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.
25. Which motion should the manufacturer file in response to the complaint?
All relevant events pertaining to the lawsuit occurred in State A, and the cyclist has never been to State B.
The cyclist claimed that the manufacturer violated State A's fair trade act with misleading advertisements for its Model D bicycles. Specifically, the cyclist claimed he purchased a Model D bicycle, advertised as weighing only 15 pounds, but that his factory-made bicycle weighed more than 17 pounds. The cyclist was injured while riding the Model D bicycle and suffered $98,000 in damages.
An athlete and a cyclist, both citizens of State A, jointly filed suit in State B federal court against a bike manufacturer, a State B corporation. The athlete raised a products liability claim based on injuries sustained when the brakes of his Model C bicycle failed to deploy and caused $125,000 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
Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court's power to hear certain causes of action. The two types of federal subject-matter jurisdiction include:
(i) diversity, meaning suits between citizens of different states; and
(ii) federal question, involving claims arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-32.
The party invoking subject-matter jurisdiction in a federal court, usually the plaintiff, must state the basis of the court's jurisdiction.
Except in some circumstances, in order to invoke diversity, there must be «complete diversity,» meaning no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any one defendant. But complete diversity does not require that every single party be of diverse citizenship from every other party. It requires only that no plaintiff be a co-citizen with any defendant. Thus, two plaintiffs of the same state may invoke diversity of citizenship against defendants who are co-citizens of a different state.
«Personal jurisdiction» is the court's power to enforce a judgment against a party, typically the defendant. In personam jurisdiction exists when the forum has power over the person of a particular defendant. Jurisdiction over a plaintiff is generally not an issue because the plaintiff accedes to the court's jurisdiction by bringing suit in that court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 18(a) provides that a party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or a third-party claim, «may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.»
FRCP 18 does not affect the requirements of subject-matter jurisdiction, which must be independently satisfied by the joined claim. However, as a practical matter, the subject-matter jurisdiction requirement will not usually impede the use of joinder.
FRCP 20 allows plaintiffs to join together in an action IF:
(i) their claims arise from a single transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; AND
(ii) there is a question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs which will arise in the action.
Once joinder has occurred, the court has considerable discretion under FRCP 20(b) to arrange the proceedings so as to not cause undue inconvenience or prejudice to any party (e.g., separate trials).
FRCP 21, which governs misjoinder, states: «Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party. "
C is correct. The manufacturer's best option is to move to sever and compel the plaintiffs to bring separate lawsuits, which is the proper remedy to the misjoinder of parties. In order for plaintiffs to be properly joined, the claims must relate to or arise out of the same series of occurrences or transactions in addition to a common question of fact or law.
Here, the athlete and the cyclist should not be joined as plaintiffs because their claims do not satisfy the above requirements. The athlete's complaint relates to a Model C bike, whereas the cyclist's complaint relates to a Model D bike. Each party has a different cause of action arising out of a different series of occurrences.
A is incorrect. FRCP 21 specifically states that misjoinder is NOT a basis for dismissing a lawsuit altogether. The proper remedy is a motion to sever and ask the court is to utilize its discretion to order separate trials.
B is incorrect. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity. First, both claims are above the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement ($125,000 and $98,000). Second, the parties satisfy diversity of citizenship. Complete diversity requires that no plaintiff be from the same state as any defendant. If two plaintiffs are co-citizens of one state, it will not destroy complete diversity. Here, the cyclist and athlete are both from State A and the manufacturer is from State B.
D is incorrect. A motion for lack of personal jurisdiction over the cyclist would be improper here. When a plaintiff files suit in a particular jurisdiction, he is consenting to the court exercising personal jurisdiction over him. Here, by bringing a suit in State B, the cyclist consented to personal jurisdiction in State B.