The Erie doctrine in federal court Practice Questions

Question 1

A patient sued a physician in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, seeking $300,000 for alleged medical negligence. The forum state's statute requires a medical-negligence plaintiff to file an expert affidavit with the complaint. Failure to do so requires dismissal without prejudice. The patient did not file an affidavit. The physician moved to dismiss, arguing that the state requirement applies under Erie. The patient responded that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12 comprehensively govern the sufficiency of a federal complaint and do not require an expert affidavit. No party disputes that Rules 8 and 12 are valid under the Rules Enabling Act and constitutional. Which of the following best states the rule the federal court should apply?

Accepted Answer

Apply the Federal Rules because they directly govern pleading requirements and are valid under the Rules Enabling Act.

Answer

Apply the state requirement because it is outcome determinative and therefore necessarily substantive under Erie.

Answer

Apply the state requirement because federal courts must use state pleading rules for state-law claims.

Answer

Apply the Federal Rules only if the plaintiff could not reasonably obtain the required affidavit before filing.

Question 2

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare a persuasive memorandum supporting Greenway Analytics's motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a fraudulent-inducement claim against DataForge, Inc.

Question 3

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare an objective memorandum to the supervising attorney assessing Park's jury-demand deadline, the effect of the proposed new claim on jury rights, the likely amendment ruling, and the improvements needed in the motion.

Question 4

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare a persuasive memorandum assessing whether Harbor Medical Supply LLC should move to remand the removed action to state court. Address federal-question jurisdiction, diversity citizenship, the amount in controversy, removal procedure, the strongest defense arguments, and the factual investigation that should occur before filing.

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Question 8

A citizen of State A sued a corporation incorporated and headquartered in State B in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, seeking $500,000 for injuries caused by an allegedly defective product. State A law permits compensatory damages but provides that punitive damages are unavailable in product-liability actions. No federal statute or Federal Rule addresses the availability of punitive damages. The plaintiff nevertheless requested punitive damages, arguing that federal courts traditionally exercise discretion over remedies and that allowing punitive damages would encourage careful manufacturing. The corporation moved to strike the punitive-damages request. Which of the following is the strongest argument supporting the corporation's motion?

Accepted Answer

The state restriction governs because it defines the available remedy and disregarding it could produce materially different outcomes in state and federal court.

Answer

The state restriction governs because federal courts must apply every state rule whenever jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of citizenship.

Answer

Federal law governs because the requested relief appears in a pleading, and pleading matters are necessarily procedural under federal law.

Answer

Federal law governs because a federal court may disregard state law when the court believes a different remedy would advance deterrence.

Question 9

A citizen of State A purchased an electric bicycle through a retailer's interactive website while at home in State A. The retailer is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State B. It has no property or employees in State A, but it ships hundreds of bicycles there annually, advertises free delivery to State A, and provides remote warranty service to State A customers. The bicycle's battery allegedly malfunctioned while the customer was riding near her home in State A, causing serious injuries. She sued the retailer in a federal district court in State A, seeking $180,000 under state products-liability law. The retailer timely moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Which of the following is the customer's strongest argument that the court may exercise personal jurisdiction?

Accepted Answer

The court may exercise specific jurisdiction because the claim arises from the retailer's deliberate sales and support activities directed to the forum state.

Answer

The court may exercise general jurisdiction because substantial recurring sales make the retailer at home in every state where it conducts business.

Answer

The court lacks personal jurisdiction because the customer's injury occurred outside the forum state, even though the product was purchased and used there.

Answer

The court lacks personal jurisdiction unless the retailer owns property or maintains employees in the forum state.

The Erie doctrine in federal court — MCQs

The Erie doctrine in federal court — MCQs

Want unlimited practice?