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.
3. Which of the following motions is most likely to accomplish the airline's goal?
One day before the statute of limitations on their claims would have run, the estates of the pilot and each of the passengers filed a wrongful death action against the airline in federal court in State A. The airline was served one week later and wants to prevent the State A federal court from hearing the action.
A small commercial airplane crashed in State A. The passengers and pilot, all citizens of State B, were killed in the crash. The airline that owned and operated the airplane is incorporated and has its maintenance facilities and principal place of business in State C.
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
A district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where the action might have been brought, or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. However, this transfer provision only applies when the initial venue was proper. If an action is filed by the plaintiff in a district that is not a district in which venue is proper, the district judge may not use §1404(a) as authority for transferring to a district where venue is correct. When the original venue is improper, the court must use 28 U.S.C. §1406(a), which provides that when a case is brought with improper venue, the district shall either dismiss the case or transfer the case to any district or division in which it could have been brought (if this transfer is in the interest of justice).
D is correct. Venue is proper in State A because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred there: the plane crash. When a case is originally filed in a proper venue, the Federal Rules allow the case to be transferred to another district where the action could have originally been brought or to which all parties have consented. By balancing the convenience of an alternative proper forum, the court has the discretion to transfer the case if allowed under the rules governing both jurisdiction and venue.
A is incorrect. Venue is proper in any judicial district in which any defendant resides or a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. In this case, the plane crash, which gave rise to the claim, occurred in State A. Therefore, State A is a proper venue.
B is incorrect. Federal courts must apply the rules of personal jurisdiction as if they are the state in which they sit geographically. There are not enough facts to know the extent of the federal court's personal jurisdiction here without knowing the reach of State A's long-arm statute. However, most states grant their courts personal jurisdiction over non-residents who perform or cause to be performed certain acts within the state. When a «tort» occurs within the state, there will likely be a grant of specific jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute. In this case, because the plane crash occurred in State A, it is likely that the federal court in State A would have personal jurisdiction over the airline.
C is incorrect. A motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is a discretionary power that allows a court to dismiss a case if another court or forum is better suited to hear the case. This choice is incorrect because the question asks for the most likely motion to prevent State A from hearing the case. A motion to transfer venue is more likely to be granted than a dismissal for forum non conveniens. A transfer is more appropriate than a dismissal except in extraordinary circumstances.