Blog

Plaintiff #1 (citizen of California) and Plaintiff #2 (citizen of California) bring suit together against Defendant Train Company (Nevada corporation with offices only in Las Vegas, Nevada) in a federal district court in San Francisco, California. Both Plaintiffs claim that they were injured by undercooked chicken that Defendant Train Company served on a train ride from Las Vegas, Nevada to San Francisco, California. The chicken was served and consumed as lunch while the train was just departing Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiffs assert negligence claims based upon California common law against Defendant Train Company.  Plaintiff #1 claims minor injuries valued at $10,000. Plaintiff #2 claims more substantial injuries and related damages valued at $70,000. Plaintiffs state in their complaint that they anticipate that Defendant Train Company will assert a defense based upon a federal statute regarding train travel, as has been explained in prelitigation discussions with Defendant Train Company’s attorney. Subquestion #1: Please fully analyze whether the federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Subquestion #2: Assuming proper subject matter jurisdiction for this subquestion only, Defendant Train Company files a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) (improper venue). Please fully analyze what action the federal district court in San Francisco, California should take regarding Defendant Train Company’s motion.

Dividing a large sales territory into two smaller territories and assigning managers and salespeople to the territory.

Reviewing the financial statement for the past six months.

Discussing a problem with two employees to encourage them to work closely together rather than continuing to have conflicts.

A citizen of State A filed a negligence action against a State B defendant in a State A state court after a traffic accident in State A, seeking $200,000 in damages. The plaintiff immediately served the defendant with process. Fifty-nine days later, the defendant removed the case to federal district court. The plaintiff then timely filed a motion in the federal court to remand the case back to state court. How should the court rule on the plaintiff’s motion to remand?

Determining salary increases based on annual performance evaluations.

A plaintiff sued a defendant in state court in State A, alleging that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s patent on a new type of air conditioner. The defendant removed the case to federal court in State A and quickly lost on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant appeals, claiming that because the case was improperly brought in state court, which does not have jurisdiction over patent cases, it was not removable to federal court, and the federal court thus lacked jurisdiction. The plaintiff argues that no rule requires that the state court have had jurisdiction over a removed case. Who is correct?

A woman went to a Federal Express (FedEx) office to mail a package. While she was waiting in line, she encountered her next-door neighbor who punched her in the face, accusing her of cutting in line. She suffered injury to her face and had $76,000 of medical bills. She brought a lawsuit against the neighbor in federal district court. The neighbor moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Will the neighbor prevail?

A plaintiff, a citizen of Ontario, Canada, sues a defendant, a citizen of State A, on a note for $80,000 in federal court in State A.  On what basis does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction?

A foreign correspondent, a United States citizen, has lived in England for many years. Prior to living in England, he resided in State A. However, he no longer maintains any home in the United States and has few contacts there. The reporter falsely wrote that the plaintiff, a citizen of State B, stole a Greek artifact from a foreign museum. The plaintiff sued the reporter for libel in federal court in State B, one of the states where the false story was published. The plaintiff claimed damages of $500,000. The reporter was properly served while on a brief trip to State B. The reporter moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Will the reporter’s motion be granted?