BARGONextGen Bar Prep
Exam guideStatesCurriculumPricingBlogFree study planFAQ
Home/Subjects/Civil Procedure
CIV11 topics365 practice questions

NextGen Bar Exam Civil Procedure.

Jurisdiction, venue, pleadings, discovery, dispositive motions, and preclusion under the FRCP.

Get full CIV accessGet a free study plan

All 11 topics in Civil Procedure

Scope-aligned

★ marks the 7 topics NCBE flags at memorize level — know these cold; the rest lean on provided materials and reasoning.

  1. 01

    Subject-Matter Jurisdiction★

    Federal subject-matter jurisdiction: federal-question jurisdiction and the well-pleaded complaint rule; diversity jurisdiction (citizenship, complete diversity, amount in controversy, aggregation); supplemental jurisdiction; and concurrent and removal jurisdiction.

    Free
  2. 02

    Personal Jurisdiction★

    Constitutional standards for specific in personam jurisdiction (minimum contacts, arising out of, reasonableness) and general jurisdiction (at home); plus long-arm statutes, consent, and waiver.

  3. 03

    Service, Venue & Transfer

    Service of process and the constitutional requirement of notice; proper venue, remedies for improper venue, transfer of venue, and dismissal for forum non conveniens.

  4. 04

    Erie & State Law

    The Erie doctrine — distinguishing substance from procedure and determining when state law, including state choice-of-law rules, displaces federal procedural rules.

  5. 05

    Preliminary Injunctions & TROs

    Provisional remedies: temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions as tools to maintain the status quo pending adjudication, and how a preliminary injunction can become permanent.

  6. 06

    Pleadings & Rule 11★

    Pleadings and amended pleadings, including the relation-back doctrine; and Rule 11 — reasonable inquiry, legal and evidentiary basis, proper purpose, and the timing and procedures for sanctions.

  7. 07

    Joinder & Intervention★

    Joinder of multiple claims and parties, counterclaims, crossclaims, third-party practice, and the court's power to sever; and intervention under Rule 24.

  8. 08

    Discovery★

    Scope and limits of discovery; the Rule 26(f) conference and discovery planning; discovery tools and mechanisms including e-discovery (depositions, interrogatories, requests for admission and production, physical and mental examinations, ESI); and discovery motions and sanctions.

  9. 09

    Jury Trial & Dispositive Motions★

    Preserving the right to a jury trial and waiver; and dispositive motions — the Rule 12 motion to dismiss, judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment (including conversion of a motion to dismiss), and judgment as a matter of law.

  10. 10

    Judgments & Preclusion★

    Entry of default and default judgment; and the effect of judgments — the elements of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.

  11. 11

    Appeals & Standards of Review

    The final judgment rule and the availability of interlocutory review; and standards of review on appeal (de novo, clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion, plain error, and harmless error).

Try before you buy

4 sample CIV questions

Real questions from the Civil Procedure bank, with the full explanation. The paid bank covers all 11 topics and difficulty levels.

A software company sues a former engineer 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.
Why: Federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule: the court reads the plaintiff's own claim, stripped of anything it did not need to allege, and asks whether federal law is part of what the plaintiff must prove. The company's real claim is breach of a non-compete — pure state contract law — so no federal question appears, and the case belongs in state court (A). C is the classic trap: the company mentioned the federal statute only to get ahead of an expected defense, but a federal issue injected to anticipate a defense is not part of the well-pleaded complaint. D repeats the error from the other side — a federal defense, however strong, never creates arising-under jurisdiction. B misstates the law: unlike diversity, federal-question jurisdiction carries no amount-in-controversy requirement, so the dollar figure is irrelevant.

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.
Why: A case 'arises under' federal law when federal law creates the cause of action the plaintiff asserts. The whistleblower statute itself supplies the worker's right to sue, so 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is satisfied and the court has federal-question jurisdiction (C). A is the headline trap: federal-question jurisdiction has no amount-in-controversy requirement, so the $42,000 figure — which would be fatal in a diversity case — is beside the point. B invents an administrative-exhaustion prerequisite the facts never mention and that, in any event, goes to the merits, not to subject-matter jurisdiction. D reaches the right result but for an unsupported reason: nothing establishes the parties' citizenship, and diversity is unnecessary once a federal statute supplies the claim. Because the claim is born of federal law, the door is open on that basis alone.

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.
Why: For an individual, state citizenship means domicile, which requires two things at once: physical presence in a state plus the intent to remain there indefinitely. The woman is physically in Columbia and has shown intent to stay — a permanent job, a long lease, voter and vehicle registration, and no plan to return — so she became a Columbia citizen the moment she arrived with that intent (B). D states the trap: there is no minimum time period; even a few hours suffice once presence and intent coincide. A confuses citizenship with a person's history and property — she can own a Franklin cabin and still be domiciled in Columbia, because domicile turns on intent, not real estate. C misstates the rule that a person has exactly one domicile at a time; owning two homes does not create dual citizenship.

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.
Why: Diversity requires complete diversity: no plaintiff may share a state of citizenship with any defendant. The corporation is a citizen of both Olympia (incorporation) and Columbia (principal place of business), and one plaintiff is a Columbia citizen — so a plaintiff and the defendant are co-citizens of Columbia, and the whole case fails, no matter how diverse the other parties are (C). B states the defeated argument: 'most' parties being diverse is not enough; the rule is all-or-nothing. A is true but irrelevant — clearing the amount hurdle cannot cure a citizenship overlap, since both requirements must be satisfied. D correctly notes the corporation has two citizenships, but that alone does not defeat diversity; a two-state defendant is fine unless one of those states matches a plaintiff's — which is exactly what happened, making C the precise reason.
Unlock the full CIV bank14-day money-back · one-time payment

Free study plan

Studying Civil Procedure? Start with a plan.

Tell us your exam date and we’ll email you a week-by-week schedule that gives Civil Procedure the time it needs — alongside the other subjects.

Target administration
Hours per week
Pathway

No spam. Unsubscribe in one click. We’ll send 3 follow-ups with bar exam study tips.

Common questions

Civil Procedure FAQs

Jurisdiction, venue, pleadings, discovery, dispositive motions, and preclusion under the FRCP. The published content scope breaks it into 11 topics, examined through both MCQ formats plus integrated question sets and performance tasks.
11. Our notes are mapped one-to-one against NCBE's published content scope, and starred topics mark what NCBE flags at memorize level.
Active recall beats re-reading. Read the notes once, then practice exam-format questions in mixed order, then revisit weak topics. Our weak-area tracker surfaces the topics dragging your accuracy down.
Yes. The free diagnostic quiz is open to everyone, free accounts get the first topic of every subject — notes included — plus 5 premium questions a day. The full CIV bank (365 questions today) is unlocked with a one-time purchase and covered by the 14-day money-back guarantee.
14-day money-back guarantee

Ready to start preparing?

One-time payment. Pick the plan that fits your timeline. Start with the free readiness quiz.

Free readiness quizView pricing

Enjoying this? Unlock every topic, practice exams & flashcards.

View Pricing
BARGONextGen Bar Prep

Affordable NextGen bar exam preparation — practice questions, question sets, performance tasks, and in-depth study notes built around how the exam actually works.

Product

  • Features
  • How it works
  • Curriculum
  • Pricing
  • iOS app

Resources

  • NextGen exam guide
  • States & passing scores
  • Free study plan
  • Free diagnostic quiz
  • Blog
  • FAQ
  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Refund
  • Cookies
  • AI Policy
  • Support

BARGO is an independent study platform. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by NCBE. NCBE®, NextGen UBE®, MBE®, and UBE® are trademarks of the National Conference of Bar Examiners. All questions, flashcards, and notes are original works based on NCBE’s published Content Scope Outline — they are not real exam questions. Content is provided for educational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and no exam result is guaranteed.

© 2026 BARGO · Sitemap