Plaintiff #1 (citizen of California) and Plaintiff #2 (citiz…
Questions
Plаintiff #1 (citizen оf Cаlifоrniа) and Plaintiff #2 (citizen оf 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.
Whаt dоes Mаcbeth dо аfter visiting the witches in Act 4?