Civil Procedure Practice Exam Questions

1. 1.Personal jurisdiction -- general jurisdiction: PlastiCo is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Ohio. Under Daimler AG v. Bauman, general jurisdiction exists only where a corporation is 'at home' -- typically its state of incorporation or principal place of business. Oregon is not such a state.
2. 2.Specific jurisdiction -- minimum contacts: Under International Shoe and its progeny, specific jurisdiction requires (1) purposeful availment of the forum, (2) the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.
3. 3.Purposeful availment: PlastiCo ships 500-600 orders per year to Oregon and contracts with an Oregon marketing firm. This may constitute purposeful availment. But under Walden v. Fiore, the contacts must be the defendant's own, not just the plaintiff's unilateral activity.
4. 4.Relatedness: Maria's claim arises from a product purchased through Amazon, not directly from PlastiCo's Oregon contacts. The stream of commerce analysis (Asahi/J. McIntyre) is relevant -- did PlastiCo purposefully direct its products to Oregon?
5. 5.Subject matter jurisdiction -- diversity: Maria (Oregon) vs. PlastiCo (Delaware/Ohio). Complete diversity exists. Amount in controversy is $50,000 -- but the threshold under 28 USC 1332 is $75,000. Maria's claim may fall short unless she can plead additional damages (pain and suffering, future medical costs) in good faith exceeding $75,000.
6. 6.12(b) motions: PlastiCo may file a 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and/or a 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the amount in controversy is insufficient.

1. 1.Rule 11(b) obligations: By presenting a pleading, Attorney certifies that (1) it is not presented for an improper purpose, (2) legal contentions are warranted, (3) factual contentions have evidentiary support or will likely have support after investigation, and (4) denials are warranted.
2. 2.Rule 11(b)(3) violation: Attorney relied solely on client's oral statements without any independent investigation. Fabricated meetings and documents should have been discoverable with reasonable inquiry. The 'reasonable inquiry' standard is objective.
3. 3.Safe harbor provision: Rule 11(c)(2) requires 21-day safe harbor before filing a motion for sanctions. If BigBank served the motion and Attorney did not withdraw the complaint within 21 days, sanctions are appropriate.
4. 4.Sanctions: The court has discretion to impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition. Options include monetary sanctions (but not legal fees if the motion is by the court sua sponte), striking the pleading, or nonmonetary directives. Attorney fees of $200,000 may be awarded.
5. 5.Malicious prosecution: Elements: (1) prior proceedings terminated in BigBank's favor (case dismissed), (2) absence of probable cause, (3) malice/improper purpose, (4) damages. The client's fabrication satisfies malice. Attorney's liability depends on whether Attorney knew or should have known the claims were baseless.
6. 6.Ethical obligations: Attorney may have violated Model Rules 3.1 (meritorious claims), 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), and 8.4 (misconduct). Potential referral to disciplinary authorities.

1. 1.Claim preclusion (res judicata) in Tenant's second suit: Claim preclusion requires (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) the same parties (or their privies), and (3) the same claim or cause of action.
2. 2.Same claim analysis: Under the transactional test (Restatement Second of Judgments), all claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence must be brought together. The heating system issue was the same factual basis in both suits. Even though the legal theory differs (breach of lease vs. housing code violation), the claims arise from the same transaction.
3. 3.Tenant's second claim is likely barred by claim preclusion because Tenant should have raised the housing code claim in the first action.
4. 4.Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) in Neighbor's action: Issue preclusion requires (1) the same issue was actually litigated and decided, (2) the determination was essential to the judgment, and (3) the party against whom preclusion is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
5. 5.Offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel: Neighbor was not a party to the 2024 case. Under Parklane Hosiery v. Shore, offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel may be permitted but is discretionary. However, Landlord won the 2024 case, so there is no adverse finding against Landlord for Neighbor to use offensively. Preclusion does not help Neighbor.
6. 6.Mutuality requirement: Even in jurisdictions that have abandoned the mutuality requirement, issue preclusion only works against the party who lost on the issue. Since Landlord prevailed, Neighbor cannot use the finding.

Correct Answer: D

Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Both the signing of the contract (State C) and the place of performance (State B) are substantial parts of the events. Venue can be proper in multiple districts. State A would only be proper under the residency provision if the defendant also resided there.

Correct Answer: B

Under the joint-client or co-client doctrine, when two clients share the same attorney in the same matter, the privilege protects their communications from disclosure to third parties. However, in a subsequent dispute between the co-clients themselves, neither can invoke the privilege against the other regarding communications made during the joint representation.

Correct Answer: B

Under Rule 55, default judgment is a two-step process. First, the clerk enters a default under Rule 55(a) when a party has failed to plead or otherwise defend. Then, default judgment may be entered under Rule 55(b). Default can be entered against any party who fails to respond to a claim, including a plaintiff who fails to respond to a counterclaim. The court has discretion and must consider the factors for setting aside default.

Correct Answer: C

Under Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. The movant must show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Even without opposing evidence, if the movant's own evidence contains internal inconsistencies, a genuine dispute of material fact may exist. However, if the inconsistencies are immaterial, summary judgment should be granted.

Correct Answer: B

Under Rule 50(a), a motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made after a party has been fully heard on an issue. After opening statements, the plaintiff has not yet been 'fully heard' -- no evidence has been presented. The motion is premature. The proper time for a Rule 50(a) motion is after the opposing party has presented its case.