Civil Procedure (Exam-level) Question Pack - Questions

1. A national rental car company was sued in federal district court in State A by a resident of that state, who claimed the company breached a vehicle insurance guarantee after a collision. The rental agreement was executed online while the plaintiff was booking a car in State B for use during a vacation. After the accident occurred in State B, the plaintiff returned to State A and attempted to file a claim locally. The company denied coverage, citing limitations in the contract and asserting that claim processing must occur through its main office in State B.

The plaintiff filed suit in State A, seeking both reimbursement and damages for breach of contract. The rental company is incorporated in State C and maintains its principal place of business in State B, but operates franchise locations nationwide, including four locations in State A. Its website allows users to book vehicles from anywhere in the country, and rental terms are displayed during checkout.

The company moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the accident and contract performance occurred entirely outside State A. The plaintiff opposed, citing continuous operations in the forum, national advertising, and the availability of online reservations within State A.

How should the court rule on the motion?

Deny the motion, because the company purposefully availed itself of State A through its interactive website and business operations.
Grant the motion, because the plaintiff’s claim arises from events that occurred solely in State B.
Deny the motion, because nationwide companies are automatically subject to jurisdiction in any state where they operate.
Grant the motion, because the plaintiff voluntarily agreed to contract terms governed by State B law.

2. A plaintiff brought suit against a security contractor in federal court, alleging breach of contract and negligence after a warehouse robbery resulted in significant losses. The contractor had installed security cameras and alarm systems but allegedly failed to properly configure motion sensors, allowing the break-in to go undetected. The plaintiff claimed over $500,000 in damages and filed the complaint in the federal district where the warehouse is located.

The contractor, headquartered in another state and incorporated elsewhere, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the contract disclaimed liability for losses caused by criminal acts and limited recovery to the cost of equipment. The plaintiff responded by highlighting allegations of improper installation and careless oversight, asserting that negligence operated independently from the limitation clause.

The district court must determine whether the complaint sufficiently states claims to survive the motion and proceed to discovery.

Which is the strongest basis for denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion?

The plaintiff’s allegations, if true, plausibly support liability based on conduct beyond the scope of the limitation clause.
The complaint should be read liberally in favor of the plaintiff at the summary judgment stage.
The court should deny the motion because limitations of liability are unenforceable in cases involving negligence.
The plaintiff’s damages exceed the amount disclaimed in the contract and therefore support jurisdiction.

3. A university student filed suit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that her First Amendment rights were violated when the school disciplined her for a social media post. The institution is a private college incorporated in State B but receives federal funding and enforces a speech code applicable to students on campus and online. The student, a resident of State A, attended remotely and posted her statement from State A. The disciplinary hearing was conducted virtually, and sanctions included suspension from academic activities.

The college moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing it does not operate any physical facilities in State A and that the student voluntarily chose to attend from out of state. The student opposed the motion by citing the college’s recruitment of State A students, online advertising targeting State A residents, and the enforcement of disciplinary rules within the forum.

The district court must decide whether the college’s actions establish personal jurisdiction in State A.

What is the most persuasive argument in favor of the student?

The college has sufficient minimum contacts with State A based on enrollment and targeted online marketing.
Personal jurisdiction is proper because the college receives federal funding and is subject to constitutional claims.
Physical presence in the state is unnecessary when virtual misconduct affects a forum resident.
A federal claim under § 1983 creates automatic jurisdiction in any forum where harm occurred.

4. A small business filed a federal diversity action against a supplier, claiming breach of contract for failure to deliver high-speed routers required under a service agreement. The complaint alleged damages of $80,000 and stated that the contract included integrated warranties and a fixed delivery schedule. The supplier, incorporated in a different state, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that the amount in controversy was not properly supported and that federal jurisdiction was not established.

The plaintiff attached purchase orders and invoices totaling $80,000 and asserted that additional losses from canceled projects and substitute vendors exceeded the threshold. The supplier responded that only tangible contract damages should count and that speculative losses cannot establish jurisdiction.

The court must determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

What is the strongest ground for retaining jurisdiction?

The plaintiff alleged breach damages exceeding $75,000 and supported the claim with documentation.
Supplemental jurisdiction allows the federal court to hear contract disputes even when the amount is unclear.
Rule 12(b)(1) motions require dismissal only when federal question jurisdiction is lacking.
Federal courts always have jurisdiction over interstate contracts between citizens of different states.

5. A building inspector sued a municipal zoning board in federal district court, alleging that his professional license had been revoked in violation of his constitutional due process rights. The inspector, a longtime employee with nearly two decades of experience, claimed the board revoked his credentials without advance notice and failed to provide a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. According to the complaint, the board's decision led to the loss of income, reputational harm, and difficulty obtaining alternative certification in neighboring jurisdictions.

In its answer, the zoning board asserted that it followed all procedures required under local administrative regulations and attached documentation showing notice of hearing dates, transcripts from review meetings, and email communications sent to the inspector. It then moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing that the materials conclusively demonstrated procedural compliance. The inspector opposed the motion but did not include any affidavits, declarations, or exhibits to challenge the board’s evidence. Instead, his response relied on the complaint alone and asserted that procedural questions must be resolved at trial.

The court must now determine whether summary judgment is appropriate based on the evidence presented.

What is the most likely outcome?

Summary judgment will be denied, because credibility issues must always be resolved by a jury.
Summary judgment will be granted, because the zoning board established undisputed procedural compliance.
Summary judgment will be denied, because constitutional claims cannot be resolved without oral testimony.
Summary judgment will be granted, because the inspector failed to present evidence showing a genuine dispute.

6. A furniture retailer filed a federal action against a supplier, alleging breach of contract for failing to deliver custom orders. The retailer, based in State A, entered into a written agreement with the supplier, which is incorporated in State B and maintains distribution centers in several states. The supplier allegedly missed multiple delivery deadlines, forcing the retailer to cancel customer orders and suffer financial losses exceeding $150,000.

Alongside the complaint, the retailer submitted invoices, correspondence, and a copy of the purchase agreement. The supplier moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the complaint included only state-law claims and failed to raise any federal question. The retailer responded by pointing to diversity of citizenship and the damages pleaded, asserting that federal jurisdiction was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The district court must assess whether it has jurisdiction over the case and whether the action may proceed in federal court.

What is the most appropriate ruling?

Dismiss the case, because state-law claims are not sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction.
Retain the case, because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Dismiss the case, because federal courts may not hear breach-of-contract disputes unless federal law is implicated.
Retain the case, because the supplier operates distribution centers across state lines and is subject to federal oversight.

7. A plaintiff filed suit in federal court against a software consultant, alleging misrepresentation during a contract negotiation. The complaint stated that the consultant exaggerated his qualifications and delivered unusable code. After the defendant filed an answer, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add a claim for fraud and to include newly discovered emails that allegedly show deliberate deception.

The original scheduling order included a deadline for amended pleadings that passed three weeks prior. The defendant opposed the amendment, arguing that the plaintiff had the emails earlier and failed to act within the court’s timeline. The plaintiff responded that the significance of the emails only became clear after expert review and that the amendment would not alter the trial timeline.

The court must determine whether to allow the amended complaint after the deadline.

What is the best rationale for granting the amendment?

Rule 15 allows amendments at any time to correct pleadings.
Rule 16 permits amendment after the deadline if the party shows good cause for delay.
Rule 26 supports late amendment if new evidence arises during discovery.
Rule 12 protects pleading modifications unless they prejudice the opposing party.

8. A food distributor filed suit in federal court against a packaging company, claiming negligence after receiving contaminated containers that led to a massive product recall. The complaint was filed in State A, where the distributor is headquartered. The packaging company is incorporated in State B and operates its primary manufacturing facility in State B, but has satellite offices in several states including State A.

The packaging company moved to transfer venue to federal court in State B, arguing that its witnesses, documents, and production records are located there. The distributor opposed the motion, arguing that its business operations and primary losses occurred in State A, and that multiple local employees would be required to testify.

The district court must evaluate whether to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

What is the most appropriate ruling?

Deny the motion, because the plaintiff’s choice of forum receives substantial deference.
Grant the motion, because the defendant’s location and access to evidence justify transfer.
Deny the motion, because the distributor's headquarters is in State A and that supports venue.
Grant the motion, because the manufacturing facility is in State B and all misconduct occurred there.

9. A homeowner sued a construction contractor in federal court, alleging that faulty electrical wiring installed during a renovation caused damage to appliances and posed fire risks. The homeowner requested extensive discovery, including inspection reports, photos from other job sites, and notes from subcontractors who worked under the contractor over the past five years. The contractor objected to producing materials from unrelated projects, arguing they were outside the scope of permissible discovery.

The homeowner moved to compel, asserting that evidence of a pattern of negligence or improper wiring techniques would support her claim. The contractor responded that prior projects had no relation to the home in question and would involve irrelevant documents and testimony.

The court must determine whether discovery from other job sites is appropriate.

What is the strongest argument in favor of the homeowner’s request?

Rule 26 permits discovery of similar prior acts when used to prove knowledge or routine practice.
Rule 33 allows broad interrogatories covering any subject matter the plaintiff chooses.
Rule 11 entitles the plaintiff to challenge industry standards used by the contractor.
Rule 34 requires production of all files, regardless of their relevance, if requested.

10. A plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in a federal commercial fraud action. The defendant responded by arguing that the case involved credibility questions and should be decided at trial. The plaintiff attached records showing wire transfers, altered invoices, and email exchanges suggesting intentional misstatements. The defendant denied wrongdoing and asserted that her statements were misinterpreted.

The district court held that no genuine dispute of material fact existed and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, arguing that credibility issues must always be resolved by a jury and that summary judgment was improper.

How should the appellate court respond?

Reverse the judgment, because summary judgment may never be granted in cases involving disputed intent.
Affirm the judgment, because the defendant failed to introduce evidence contradicting the plaintiff’s records.
Reverse the judgment, because discovery was incomplete and the record was insufficient.
Affirm the judgment, because summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine factual dispute exists, even when intent is at issue.

11. A physician, domiciled in State A, was sued for medical malpractice in federal court by a former patient who resides in State B. The injury occurred during treatment provided while the patient was temporarily visiting State A for business. The complaint alleged negligence under State A law and sought $250,000 in damages.

The physician moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, claiming that although the procedure occurred in State A, the patient was not a permanent resident and the physician had no contacts with State B. The court denied the motion, concluding that the physician’s act of treating the patient in State A provided a sufficient basis for jurisdiction.

After discovery concluded and trial was set, the physician filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of personal jurisdiction.

What is the appropriate ruling on the physician’s appeal?

The appeal should be heard because the issue concerns constitutional limits on jurisdiction.
The appeal should be heard because a reversal would terminate the action.
The appeal should not be heard because interlocutory appeals of jurisdictional denials are not permitted.
The appeal should not be heard because the issue was fully litigated and resolved in the trial court.

12. A plaintiff sued two corporate defendants in federal court in State C, alleging breach of contract and seeking $500,000 in damages. The plaintiff is a citizen of State C. One defendant is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State C. The other is incorporated in State D and has its principal place of business in State E.

The defendant from State D filed a notice of removal to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that because one defendant is a citizen of the forum state, removal is barred.

The district court must rule on the motion to remand.

What is the best basis for granting the motion?

Removal was improper because state-law claims cannot be heard in federal court.
Removal was improper because all defendants did not join in the notice.
Removal was improper because a forum-state defendant is present.
Removal was improper because the removing party is not diverse from the plaintiff.

13. A plaintiff filed suit in federal court for injuries allegedly caused by defective playground equipment. During discovery, the plaintiff served the defendant with 30 interrogatories, including both factual questions and contention interrogatories about legal theories. The interrogatories stated they were due in 30 days.

The defendant objected and moved for a protective order, asserting that contention interrogatories were premature and that the volume exceeded allowable limits. The plaintiff argued that contention questions are appropriate and early answers would expedite case resolution.

How should the court rule?

Grant the motion, because the interrogatories exceeded the permitted number.
Grant the motion, because contention interrogatories are improper before depositions.
Deny the motion, because interrogatories may be served at any time.
Deny the motion, because interrogatories may properly include legal contentions.

14. A plaintiff sued for breach of a construction contract and presented evidence at trial including project timelines and unpaid invoices. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, claiming insufficient evidence. The motion was denied, and the case proceeded to verdict for the plaintiff.

The defendant then filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.

What standard should the court apply in ruling on the renewed motion?

Whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
Whether any reasonable jury could have found for the plaintiff.
Whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed.
Whether the plaintiff presented more than a scintilla of evidence.

15. A plaintiff sued a police officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court, alleging excessive force during an arrest. The officer asserted qualified immunity and resisted discovery, claiming that his status should shield him from litigation burdens. The district court granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel production of use-of-force reports and internal disciplinary records.

The officer filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that discovery should not proceed while his qualified immunity claim remained unresolved.

Should the appellate court hear the appeal?

No, because discovery orders are not subject to interlocutory appeal.
Yes, because qualified immunity includes protection from the burdens of discovery.
Yes, because the documents requested are likely privileged.
No, because the officer has not yet prevailed on the immunity defense.

16. A motorist filed a personal injury suit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, alleging injuries from a truck accident on an interstate highway. The motorist was a citizen of State A; the truck driver was a citizen of State B, and the trucking company was incorporated and headquartered in State B. The complaint alleged negligence and sought $300,000 in damages.

In its answer, the trucking company admitted ownership of the truck but denied liability. During pretrial proceedings, the motorist sought to amend the complaint to add a second driver — another employee of the trucking company — whom discovery revealed may have contributed to the accident. The second driver was a citizen of State A, the same as the plaintiff.

The trucking company opposed the amendment, arguing that adding a non-diverse party would destroy federal jurisdiction. The motorist argued that joinder was necessary for complete relief, and that the timing did not unfairly delay the proceedings.

What is the best framework for the court to use in evaluating the proposed joinder?

Whether the claims against the second driver arise under the same transaction and share common legal or factual questions.
Whether the amendment states a plausible claim and can survive a motion to dismiss.
Whether the second driver is indispensable under Rule 19 and joinder would divest the court of jurisdiction.
Whether the amendment would prejudice the defendants by requiring new discovery and altering the scope of trial.

17. A plaintiff sued a chain retail store in federal court for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall at one of its stores. The store filed an answer denying negligence and asserting contributory fault. During voir dire, the plaintiff’s attorney attempted to question prospective jurors about their shopping habits and experiences at similar stores, intending to assess potential bias.

The defendant objected, arguing that the questions were irrelevant and risked prejudicing the jury. The court sustained some objections but allowed general questions about retail familiarity. The jury was empaneled without further incident.

At trial, the plaintiff introduced testimony from a retail safety expert and photos of the spill site taken the day after the incident. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that improper restriction of voir dire affected the fairness of jury selection.

What is the appropriate standard for evaluating the new trial motion?

Whether any juror exhibited actual bias warranting removal.
Whether the court committed reversible error in limiting voir dire.
Whether the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence.
Whether the limitation of voir dire created manifest injustice requiring retrial.

18. A defendant filed a motion to dismiss in federal court under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had misused funds from a business partnership, but the complaint did not specify the nature of the fiduciary relationship or the actions taken.

The defendant contended that the allegations were vague and conclusory, with no dates, transactions, or specific duties described. The plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting that discovery would reveal necessary detail and that the complaint sufficiently notified the defendant of the claim.

The court must determine whether dismissal is appropriate at this stage.

What is the proper standard for evaluating the motion?

Whether the allegations, if true, support relief under any legal theory.
Whether the plaintiff pleaded each element of the claim with particularity.
Whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly–Iqbal standard.
Whether the defendant can show that no evidence supports the claim.

19. A federal jury returned a verdict against a defendant for employment discrimination under federal law. The defendant filed a posttrial motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), which the court denied. The defendant also filed a Rule 59 motion for a new trial, asserting that the jury instructions on disparate impact were erroneous and improperly framed the legal standard.

The trial judge acknowledged that the instructions were ambiguous but concluded that, taken as a whole, they adequately conveyed the applicable law. The defendant appealed, arguing that the instructional error warrants reversal.

On appeal, what standard of review should the appellate court apply?

De novo review, because legal accuracy of jury instructions is a question of law.
Abuse of discretion, because instruction formulation is committed to the trial court’s sound judgment.
Clear error, because the findings of fact underlying the instructions are disputed.
Harmless error, because instructional mistakes are not grounds for reversal unless prejudicial.

20. A plaintiff prevailed at trial in federal court and was awarded damages for breach of contract. The defendant had defaulted by failing to answer the complaint, and the court entered judgment after a hearing. Later, the defendant moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), asserting that the failure to respond was due to a clerical mistake at its registered agent’s office and that it had a meritorious defense.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, citing the passage of four months since judgment and arguing that the defendant had shown no diligence in discovering or correcting the error. The court scheduled a hearing to consider whether vacating the default was appropriate.

What must the defendant establish to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(1)?

That the plaintiff will not be prejudiced by reopening the case.
That the default resulted from excusable neglect and the defense has merit.
That the judgment was void due to lack of jurisdiction over the defendant.
That the default was entered before the time to respond had expired.

21. A passenger sued a regional airline in federal court, alleging that she was wrongfully removed from a flight after raising a medical concern. The complaint stated claims for breach of contract and emotional distress, and sought damages of $90,000. The airline filed an answer denying liability. During early disclosures, the passenger requested records from the flight crew’s incident log and internal communication sent before her removal. The airline refused, citing airline policy and confidentiality of safety-related notes.

The passenger filed a motion to compel under Rule 37, arguing that the documents were relevant to her claims and that the airline’s internal policies did not justify nondisclosure under federal discovery rules. The airline asserted that the requested material was privileged under federal aviation regulations and that disclosure could chill internal reporting.

The court must decide whether to order production of the incident records.

How should the court evaluate the airline’s objection to disclosure?

By determining whether the information is relevant to a party’s claim and not protected by any privilege recognized under Rule 26.
By determining whether the information would be admissible at trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
By determining whether the information is discoverable only if used to refresh recollection or for impeachment.
By determining whether federal aviation policy exempts the airline from complying with general discovery procedures.

22. A plaintiff filed a federal suit against a manufacturing company under diversity jurisdiction for injuries allegedly caused by a defective component. The defendant answered and denied liability. Eight months later, the defendant moved to transfer venue to a different federal district where the component was manufactured, arguing that most witnesses and documents were located there.

The plaintiff opposed transfer, stating that the original forum was the site of the injury and that litigation had already proceeded significantly, including depositions and expert reports. The defendant replied that logistical burdens justified a late-stage transfer.

The court must determine whether transfer is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

What is the most important consideration in ruling on the motion?

The plaintiff’s choice of forum, which should be given controlling weight.
The location of manufacturing employees and technical documents.
The interests of justice and convenience of parties and witnesses.
The stage of the litigation and extent of discovery already completed.

23. A plaintiff brought a federal employment discrimination suit under Title VII. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded damages. In posttrial motions, the defendant argued that the jury instructions misstated the burden of proof and that the verdict was tainted by confusion. The district judge agreed that one instruction had been unclear but found no prejudice and denied a new trial.

On appeal, the defendant challenged the instructions and requested reversal of the verdict. The court of appeals agreed that the instruction misstated the law but noted that the jury had also been given multiple correct statements and that the plaintiff’s burden was otherwise properly explained.

What is the likely outcome on appeal?

The appellate court will reverse because legal error in instructions mandates retrial.
The appellate court will reverse only if the error affected the outcome of the trial.
The appellate court will affirm, because juries are presumed to follow multiple instructions.
The appellate court will remand for clarification of the correct burden of proof.

24. A defendant defaulted in a federal breach-of-contract suit by failing to respond to the complaint. The plaintiff moved for default judgment under Rule 55, and the court entered judgment in the amount requested. Forty-five days later, the defendant filed a Rule 60(b)(1) motion for relief, arguing that the failure to respond was due to misrouting of legal mail and inadvertent administrative oversight. The defendant asserted a meritorious defense based on contract termination documents discovered after judgment.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, noting that the defendant had received actual notice and delayed for over a month, and that its defense had not been presented until after losing. The court held a hearing to evaluate whether relief from judgment should be granted.

What is the best standard for deciding the motion?

Whether the judgment was void due to lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the defendant showed excusable neglect and a plausible defense.
Whether the defendant acted within 30 days of the entry of judgment.
Whether the plaintiff would be prejudiced by reopening the case.

25. In a federal civil trial, the plaintiff introduced evidence of prior safety violations to support a negligence claim against a product manufacturer. The defendant objected, arguing that the evidence was inadmissible character evidence and irrelevant to the incident at issue. The court overruled the objection and allowed limited testimony regarding earlier regulatory citations.

At the close of trial, the defendant requested a jury instruction stating that prior violations may not be considered as proof of negligence in the current case. The court declined, reasoning that the evidence was admitted for limited purposes and the general instructions on relevance were sufficient.

The defendant appealed, arguing that failure to issue the requested instruction affected the fairness of the verdict.

What standard of review will the appellate court apply?

De novo, because evidentiary rulings are legal conclusions.
Abuse of discretion, because the trial judge controls jury instructions and evidentiary scope.
Clear error, because the judge made factual determinations about prejudicial impact.
Plain error, because the defendant failed to preserve the issue at trial.

26. A plaintiff sued a bicycle manufacturer in federal court, alleging that the frame of a bicycle cracked during use, causing severe injury. The complaint asserted negligence and product liability claims under state law, and sought damages in excess of $100,000. The defendant answered and proceeded with discovery. At the close of discovery, the plaintiff sought to add a new claim for breach of implied warranty, based on recent depositions suggesting that the manufacturer had assured retailers of product reliability.

The manufacturer opposed the amendment, arguing that discovery had concluded, trial was scheduled, and adding a new theory at this late stage would require new expert reports and depositions. The plaintiff responded that the proposed warranty claim relied on evidence already disclosed and would not unduly delay proceedings.

The court must decide whether to permit the plaintiff to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a)(2).

What is the most important consideration?

Whether the amendment states a claim that would survive a motion to dismiss.
Whether the amendment is based on newly discovered information.
Whether the amendment would cause undue delay or prejudice the defendant.
Whether the original complaint included sufficient factual detail to support the new claim.

27. A plaintiff filed suit in federal court against a construction firm and its subcontractor, asserting negligence and breach of duty in connection with a building collapse. The subcontractor filed a crossclaim against the construction firm for indemnification. After motions practice, the construction firm settled with the plaintiff and was dismissed from the case. The subcontractor sought to continue pursuing its crossclaim for indemnification.

The construction firm objected, stating that the dismissal removed it from the litigation and that no judgment had been entered against the subcontractor. The subcontractor argued that the indemnification obligation was independent and contractual, and should be resolved within the pending action.

The court must determine whether the subcontractor’s crossclaim may proceed.

How should the court assess the viability of the crossclaim?

By determining whether the subcontractor faces liability in the current case that would trigger indemnification.
By determining whether the construction firm and subcontractor are diverse parties.
By determining whether the subcontractor can assert supplemental jurisdiction over the indemnity claim.
By determining whether the construction firm’s dismissal eliminates the basis for continued crossclaims.

28. A plaintiff sued a logistics company for breach of contract in federal court. During trial, the plaintiff introduced emails and invoices showing delayed shipments and lost profits. The defendant presented testimony that weather disruptions and global supply shortages had impaired delivery. The case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

The defendant filed a motion for new trial under Rule 59, arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court reviewed the trial record and found that while the evidence was close, the jury could reasonably have reached the result. The defendant appealed, asserting that the district judge erred in failing to grant the new trial.

What is the appropriate standard of appellate review?

De novo, because the trial court failed to evaluate the full record.
Clear error, because factual issues were in dispute.
Abuse of discretion, because new trial rulings fall within the trial judge’s discretion.
Harmless error, because the outcome was supported by substantial evidence.

29. A party served requests for production on its opponent in a federal case, seeking internal communications relating to marketing and customer complaints. The responding party objected on the basis of attorney–client privilege and provided a detailed privilege log listing document titles, authors, and recipients. The requesting party filed a motion challenging the privilege designation, asserting that many communications included non-lawyer recipients and discussed business strategies rather than legal advice.

The responding party argued that inclusion of in-house counsel in these emails established privilege and that legal oversight was involved in all strategic discussions. The court must rule on whether the documents are protected under the attorney–client privilege.

What is the correct framework for assessing privilege in this context?

Whether the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation under the work-product doctrine.
Whether the communications were made confidentially for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.
Whether in-house counsel participated in the communications at any point.
Whether the communications were made within the scope of the parties’ commercial relationship.

30. A plaintiff brought a federal suit against two defendants, claiming they conspired to defraud him in a land deal. One defendant answered and actively litigated. The other failed to appear, and the plaintiff obtained a default judgment against him. At trial, the remaining defendant argued that the default judgment against the co-defendant was invalid and should not influence the jury.

The plaintiff introduced the default judgment and asserted that it proved joint liability. The court allowed mention of the default but instructed the jury that they must independently assess liability against the appearing defendant.

After the verdict, the defendant appealed, claiming that the admission of the default judgment was prejudicial.

How should the appellate court evaluate the trial court’s decision?

The trial court erred because default judgments cannot be used to establish co-defendant liability.
The trial court erred unless the default was certified by the clerk and admitted properly.
The trial court acted within its discretion by limiting the jury’s reliance on the default judgment.
The trial court acted improperly by allowing reference to a judgment not subject to adversarial testing.

31. A plaintiff filed a federal civil suit against a shipping company, alleging breach of contract and conversion after the company failed to deliver valuable artwork to a client overseas. The complaint alleged that the company rerouted the shipment without authorization, leading to the artwork’s loss. The plaintiff’s claims were based entirely on state law, and both parties were citizens of different states.

During the proceedings, the plaintiff filed a motion to add two new claims under the federal Carmack Amendment, which governs liability of carriers for loss or damage to goods during interstate shipping. The defendant opposed the amendment and simultaneously moved to dismiss the state-law conversion claim, arguing federal law preempted state remedies in this context.

The court must decide whether the conversion claim can proceed alongside the newly added federal claim.

What is the correct approach to resolving this dispute?

The court must determine whether federal preemption eliminates supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
The court must determine whether federal law completely displaces state causes of action governing carrier liability.
The court must determine whether the state-law claim shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim.
The court must determine whether the plaintiff voluntarily waived federal jurisdiction by filing state-law claims.

32. A plaintiff filed suit in federal court against a pharmaceutical company for injuries allegedly caused by a newly marketed drug. The complaint asserted a claim for failure to warn and included expert testimony about clinical trial data. The company responded with its own expert disputing the causal link and filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that no genuine issue of material fact remained.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and submitted a declaration from a treating physician referencing medical records and past FDA bulletins. The defendant replied that the declaration lacked scientific rigor and failed to comply with Daubert standards for expert evidence.

The court must decide whether the summary judgment motion can be resolved without trial.

What is the court’s proper role at this stage?

To weigh the credibility of competing experts and resolve disputed facts.
To determine whether the plaintiff’s evidence creates a genuine dispute requiring resolution at trial.
To exclude any evidence that lacks formal peer review or publication.
To determine whether the defendant has met its burden to disprove the plaintiff’s theory of liability.

33. A state-owned university was sued in federal court by a research employee who alleged retaliation under federal whistleblower protections. The university moved to dismiss, claiming Eleventh Amendment immunity barred suit in federal court. The plaintiff argued that the university had waived immunity by participating in federal grant programs and accepting federal funds tied to regulatory compliance.

The court considered the university’s status, the nature of the programs involved, and statements made in its grant applications committing to follow federal rules. The university argued that these administrative representations did not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

What is the proper framework for resolving the immunity issue?

Whether the university acted as an arm of the state in managing its research programs.
Whether the university’s participation in federal programs constituted an express waiver of immunity.
Whether the university implicitly waived immunity by accepting federal funding.
Whether the university violated constitutional rights by enforcing retaliatory policies.

34. A federal district court conducted a bench trial in a contract case. After hearing all testimony and reviewing exhibits, the judge ruled orally from the bench in favor of the defendant and directed that judgment be entered. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law required under Rule 52(a).

The defendant contended that the judge’s oral ruling sufficiently explained the reasoning and that formal findings were unnecessary because the case involved straightforward facts.

What is the best ground for evaluating the appeal?

The appellate court must remand unless findings were issued in writing.
The judgment may stand if the court’s oral ruling made its factual and legal conclusions clear.
The judgment must be vacated because oral rulings never satisfy Rule 52(a).
The appeal must be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to request findings at trial.

35. A plaintiff filed a class action in federal court under Rule 23(b)(3), alleging deceptive practices by a national retail chain. The proposed class included all purchasers nationwide of a product marketed with allegedly misleading claims. The defendant opposed certification, arguing that consumer protection laws varied significantly across states and that common issues did not predominate.

The plaintiff argued that the deceptive conduct and corporate practices were uniform, and that damages could be measured by the same formula. The court held a certification hearing and reviewed marketing materials, expert testimony, and survey data.

What is the critical inquiry for Rule 23(b)(3) certification in this case?

Whether all members of the class suffered the same amount of damages.
Whether the proposed class representatives have standing to sue.
Whether questions common to the class predominate over individual ones.
Whether the court can efficiently manage notice and opt-out procedures.

36. A journalist sued a city’s police department in federal court, alleging violations of her First and Fourth Amendment rights after she was detained while covering a protest. She claimed officers unlawfully seized her camera equipment and deleted footage without a warrant. The city denied all allegations and asserted qualified immunity. The parties engaged in discovery, which revealed internal emails referencing concern about press coverage and orders to “clear media from the area.”

The journalist moved for partial summary judgment on liability, arguing that the seizure violated clearly established constitutional rights. The city opposed the motion, asserting that the officers acted under exigent circumstances and that qualified immunity protected them from suit. Both parties submitted declarations and documentation relating to the sequence of events and official directives.

At the hearing, the court noted factual disputes about what officers knew and whether the journalist was visibly identified as press. The court declined to rule immediately and requested supplemental briefing.

How should the court evaluate the journalist’s motion for partial summary judgment?

By determining whether material facts are disputed and preclude ruling on the legal issues.
By determining whether qualified immunity was waived by official policy.
By determining whether the police acted pursuant to a municipal ordinance authorizing seizure.
By determining whether the journalist’s rights were violated beyond a reasonable doubt.

37. A homeowner filed suit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, alleging negligence against a home inspection company. He claimed that faulty inspection of the electrical system led to a fire six months after purchase. The inspector moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim because it did not allege any specific error committed during the inspection and relied solely on the fire’s timing.

In response, the plaintiff submitted the inspection report and pointed to several observations flagged as “acceptable” that, according to a fire marshal’s report, later proved defective. The court agreed that the original complaint lacked detail but granted the plaintiff leave to amend.

The amended complaint included factual allegations about the inspection procedures, direct quotes from the inspector’s report, and references to follow-up emails exchanged with the realtor and inspection manager. The defendant renewed the motion to dismiss, arguing the amended complaint still lacked plausibility under the applicable standard.

What legal test should the court apply to the amended complaint?

Whether the allegations would support any conceivable legal theory.
Whether the allegations present a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief.
Whether the plaintiff's theory is supported by expert evidence.

38. A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of purchasers of a dietary supplement, alleging false advertising under state consumer protection statutes. The manufacturer opposed certification under Rule 23, arguing that individual issues — including reliance, purchase context, and damages — predominated over common questions. The plaintiff countered that the advertising was uniform and the same claims were made in every state, creating a shared basis for liability.

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and reviewed deposition transcripts from marketing executives and consumer survey data. The court noted variations in labeling practices across regional distributors and different consumer interpretations based on packaging.

After weighing the evidence, the court denied certification.

What was the most likely basis for the court’s denial?

The proposed class representatives lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of others.
The relief sought was primarily injunctive and did not support a Rule 23(b)(3) action.
The common questions did not predominate over individualized determinations.
The class members failed to assert a federal claim, making certification improper.

39. A plaintiff filed a federal action for breach of contract against a marketing consultant, alleging that she failed to deliver the agreed number of digital advertisements during a promotional campaign. The complaint claimed $125,000 in lost revenue and detailed multiple email confirmations of contract terms. The consultant moved to transfer venue to a different federal district, arguing that she resided and did all work in another state and that the contract had no connection to the original forum.

The plaintiff opposed transfer, stating that the advertisements targeted users in the original forum and that the contract specified no particular venue. The court reviewed affidavits and supporting materials on performance location, intended audience, and logistical hardship.

What is the key question under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) when evaluating the transfer request?

Whether the case could have originally been brought in the proposed transferee forum.
Whether the parties explicitly waived venue defenses by contract.
Whether transfer would better serve the policy goals of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whether the defendant’s residence makes transfer mandatory under the venue statute.

40. A plaintiff sued a product distributor in federal court after suffering injury from an allegedly defective fitness device. He sought damages and included claims for negligence and strict liability. During trial, the distributor attempted to shift blame to the foreign manufacturer and introduced testimony that it had no control over product design. The plaintiff objected to certain testimony, arguing that the distributor was responsible regardless of manufacturing origin under applicable state law.

The court allowed the evidence, noting that it was relevant to apportionment and comparative fault. In closing argument, the defendant emphasized that any liability should rest with the overseas entity. The plaintiff did not move to add the manufacturer as a party during trial.

After the jury returned a partial verdict for the plaintiff, the plaintiff moved to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) to add the manufacturer as a co-defendant retroactively and seek contribution.

How should the court respond to the plaintiff’s motion?

Deny the motion, because Rule 59(e) does not permit joinder of new parties after trial.
Grant the motion, because the manufacturer was integral to the litigation and could be added for fairness.
Grant the motion, because federal courts may amend judgments to reflect equitable sharing.
Deny the motion, because apportionment is a jury function that cannot be corrected post hoc.

41. A tenant sued the owner of a large apartment complex in federal court, alleging racial discrimination in the refusal to renew her lease. The tenant claimed violations under the Fair Housing Act and sought damages as well as declaratory relief. The landlord denied discriminatory intent and argued that the nonrenewal was based on tenant behavior and property rules. During discovery, the tenant requested internal communications relating to lease renewals and tenant complaints.

The landlord produced selected documents but withheld several emails, citing attorney–client privilege. The tenant challenged the privilege claim, asserting that some communications were between property managers and non-attorney executives discussing operational matters. The landlord responded that the emails were forwarded to legal counsel and that internal legal review had influenced the messaging.

The court must decide whether the disputed emails are protected by privilege.

What is the governing inquiry?

Whether the communications were prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Whether the communications include legal advice or requests for legal guidance.
Whether the communications were forwarded to a lawyer within the organization.
Whether the communications were made pursuant to an employment relationship.

42. A shareholder filed a federal suit against a corporation and its CEO for securities fraud after the value of her holdings dropped following allegedly misleading public statements. The complaint cited multiple press releases and investor calls that misrepresented the company’s earnings. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the statements were optimistic projections and not actionable misrepresentations.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, emphasizing specific inconsistencies between internal earnings forecasts and public disclosures. She also pointed to emails obtained from prior litigation and regulatory investigations. The court must determine whether the complaint satisfies applicable pleading standards under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).

What is the key question?

Whether the plaintiff pleaded fraud with particularity, including scienter and falsity.
Whether the plaintiff identified loss causation and damages with economic precision.
Whether the statements made by the defendants are provably false.
Whether the defendants waived the right to assert forward-looking statement protections.

43. A plaintiff obtained a jury verdict in federal court on claims for invasion of privacy against a media organization. The defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), asserting that the plaintiff failed to establish key elements at trial. The court denied the motion and entered judgment. The defendant appealed, arguing that the verdict was unsupported and that no reasonable jury could have found for the plaintiff.

On appeal, the reviewing court examined the trial transcript and considered whether enough evidence supported the jury’s findings. Although the evidence was conflicting, the jury heard testimony from multiple witnesses and reviewed documentary evidence corroborating the plaintiff’s version.

What standard applies on appeal of the denial of judgment as a matter of law?

Whether the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence.
Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on liability elements.
Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, supports a reasonable jury verdict.
Whether the plaintiff offered more than a scintilla of evidence supporting each claim.

44. A federal lawsuit was filed by a vendor against a government contractor for breach of subcontract. During trial, the vendor introduced evidence of unpaid invoices and communications reflecting delays and order changes. The contractor argued that performance was excused due to late approvals from the federal agency and administrative bottlenecks beyond its control.

After both parties rested, the jury was instructed on breach of contract and mitigation. The contractor proposed a separate instruction that agency-caused delay could excuse breach under government contract principles. The judge declined to issue the requested instruction, concluding that the standard breach instructions adequately covered the defense.

On appeal, the contractor argues that refusal to deliver the requested instruction was reversible error.

What is the appellate court’s likely analysis?

It will reverse if the instruction misstated the law or excluded a valid defense.
It will affirm if the instructions as a whole fairly conveyed the governing legal principles.
It will reverse if the requested instruction concerned a core factual issue disputed at trial.
It will affirm unless the contractor objected contemporaneously and preserved the issue.

45. A plaintiff brought a federal discrimination suit against a private employer under Title VII and prevailed at trial. The employer filed a Rule 59 motion for new trial, asserting that a juror failed to disclose prior employment with a competitor and may have harbored bias. The plaintiff responded that the juror answered all questions honestly and that the prior employment was not concealed, as it was included in the juror questionnaire submitted at the start of voir dire.

The court reviewed the voir dire record and determined that the juror had answered all questions directly and had not volunteered irrelevant employment history unless asked. The employer provided no evidence of actual bias or misconduct.

What is the correct outcome on the Rule 59 motion?

The motion should be granted because juror nondisclosure creates a presumption of bias.
The motion should be denied because the juror’s answers were truthful and no bias is shown.
The motion should be granted unless the plaintiff proves that the verdict was unaffected.
The motion should be denied unless the employer shows the juror acted with intentional deception.

46. A software developer sued her former employer in federal court for breach of contract and misrepresentation, claiming that she had been promised equity in the company as part of her compensation package. The employer denied any such agreement and asserted that all compensation terms were set forth in a written employment contract. During discovery, the developer produced email exchanges with the company’s CEO referencing “a 2% stake” and “ownership incentives once the Series A closes.”

The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the written contract included a merger clause and made no mention of equity, and that any emails were nonbinding preliminary discussions. The developer opposed the motion and submitted a declaration explaining that she relied on the equity representations when accepting the position and turning down other offers.

At the hearing, the court considered whether the merger clause foreclosed reliance on prior representations and whether the email evidence could create a triable issue of fact.

What is the best basis for denying the employer’s summary judgment motion?

The employer’s merger clause is invalid because it did not reference equity.
The employer breached the duty of good faith by excluding equity from the written contract.
The emails constitute a valid contract amendment that supersedes the original agreement.
The email communications and surrounding circumstances create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding misrepresentation and reliance.

47. A plaintiff sued a national rental car company in federal court for wrongful towing of his vehicle, which had been parked in a designated space at a hotel. The complaint alleged conversion and negligent interference with property. The rental company moved to dismiss, asserting that the plaintiff had failed to allege causation, since he did not witness the towing and could not definitively prove who called the tow company.

In opposition, the plaintiff presented hotel security footage showing a rental company employee inspecting the vehicle and making a phone call shortly before the tow truck arrived. He also cited statements from the hotel front desk indicating that the rental company had complained about unauthorized vehicles during that week. The complaint contained allegations linking these facts to the company’s conduct.

The court must rule on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

What standard should guide the court’s decision?

Whether the complaint is consistent with the plaintiff’s best theory of the case.
Whether the complaint alleges facts that, if true, state a plausible claim for relief.
Whether the complaint includes documentary evidence supporting all material allegations.
Whether the plaintiff’s allegations are supported by eyewitness testimony.

48. A passenger on a commuter train filed suit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction against both the transit authority and a third-party maintenance vendor, alleging injuries due to a malfunctioning door. The transit authority cross-claimed against the vendor for indemnification and breach of contract. During trial, the plaintiff settled with the transit authority, and the court dismissed those claims. The vendor moved to dismiss the remaining crossclaim, arguing that once the authority had been dismissed from the case, no claims could remain against it.

The transit authority argued that the indemnification claim remained valid and that the vendor was obligated to cover defense costs and settlement payments under the maintenance contract. The vendor replied that indemnification did not apply because no judgment had been entered, and the authority’s dismissal mooted any contractual recovery.

The court must determine whether the indemnification claim can proceed after settlement and dismissal.

Which analysis is most appropriate?

The crossclaim survives if the transit authority can show actual damages resulting from the vendor’s breach.
The crossclaim must be dismissed unless the vendor participated in the original settlement agreement.
The crossclaim survives only if the court enters judgment allocating fault to the vendor.
The crossclaim must be dismissed because crossclaims cannot proceed once the crossclaimant is dismissed.

49. A homeowner sued a roofing contractor in federal court, asserting breach of warranty after discovering leaks within six months of installation. The contractor moved for summary judgment, arguing that the contract contained a one-year warranty and that the homeowner’s inspection revealed signs of wear unrelated to workmanship. The homeowner countered with photographs of water damage, expert analysis of underlayment defects, and email exchanges in which the contractor acknowledged possible installation problems.

At the summary judgment hearing, the court questioned whether the defect was covered under the limited warranty and whether any ambiguity existed in the scope of protection. The contractor asserted that the warranty applied only to “major structural defects,” while the homeowner argued that any leakage triggered coverage.

How should the court proceed?

Grant summary judgment because the homeowner did not suffer a major structural defect.
Deny summary judgment because the contractor admitted fault in post-installation communications.
Grant summary judgment because express warranties are strictly construed.
Deny summary judgment because ambiguity in the warranty language creates a genuine dispute of material fact.

50. A federal jury returned a verdict against a corporation in a tort action, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiff. The corporation filed a posttrial motion for relief under Rule 60(b), arguing that newly discovered evidence showed the plaintiff had exaggerated medical expenses and withheld documentation about prior injuries. The corporation asserted that the plaintiff’s misrepresentation prejudiced its defense and warranted vacatur of judgment.

The plaintiff responded that all medical records had been disclosed during discovery and that the new evidence consisted only of statements from a former healthcare provider who had not been subpoenaed earlier. The court reviewed the motion and the record, noting that the plaintiff had disclosed the bulk of his treatment and that the defense had chosen not to pursue the former provider.

What is the most appropriate ruling under Rule 60(b)(2)?

Grant the motion, because newly discovered evidence undermines the integrity of the verdict.
Deny the motion, because the evidence could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.
Grant the motion, because concealment of injuries constitutes fraud.
Deny the motion, because Rule 60(b) cannot be used to relitigate issues decided at trial.

Item added to your cart

Civil Procedure (Exam-level) Question Pack - Questions

Country/region