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.
35. Should the court grant the company's motion to dismiss?
A resident of the state sued a non-diverse internet search engine company in federal district court, alleging the company violated the state law by tracking the resident's computer searches and selling that information to advertisers. The resident claimed federal question jurisdiction and the company moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
A state decided to enact a law prohibiting internet search engine companies from tracking users' searches and selling that information to advertisers. Congress recently passed a similar federal law that applies to the interstate sale of similar information. The state passed the bill with language identical to the federal statute, except without the limitation to interstate sales of information.
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
28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants federal courts original jurisdiction over federal question cases. This extends to all civil actions arising in the U.S. Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S. The federal question must be integral in the plaintiff's cause of action as set out in a well-pleaded complaint.
The defendant's answer or defense is irrelevant to giving rise to a federal question. A complaint may also not create federal question jurisdiction if it simply alleges federal issues in anticipation of some defense.
D is correct. The court should grant the company's motion to dismiss because the resident's claim is created by state law and does not concern a federal question. The fact that the state used the federal statute as the basis for passing the law does not itself establish federal question jurisdiction.
A is incorrect. This is not a situation in which the state law claim «arises under» federal law. Although the legislative history of the state law is rooted in federal law, the state law claim itself stands entirely alone. In the absence of any federal connection contained in the original complaint, subject-matter jurisdiction will not exist.
B is incorrect. The state law does not explicitly «incorporate» any element of the federal law. Even if it had, this would not be enough to establish subject matter jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.
C is incorrect. Although the court should grant the company's motion, it is not because of the degree of a federal interest in the interpretation of the state law. Whether the federal government or judiciary has a strong interest in how the state statute is interpreted is not relevant to establishing federal question jurisdiction.