spacenab

Spacenab

Log in

 Password
"Post your contents, writings, articles, info-graphics, and more on spacenab."
sign up with facebook
Create a new post
Mike Brown

LSTD 207 Final Exam Answers

Mike Brown

LSTD 207 Final Exam Answers

 https://homeworklance.com/downloads/lstd-207-final-exam-answers/

 

LSTD 207 Final Exam

<table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td> <table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>

Part 1 of 1 –

</td> <td>

100.0 Points

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td> <table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>

Question 1 of 30

</td> <td>

2.5 Points

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

A defendant should always raise any objections to personal jurisdiction in the first response to the plaintiff’s complaint or the issue is waived and may not be reconsidered.

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td> <table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td> <table> <tbody><tr> <td>

True

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>

False

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>

Feedback: See pages 118, 120-121.  A defendant must raise objections to venue, personal jurisdiction, and form and method of service of process in their first response to the complaint (pre-answer or answer) or the issue is waived and may not be reconsidered at a later time.

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>

Question 2 of 30

</td> <td>

2.5 Points

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

A defendant can remove a case from state court to federal court even if the federal court could not have heard the case initially.

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td> <table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td> <table> <tbody><tr> <td>

True

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>

False

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>

Feedback: See page 27- “FAQ”. Removal jurisdiction is available to defendants only in cases that the plaintiff could have commenced in federal court.

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>

Question 3 of 30

</td> <td>

2.5 Points

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Is it possible for a defendant to file a motion to dismiss for personal jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment simultaneously?

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> <td>

A.Yes

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

B.No

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>

Feedback: A motion to dismiss is asserted prior to the answer (as an alternative to an answer) or in the answer to the complaint. A motion for summary judgment is made after the filing of the complaint and answer.

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>

Question 4 of 30

</td> <td>

2.5 Points

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

John Doe (Arizona) sues Jane Smith (California) and Joe Johnson (California) in federal district court in California.

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> <td>

A.The court does not have jurisdiction as the defendants are both from California and not diverse.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

B.The court does not have jurisdiction because it was filed in California.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

C.The court has jurisdiction as long as the plaintiff is diverse from the defendants.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

D.Both A and B are correct.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>

 

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>

Feedback: See page 14. The Strawbridge rule requires only that the plaintiff and defendant be diverse- thus parties on the same side may be co-citizens.

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>

Question 5 of 30

</td> <td>

2.5 Points

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Which of the following cases CAN NOT be heard in federal court?

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> <td>

A.A claim based on the Age Discrimination under the Federal Employment Act.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

B.A tort claim between citizens of the same state.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

C.A case brought by the State of New Jersey against the State of New York.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

D.A case between a citizen from Maine and a citizen from Rhode Island, where the claim is more than $75,000.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>

Feedback: Questions of federal law and diversity between different states and citizens of different states are within the jurisdiction of Federal courts. State tort cases between citizens of the SAME state are restricted to state court.

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>

Question 6 of 30

</td> <td>

2.5 Points

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Johnson (D. Mass) wants to sue Alcott (D.N.H.) and Montgomery (D. Me.) for trasspassing on Johnson’s property in Massachusetts. Where would Venue be proper?

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> <td>

A.D.N.H.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

B.D. Me.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

C.D.N.H. or D. Me.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

D.D. Mass

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>

Feedback: This case would be governed by §1391(a) as it is a diversity case. The defendants do not live in the same state, making section 1 unavailable. That leaves section 2, a district in which a substantial part of the acts or omissions occurred. Here the tresspass alleged occurred in D. Mass. making it a district where venue is proper. Because Section 2 produced a district in which venue is proper, section 3 is not applicable. Because the defendants do not reside in the same state, none of their districts can form the basis of proper Venue. See pages 66-68

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>

Question 7 of 30

</td> <td>

2.5 Points

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Ted sues Larry for negligence, alleging that he suffered emotional distress from witnessing injury to a close friend in an accident with Larry. Larry responds by moving to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). After the court denies the motion, but before Larry answers, Larry files a second pre-answer motion to dismiss per lack of venue under Rule 12(b)(3). Which of the following is True?

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> <td>

A.The motion is improper because Larry cannot make a second pre-answer motion under Rule 12 to assert a defense that was available when the first motion was made.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

B.The motion is improper, because Larry’s failure to assert his Rule 12(b)(3) motion in his first pre-answer motion waives the objection of failure to state a claim.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

C.The motion is proper because the objection is not waived by making a motion on other grounds, and may be raised at any time.

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>

D.The motion is proper because the motion to dismiss for lack of venue under Rule 12(b)(3) is not considered one of the four “disfavored defenses.”

</td> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>

Feedback: The correct answer is A.  A defendant has two options when making certain motions to dismiss. First, he can file the motion prior to his answer to the complaint (pre-answer). If he chooses this method, four of the 12(b) motions must be filed at that time.  If he chooses not to pre-answer, he must then file at least the four “disfavored” 12(b) motions in his answer. Either way he chooses to file, those four 12(b) motions must be raised in the initial response. A defendant cannot file 2 pre-answer motions for any of the 12(b) defenses, which is why A is the correct answer. See Rule 12(g).
12(b)(6) motions should also be raised in the initial response generally, but unlike the four 12(b)s that MUST be filed initially, the 12(b)(6) motion is not waived if he fails to file it in the first response. Rule 12(g)(1) only prevents Larry from making this motion in the form of a second pre-answer motion. Larry can file the 12(b)(6) motion in his answer or by another motion after pleading or at the trial on the merits. “If a defendant files a pre-answer motion such as a motion to dismiss, the motion must include these defenses to avoid waiver.”  page 120

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>

Question 8 of 30

</td> <td>

2.5 Points

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

You get the oil in your AMC Pacer changed at Skippy Lube in Jefferson City, Missouri, before heading down to Austin, Texas, to visit a friend. In Arkansas your car starts to make a strange noise. When you pull over you notice that there is no oil in the engine and it appears that the cap was never put back on. You immediately call your lawyer, who finds that Arkansas has a long-arm statute providing that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent as to a cause of action arising from the person’s transacting any business in this state. Can you sue Skippy Lube in Arkansas? No

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

<table> <tbody><tr> <td>

Feedback: See pages 42-44. Personal jurisdiction is based on either domicle, consent, physical presence/personal service, or minimum contacts. Here it would be based on the minimum contacts tests. Long arm statutes require specific types of contact with the forum state in order to obtain personal jurisdiction. Here, there was NO contact made by Skippy Lube in Arkansas. The work was done in Missouri and Skippy Lube is located in Missouri.

</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>

Question 9 of 30

</td> <td>

2.5 Points

</td> </tr> </tbody></tabl
Views(36) Opinions(0) 06/12/2016 22:46:57 Report abuse
Copyright © 2014 spacenab.com . All the right reserved.