Spartan Lawyer Winter 2019

CIVIL PROCEDURE with Professor Philip Pucillo – Are You Smarter than a Law Student?

Whoever said that “rules are meant to be broken” has clearly never taken Civil Procedure. Let’s see how much you remember - and perhaps what you’ve learned since - from your first-year Civ Pro class.

(And if it’s tougher than you remember, you can always check your answers at the bottom of the page!)

1. Pamela (a Michigan citizen) filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against David (an Ohio citizen), asserting a claim for breach of contract under Michigan law. She made a demand of $100,000 in compensatory damages.

   Should the U.S. District Court dismiss Pamela’s action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction?

   1. No, provided that the $100,000 in damages were demanded by Pamela in good faith.
   2. No, unless David became a Michigan citizen while his motion to dismiss was pending.
   3. Yes, because Pamela’s claim is governed by Michigan law (as opposed to federal law).
   4. Yes, because a Michigan citizen may not bring this kind of action in a U.S. District Court located in Michigan.

2. Penelope filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against Dana, asserting a claim for trademark infringement under federal law.

   Assuming that Dana is a legally competent adult who is based in a U.S. Judicial District, which of the following situations would provide Dana with grounds to move to dismiss Penelope’s complaint for insufficient service of process?

   1. Following Michigan rules governing service of process in Michigan Circuit Court, Penelope sent to Dana a copy of the summons and complaint by certified mail (return receipt requested and delivery restricted to Dana). Dana subsequently acknowledged receipt of the mail.
   2. Penelope stopped by Dana’s home and delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to Dana personally.
   3. A deputy marshal stopped by Dana’s home and left a copy of the summons and complaint with Harry (Dana’s husband).
   4. A deputy marshal delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to Andy (an agent authorized by appointment to receive service of process for Dana).

3. Paul (an Ohio citizen) filed an action in Ingham County Circuit Court against Delaney (a Michigan citizen), asserting a claim for breach of contract under Michigan law. Paul made a good-faith demand of $100,000 in compensatory damages.

   Delaney responded to Paul’s action by filing a timely notice of removal with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Paul thereafter filed a timely motion to remand.

   Should the U.S. District Court remand Paul’s action to Ingham County Circuit Court?

   1. No, because the Ingham County Circuit Court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.
   2. No, because the U.S. District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.
   3. Yes, because the U.S. District Court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.
   4. Yes, because a Michigan citizen may not remove this kind of action to a U.S. District Court located in Michigan.

4. Peter filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against Donald Corp., his employer, asserting a claim for employment discrimination under federal law.

   In which of the following situations would Donald Corp. waive a defense of improper venue?

   1. Donald Corp. filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss for improper venue. After that motion was denied, Donald Corp. filed an answer in which it did not assert a defense of improper venue.
   2. Donald Corp. filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss for (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and (2) improper venue. After that motion was denied, Donald Corp. filed an answer in which it did not assert a defense of improper venue.
   3. Donald Corp. filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. After that motion was denied, Donald Corp. filed an answer in which it asserted a defense of improper venue.
   4. In lieu of filing any pre-answer motion at all, Donald Corp. filed an answer in which it asserted a defense of improper venue.

Show/Hide Answers