Federal Court Remand Decision

A woman sued her former employer in state court, alleging age and sex discrimination claims under both state and federal law. The woman's attorney had recently been embarrassed in court by the judge to whom the case was assigned. Wishing to avoid difficulties with the judge, the woman's attorney promptly removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction. The employer's attorney has timely moved to remand. How is the federal court likely to proceed? (A) Remand the entire case. (B) Remand the state claims but keep the federal claims. (C) Retain the case to avoid the risk of bias and impropriety in having it proceed before a judge who has shown clear hostility toward the woman's attorney. (D) Retain the case, because it was timely removed and the woman alleges federal claims.

A plaintiff who is a State A resident brought a diversity action against a defendant who is a State B resident. The plaintiff's lawyer filed the complaint and served it on the defendant by sending a copy of the summons and complaint by mail to the defendant's home address in State B. The defendant did not respond to the complaint, and the plaintiff's lawyer obtained a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant now seeks to have the default judgment set aside. Should the court set aside the default judgment? (A) Yes, because the defendant did not receive actual notice of the suit until after the default judgment was entered. (B) Yes, because the plaintiff's lawyer failed to file an affidavit of service with the court. (C) No, because the defendant's failure to respond to the complaint was a waiver of the right to notice of the suit. (D) No, because the plaintiff's lawyer properly served the defendant by mail.

"A plaintiff filed a federal diversity action against a defendant, seeking $*,* in damages for injuries arising out of an accident. The defendant filed an answer denying liability and asserting a counterclaim for $*,* in damages for injuries the defendant allegedly suffered in the same accident. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the counterclaim, arguing that the defendant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the statute of limitations was tolled by the plaintiff's fraudulent concealment of evidence. The court denied the motion, and the plaintiff has asked her attorney's advice as to whether she may appeal the denial. What advice should the attorney give? (A) The plaintiff may appeal, because the denial of summary judgment is a final order. (B) The plaintiff may appeal, because the court's order is appealable under the collateral order doctrine. (C) The plaintiff may not appeal until after a final judgment is entered in the action. (D) The plaintiff may not appeal, because the denial of summary judgment is an interlocutory order."

"This is an MBE question; answer it: A motorist from State A was injured when his car was struck by a truck in State B. The motorist filed a negligence action in federal court in State B against the driver of the truck, a citizen of State B. The truck driver moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the motorist had failed to establish that the truck driver had sufficient contacts with State B to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Which of the following contacts would be most likely to result in a finding that the truck driver had sufficient contacts with State B to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction? (A) The truck driver was a resident of State B. (B) The truck driver owned a home in State B. (C) The truck driver had a driver's license issued by State B. (D) The truck driver had never been to State B."

"This is an MBE question; answer it: A plaintiff filed a federal diversity action against a defendant, seeking $*,* in damages for injuries allegedly caused by the defendant's negligence. The defendant filed an answer denying the allegations and asserting the defense of contributory negligence. The parties began discovery, and the plaintiff served the defendant with interrogatories that asked the defendant to identify all witnesses who had knowledge of the accident. The defendant refused to answer the interrogatories, asserting that the identity of the witnesses was irrelevant. The plaintiff moved to compel the defendant to answer the interrogatories, and the court granted the motion. The defendant has appealed the order. Should the appellate court reverse the order? (A) Yes, because the identity of witnesses is not relevant to the plaintiff's claim. (B) Yes, because the defendant has a right to privacy that protects the identity of witnesses. (C) No, because the identity of witnesses is relevant to the plaintiff's claim. (D) No, because the defendant has waived the right to object to the interrogatories by failing to file timely objections."

Is that a difficult question thats on par with the MBE in difficulty?

"This is an MBE question; answer it: A plaintiff filed a federal diversity action against a defendant, seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's negligence. The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the defendant's negligence, but rather by the plaintiff's own negligence. The plaintiff has filed a timely response to the motion for summary judgment, arguing that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court has scheduled a hearing on the motion for summary judgment. What is the standard that the court will use to decide the motion for summary judgment? (A) The court will grant the motion if the defendant can show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (B) The court will grant the motion if the plaintiff cannot show that there is a genuine issue as to any material fact and that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (C) The court will grant the motion if the defendant can show that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the plaintiff's own negligence. (D) The court will grant the motion if the plaintiff cannot show that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries."

Which unit in the MBE would this question be (evidence or criminal law and procedure): "In an action to recover for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, a plaintiff calls a bystander to testify. Claiming the privilege against self-incrimination, the bystander refuses to answer a question as to whether she was at the scene of the accident. The plaintiff moves that the bystander be ordered to answer the question. The judge should allow the bystander to remain silent only if (A) the judge is convinced that she will incriminate herself. (B) there is clear and convincing evidence that she will incriminate herself. (C) there is a preponderance of evidence that she will incriminate herself. (D) the judge believes that there is some reasonable possibility that she will incriminate herself."