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.
30. Is the district court likely to grant the man's motion to remand?
The manufacturer and the retailer timely removed the case to the federal district court in State A. The injured man timely moved to remand the case back to state court. The district court is extremely busy with criminal cases and civil cases that arise under federal law.
An injured man from State A brought a products liability action against a manufacturer and a retailer in a state court in State A. The man claimed a drug he purchased from the retailer, created by the manufacturer, caused him to suffer $100,000 in damages. The manufacturer is incorporated in State B, with its sole manufacturing plant in State C, and its board of directors meets in State A to direct and control the corporation's activities. The retailer is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in State A and its owner-members are citizens of State D.
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 is incorrect. Although the court should grant the motion to remand, it is not because venue is improper. The motion should be granted because the federal district court does not have the authority to hear the action without subject-matter jurisdiction, and because the injured man and drug manufacturer are co-citizens of State A, there is not complete diversity among the parties.
C is incorrect. Even if the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, which it does not, it would lack authority to remand solely on the basis of conserving its resources for federal question cases.
D is incorrect. As stated above, there is no diversity jurisdiction between the parties because both the injured man and the drug manufacturer are co-citizens of State A, which means the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction and should remand.