Questions & Answers Series

Civil Procedure Topics: Plaintiff's Pleadings; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Summary Judgment; Venue

Venue

Question:

Woolf (N.D. Tex.) wants to sue Austen (W.D. La.) and Bronte (E.D. La.) for violating her federal civil rights in an incident that took place in Oklahoma (E.D. Okla.). Where would venue be proper?

(A) W.D. La., E.D. La., or M.D. La.

(B) E.D. Okla.

(C) W.D. La., E.D. La., M.D. La., or E.D. Okla.

(D) W.D. La., E.D. La., or E.D. Okla.

Answer:

Answer (D) is correct. This time Woolf's suit against Austen is in federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, so for venue purposes it would be covered by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), but the applicable language is the same. Venue is proper in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state. Here both defendants reside in Louisiana, so both E.D. La. and W.D. La. would be proper. Venue is also proper in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, making E.D. Okla. proper as well. Because both sections 1 and 2 make U.S. venue available, section 3 does not apply.

Answer (A) is incorrect. When multiple defendants reside in the same state, any of their districts of residence provide proper venue, but other districts in the state do not. The Middle District of Louisiana is therefore improper. 

Answer (B) is incorrect because it is incomplete. It omits the districts in which the defendants reside, as both reside in Louisiana.

Answer (C) is incorrect, as it includes a district in which no defendant resides and in which no part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Summary Judgment

Question:

The primary difference between a motion for summary judgment and a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence is:

(A) the standard the movant must meet.

(B) the non-movant's burden to avoid summary judgment.

(C) the record on which the court will base its decision.

(D) the nature of the court's review of the record.

Answer:

Answer (C) is correct. A summary judgment ruling is a prediction. The court, by looking at discovery products plus affidavits must predict whether, if the case were allowed to go to trial, there would be a genuine issue of material fact to be tried. At trial, on the other hand, the parties have actually presented live testimony, documents, and other physical evidence and the judge is deciding whether this evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in favor of the party with the burden of production. 

Answer (A) is incorrect. The movant in either case must convince the court that there is or will be no legally sufficient evidence in favor of the non-movant. 

Answer (B) is incorrect. The question in both cases is whether the party with the burden has produced a record on which a reasonable jury could find in its favor.

Answer (D) is incorrect. In both cases, the court is to view the evidence and take inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. In neither case is the court supposed to make decisions about credibility or to weigh the evidence. 

Plaintiff's Pleadings

Question:

Crockett was driving north on Hillcrest Road in Dallas when his car collided with Boone's car, driving west on Mockingbird Lane. Both Crockett and Boone suffered serious personal injuries, and both cars were damaged. 

Crockett noticed after the accident that Boone's car had a bumper sticker proclaiming "Lawyers Do It In Their Briefs." Crockett has always loathed bad puns, and he would like to add a cause of action for "annoyance." He can describe at length the bumper sticker and his reaction to it. The annoyance claim, if filed:

(A) is improper. The complaint must show that the pleader is entitled to relief.

(B) is proper. If a pleader has one good claim against an opposing party, claims of other types may be added.

(C) is improper. A plaintiff may not combine claims for negligent and intentional torts.

(D) is proper. Crockett will be able to provide sufficient detail to meet the requirements of Rule 8.

Answer:

Answer (A) is correct. Although generally speaking the federal pleading rules are quite forgiving, a plaintiff must sue for a cause of action that is recognized under the applicable substantive law. Your neighbor, for example, could not sue you for being a law student and adding to some kind of perceived national oversupply. Similarly, Crockett cannot invent a cause of action for "annoyance" and pursue it against Boone based on his bad taste in bumper stickers. Rule 8 does provide that the complaint must show "that the pleader is entitled to relief." 

Answer (B) is incorrect. Although, as you will learn when you study subject matter jurisdiction, there are situations in which jurisdiction over one claim will justify jurisdiction over others, stating one legally valid claim does not give a party the right to add into the same lawsuit claims that have no legal basis. 

Answer (C) is also incorrect. Plaintiffs may combine "as many claims or defenses as the party has." There is no longer a rule in federal court requiring separate suits for different types of claims, even claims that in earlier times would have been brought in different types of courts. 

Answer (D) is incorrect. A "short and plain statement" of a nonexistent claim is not salvaged by providing the required amount of detail.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Federal Questions

Question:

When Officer Krupke arrested Tony, a scuffle ensued. Tony believes that Krupke used excessive force in making the arrest. He wants to sue Krupke for violating his federal constitutional rights, but his injuries amount to only about $2,000 worth of medical bills and a sore jaw. Both Tony and Krupke are citizens of New York. Can Tony file his case in federal court?

(A) No. The amount in controversy is insufficient.

(B) No. There is no diversity of citizenship.

(C) No. The suit lacks both diversity and a sufficient amount in controversy.

(D) Yes. The suit would be proper under federal question jurisdiction.

Answer:

Answer (D) is correct. Tony's claim that excessive force used during his arrest violated his constitutional rights states a claim for relief under a cause of action created by federal law. It therefore can form the basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Where federal question jurisdiction exists, the parties' citizenship and the amount in controversy are not relevant.

Answers (A), (B), and (C) are incorrect. When a federal question exists, there is no minimum amount in controversy requirement, nor do the parties need to be from different states.