Instructions: answer all questions before looking at explanations. A federal district court map may be found at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._federal_courts_circuit_map_1.pdf. These questions will require careful reading of the statutes, particularly for questions 9 and 10!
Question 1.
P (citizen of California) plans to sue D Phord Motor Co. (incorporated in Delaware with principal place of business in Michigan) for injuries suffered in an auto accident. P believes that problems with the Phord vehicle caused the accident. If P sues Phord in California state court seeking $100K damages, can D remove? (Hint: see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b).)
A. No, because the well-pleaded complaint rule indicates that a plaintiff is the master of his complaint.
B. Yes, because defendants can always remove from state court to federal court.
C. No, because no federal question is involved.
D. Yes, because the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over P’s claim had P filed there originally.
Question 2.
P (California) sues Phord (Delaware and Detroit, Michigan) in a state court in Anchorage, Alaska for products liability for $100K. P was injured when his car fell apart in Las Vegas. Look at the map of federal districts at the end of this document. D may remove to which district(s)? (Hint: see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).)
A. The United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
B. The United States District Court for the Central District of California.
C. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware OR the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
D. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
Question 3.
P (California) is angry at Phord (Delaware & Michigan) for making what he believes are defective cars. He registers the domain name PHORDSUCKS.COM and posts information about Phord. Later, P sues Phord in Pennsylvania state court alleging product liability and seeking $100K damages. Phord files a counterclaim against P for copyright infringement under federal law for using pictures of Phord vehicles on the PHORDSUCKS.COM website. P is concerned that Pennsylvania state judges don’t know anything about federal copyright law and wants to remove. Can P remove the case? (Hint: compare 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), with 28 U.S.C. § 1454.)
A. No, only defendants can remove.
B. No, removal is measured by original jurisdiction, which in turn depends on whether the well-pleaded complaint contains a federal question. Here, the plaintiff’s complaint only contains a state-law claim.
C. Yes, because the original claim was removable.
D. Yes, because P can remove. Cool, huh?
Question 4.
P (California) sues Phord (Delaware & Michigan) in California state court alleging negligence (Count I); products liability (Count II); and a federal statute permitting suits against carmakers for defective auto manufacturing (Count III). P seeks $100K. If Phord wants to remove, it may remove what? (Hint: see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).)
A. The entire case.
B. Nothing.
C. Only the claims that it wants to litigate in federal court.
D. Only claims involving federal questions.
Question 5.
Remember, P is a citizen of California and Phord is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Michigan. P’s damages are for $100K and he wants to file a claim for products liability under state law. P wants to litigate in state court and wants to make sure that Phord can’t remove. His best course of action is to do what? (Hint: see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), 1446(c)(2) and (3).)
A. There is nothing P can do.
B. Only claim $75,000 in damages.
C. File in state court in any state except California, Delaware, or Michigan.
D. File in Delaware or Michigan state court.
Question 6.
Remember, P is a citizen of California and Phord is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Michigan. P’s damages are for $100K and he wants to file a claim for products liability under state law (Count I) and a federal statute permitting suits against carmakers for defective auto manufacturing (Count II). P wants to litigate in state court and wants to make sure that Phord can’t remove. His best course of action is to do what? (Hint: see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).)
A. File in Michigan or Delaware.
B. Don’t pursue Count II.
C. File in Michigan or Delaware, and additionally, pursue Count I only.
D. File in Michigan or Delaware, and additionally, pursue Count II only.
Question 7.
P (California) sues Phord (Delaware & Michigan) in state court in Arizona for products liability and seeking $100K. The complaint further indicates that P is seeking $100K in damages. Six months after being served, Phord removes to federal court. Plaintiff immediately moved for remand to state court. Should the motion be granted? (Hint: see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(b)(1), 1447(c).)
A. Yes, because removal was done too late.
B. No, because subject matter jurisdiction would be proper in federal court.
C. Yes, because a defendant may never remove beyond 30 days of receiving notice of the state-court complaint.
D. No, because remand would not be in the interest of justice.
Question 8.
Paula (Florida) sues her former employer, Artie’s Lawnmower Service (Florida), in Florida state court for common-law breach of contract due to her firing and seeks $100K damages. The defendant does not remove. Six months later, Paula is granted leave by the state court to join a claim for federal employment discrimination seeking $100K arising from the same firing. May Artie’s Lawnmower Service remove the case? (Hint: see 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), (3).)
A. No, because defendant is a citizen of Florida.
B. No, because a defendant only has 30 days to remove.
C. Yes, even though the case wasn’t originally removable.
D. Yes, because the amount in controversy now exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
Question 9.
Maurice (Georgia) sues Robin (Georgia) and Barry (Florida) in Georgia state court alleging battery and seeking $100K in damages. Eighteen months later and in good faith, Maurice settles with Robin, who is dismissed from the suit. After Robin’s dismissal, may Barry remove to federal court? (Hint: see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(b)(3) & (c)(1).)
A. Hey, aren’t these the Bee Gees?
B. Didn’t they record the soundtrack to Saturday Night Fever?
C. Yes.
D. No.
Question 10.
Both P and D are citizens of the same state. P sues D in state court in that state for violating federal employment discrimination law and seeks $10,000 damages. P joins a claim against D for a completely unrelated battery that occurred six months before the employment discrimination. P seeks damages of $10 for the battery (the only damages P suffered was the wounding of his pride for a brief moment). The only thing common between the claims is the parties; the claims are otherwise factually and legally unrelated.
TRUE OR FALSE: D may remove the lawsuit. (Hint: see section 1441(c).)
A. True
B. False
Revised Sept. 9, 2020 (updating links; culling questions, rewriting renumbered Q10); Sept. 20, 2018 (correcting breadcrumb in Q9); Revised Sept. 23, 2018 (changing second COA in Q17 from copyright to federal trademark to focus issue on revival and bypass considerations of section 1454)