Civil Procedure bar exam questions & notes.

A software company sues a former engineer in state court for breaching a non-compete agreement, a claim governed entirely by state contract law. Anticipating that the engineer will defend by arguing that a federal labor statute makes the non-compete unenforceable, the company's complaint devotes two paragraphs to explaining why that federal statute does not apply. The engineer files a notice of removal to federal district court, asserting that the complaint's discussion of the federal statute creates federal-question jurisdiction. The company promptly moves to remand, contending the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Should the court grant the motion to remand?

1. Yes, because the only claim the company must prove is governed by state contract law. Correct
2. Yes, but only because the contract dispute does not exceed the $75,000 threshold.
3. No, because the face of the company's complaint raises and relies on a federal statute.
4. No, because the engineer's federal statutory defense arises under the laws of the United States.

A warehouse worker is fired days after she reports safety violations to a federal regulator. She sues her former employer in federal district court under a federal whistleblower-protection statute that expressly gives employees a private right of action for retaliation, seeking $42,000 in lost wages. The employer moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the amount she seeks falls far below the sum required to sue in federal court. The worker responds that her claim belongs in federal court regardless of the dollar amount at stake.

How should the court rule on the employer's motion?

1. Grant it, because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.
2. Grant it, because federal claims must first be presented to a state agency.
3. Deny it, because federal law creates the worker's cause of action. Correct
4. Deny it, because the worker and the employer are citizens of different states.

A woman lived her entire life in Franklin. Six weeks ago she accepted a permanent position in Columbia, signed a two-year apartment lease there, moved her belongings, registered to vote and titled her car in Columbia, and told friends she has no plans to return to Franklin. She still owns a lakeside cabin in Franklin that she visits a few weekends a year. She now wishes to sue a Columbia manufacturer in federal court on a diversity theory, and the manufacturer contends she is still a Franklin citizen because she moved so recently.

Of what state is the woman a citizen for diversity purposes?

1. Franklin, because she has lived there her whole life and still owns property there.
2. Columbia, because she is present there with the intent to remain indefinitely. Correct
3. Both Franklin and Columbia, because she maintains a home in each state.
4. Franklin, because a six-week residence is too brief to establish a new domicile.

Two plaintiffs, one a citizen of Franklin and the other a citizen of Columbia, jointly sue a single corporate defendant in federal court for $500,000 arising out of a business deal that collapsed. The defendant corporation is incorporated in Olympia and has its headquarters and principal place of business in Columbia. Every plaintiff's claim easily exceeds $75,000, and the plaintiffs argue that because most of the parties are citizens of different states, diversity jurisdiction exists. The defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Should the court dismiss the case for lack of diversity jurisdiction?

1. No, because the amount in controversy comfortably exceeds $75,000.
2. No, because most of the parties are citizens of different states.
3. Yes, because a plaintiff and the defendant are both citizens of Columbia. Correct
4. Yes, because the defendant is a citizen of two different states at once.