38. Is the district court likely to accept the stockbroker's pre-answer motion?

D is correct. If a court finds that it does not have personal jurisdiction over a party, the case may not proceed and must be dismissed. Here, in order to assert personal jurisdiction over the stockbroker, he must have such minimum contacts with the forum court that the exercise of jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable. As such, if the federal court finds that the stockbroker lacks minimum contacts with the state, it should accept the affidavits and grant the stockbroker's motion.

A is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of law. It is not a requirement that pre-answer motions should only be decided based on the complaint and judicially noticed facts. The parties may take discovery regarding personal jurisdiction and provide the court with facts from outside the pleadings and beyond judicial notice to enable the court to decide whether it can properly assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

B is incorrect. There is no «special appearance» in federal court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12 governs how and when the objection to personal jurisdiction or defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is to be raised, so as not to be waived.

C is incorrect. A summary judgment decision is a decision on the merits; a decision about personal jurisdiction is not. As such, this motion should not be converted to one for summary judgment. Discovery has not begun, and therefore, it would be inappropriate for a party to move for summary judgment because it cannot yet be shown that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.