisdiction here is not diversity, but supplemental jurisdiction based on a federal question. As stated above, the federal employment law claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the contract claim, which allows the court to hear both claims under supplemental jurisdiction. Whether diversity jurisdiction is satisfied here is irrelevant.
B is incorrect. As stated above, whether diversity is satisfied here is not dispositive. Although the amount in controversy for the contract claim is only $50,000, below the $75,000 diversity threshold, the court nevertheless has jurisdiction over the federal employment law claim and may hear the contract claim because of supplemental jurisdiction.
D is incorrect. The motion to dismiss should not be granted, but not because the court has personal jurisdiction over the corporation. The issue is whether the court has proper subject-matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction. Thus, the corporation's citizenship in States A and B is irrelevant to the analysis. The motion should not be granted because of supplemental jurisdiction, as explained above.