HI Bar - Hawaii Bar MBE Civil Procedure Questions and Answers

Question 1

A plaintiff from Texas sues a defendant from Oklahoma in federal court for the District of Hawaii, alleging a breach of contract.
The amount in controversy is $100,000.
The defendant's only connection to Hawaii is that they operate a website that is accessible to residents of Hawaii and have sold products to ten Hawaiian residents over the past five years, none of which are related to the current lawsuit.
The defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Which of the following is the most likely outcome?

Accepted Answer

The court will grant the motion because the defendant's contacts with Hawaii are insufficient for general personal jurisdiction and the lawsuit does not arise from the defendant's contacts with the forum.

Answer

The court will deny the motion because the defendant has minimum contacts with Hawaii by selling products to its residents.

Answer

The court will grant the motion because venue is improper in the District of Hawaii.

Answer

The court will deny the motion because diversity jurisdiction is satisfied.

Question 2

In a diversity action filed in federal court, which of the following issues is a federal judge most likely to decide by applying state law under the Erie doctrine?

Accepted Answer

The statute of limitations for the underlying claim.

Answer

The time limit for filing a notice of appeal.

Answer

The number of depositions each party may take.

Answer

The deadline for filing a motion for summary judgment.

Question 3

A plaintiff properly files a complaint in federal court against a single defendant. Twenty-five days after the defendant is served with the summons and complaint, the plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to add a new claim against the defendant that arises from the same transaction. Which of the following is true regarding the plaintiff's ability to amend the complaint?

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff must seek leave of court or the defendant's written consent to file the amended complaint.

Answer

The plaintiff may amend the complaint as a matter of course without leave of court.

Answer

The plaintiff cannot amend the complaint at this stage and must file a new lawsuit for the new claim.

Answer

The plaintiff may only amend the complaint if the new claim is a compulsory counterclaim.

Question 4

A plaintiff sues a defendant in federal court. After the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the defendant believes that the plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in the plaintiff's favor. What motion should the defendant make at this point?

Accepted Answer

A motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a).

Answer

A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.

Answer

A motion for a new trial under Rule 59.

Answer

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Question 5

A driver from California and a passenger from California are injured in a car accident in Nevada caused by a truck driver from Arizona. The passenger's damages are estimated at $50,000, and the driver's damages are estimated at $80,000. The driver files a lawsuit against the truck driver in federal court in Arizona based on diversity jurisdiction. The passenger now wishes to join the lawsuit as a co-plaintiff. Can the passenger's claim be joined to the driver's lawsuit?

Accepted Answer

No, because the passenger's claim does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.

Answer

Yes, under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, because the claims arise from the same accident.

Answer

Yes, because the claims involve a common question of law and fact, and the passenger is a necessary party.

Answer

No, because adding the passenger would destroy complete diversity.

Question 6

Plaintiff wins a breach of contract case against Defendant in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Defendant does not appeal. One year later, Defendant files a new lawsuit against Plaintiff in the same court, alleging that the contract was invalid due to fraud in the inducement, a claim Defendant failed to raise as a defense in the first action. Which of the following doctrines will most likely bar the Defendant's new lawsuit?

Accepted Answer

Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

Answer

Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)

Answer

Stare Decisis

Answer

Law of the Case