Dispositive motions — MCQs

Using only the supplied client file and legal resources, prepare an objective memorandum to the supervising attorney analyzing which law the federal court should apply to Apex's limitations defense and damages-cap argument. Address both sides, distinguish substantive rules from procedural mechanisms, and recommend the positions our client should take in opposing the motion. Do not research or cite outside law.

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare a persuasive memorandum supporting an appellate-jurisdiction response for the supervising attorney. Assess whether the court of appeals may presently review each challenged ruling, address the opponent’s strongest arguments, and recommend the most appropriate procedural next step.

Using only the supplied client file and legal resources, prepare an objective memorandum to the supervising attorney assessing whether the federal court should apply State West's security-bond requirement or Federal Rules 8 and 12. Address the plaintiff's argument that the state requirement is substantive, Meridian's argument that the Federal Rules control, the significance of the requirement's placement in the state limitations statute, and the likely disposition of the motion to strike. Recommend whether Meridian should obtain an expert affidavit as a risk-management measure even if the federal court is likely to reject the plaintiff's legal position. Do not analyze the underlying merits of the product defect beyond what is necessary to discuss the procedural dispute.

A patient, a citizen of State A, sued a physician, also a citizen of State A, in federal district court for malpractice under state law, seeking $300,000. The complaint incorrectly alleged that the physician was a citizen of State B. After discovery established the physician's State A citizenship, the physician proceeded to trial without challenging subject-matter jurisdiction. The jury returned a verdict for the patient. Before entry of judgment, the court independently questioned whether it had authority to adjudicate the action. The patient argued that the physician had waived any jurisdictional objection by litigating through trial. Which of the following best states how the court should proceed?

A citizen of State A sued a manufacturer incorporated and headquartered in State B in federal court in State A. The complaint seeks $500,000 in damages, including noneconomic damages, for injuries allegedly caused by a defective product. State A's statute caps noneconomic damages in personal-injury actions at $250,000. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure address the form and content of jury verdicts but do not impose any cap on damages. At trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding $400,000 in noneconomic damages. The manufacturer moved to reduce the award to comply with the state cap. No federal statute addresses damages caps. Which of the following best states the applicable rule?

A consumer filed a products-liability action in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The consumer is a citizen of State A, the manufacturer is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State B, and the complaint seeks $200,000. State A law creates the products-liability claim and imposes a two-year statute of limitations. State A law further provides that, for statute-of-limitations purposes, an action is not considered commenced until the defendant is served with process, not merely when the complaint is filed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 states that a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, but the Rule does not address whether filing alone satisfies a state statute of limitations. The consumer filed the complaint one day before the two-year period expired but did not serve the manufacturer until 45 days later. The manufacturer moves to dismiss the action as time-barred under State A law, and the consumer argues that filing the complaint satisfied Federal Rule 3 and therefore tolled the statute of limitations. Which of the following best states the rule the federal court should apply?