Adaptibar Questions PDF

Problem Set #1 Number of Questions: 12 Question #2250 - The correct answer is C An attorney filed a complaint based on negligence and failure to warn of dangers on behalf of his client, a woman. The allegations were predicated on the theory that the woman, an invitee to a landowner’s premises, was...

Problem Set #1 Number of Questions: 12 Question #2250 - The correct answer is C An attorney filed a complaint based on negligence and failure to warn of dangers on behalf of his client, a woman. The allegations were predicated on the theory that the woman, an invitee to a landowner’s premises, was on a portion of the landowner’s premises that the landowner did not own, but to which the landowner had directed the woman onto, where she was attacked by third parties. When the complaint was filed, it was unclear under the law whether a property owner’s “premises” extended to land that the landowner did not own, but frequently used as a waiting area for his invitees, as in the woman’s claim. The landowner moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, claiming the area in question was not the landowner's “premises” and that it owed no duty to the woman. Along with the motion to dismiss, the landowner moved for sanctions on the ground that the claim was not warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for establishing new law. Should the court grant the landowner’s motion for sanctions? A: Yes, because the woman’s complaint did not make it clear that the claim was supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for expanding the law. B: Yes, because the woman had no good faith claim under any existing law. C: No, because the motion was not made separately, nor did the woman’s attorney have the opportunity to withdraw or correct the complaint. D: No, because the landowner has not alleged that the factual allegations of the complaint are inaccurate. Question #2247 - The correct answer is B A seamstress sued a clothing manufacturer in federal court, alleging that a former manager at the corporation fired her because of her sex, in violation of federal law. The manufacturer’s management did not recall the circumstances of the seamstress’s firing, but its investigation into the matter revealed that some employees recalled a former supervisor complaining about the seamstress’s incompetence. May the manufacturer properly file an answer denying liability? A: Yes, because it would be unreasonable to require the manufacturer to conduct further investigation into the matter. B: Yes, because a denial is proper based on good faith information and belief that the seamstress was not illegally fired on the basis of sex. C: No, because the manufacturer’s records are unclear as to the basis of the seamstress’s termination and the supervisor who fired her no longer works there. D: No, because the only evidence of the seamstress’s incompetence is the hearsay testimony of some employees. Question #2167 - Correct answer C On June 1, 2012, a car manufacturer properly sued a bolt manufacturer in federal court in State A based on diversity. The car manufacturer uses the bolt manufacturer's bolts to secure the wheels on the cars that it makes. The car manufacturer is seeking contractual indemnification for losses it sustained from lawsuits concerning cars whose wheels detached during transit due to faulty bolts. State A law provides a five-year statute of limitations for contract claims and a three-year statute of limitations for tort claims. Under State A law, the statute of limitations for contractual indemnification and tortious contribution lawsuits start to run when the car manufacturer first learns of the faulty bolts. The car manufacturer first learned of the faulty bolts on August 1, 2009. Six months after filing its lawsuit, the car manufacturer decided to amend with a contribution claim against the bolt manufacturer as a result of the faulty bolts. Is the court likely to allow the car manufacturer to add the contribution claim? A: No, because the bolt manufacturer did not know, and should not have known, that the car manufacturer would file a contribution claim against it. B: No, because the car manufacturer did not file its contribution claim within the applicable three-year statute of limitations. C: Yes, because the car manufacturer's contribution claim relates back to the timely-filed indemnification claim. D: Yes, because the car manufacturer filed its lawsuit within the applicable five-year statute of limitations. Question #2389 - The correct answer is B A day before the applicable statutory limitations period expired, a worker filed a federal diversity action for defamation against her former employer, alleging that the employer had falsely and publicly accused her of stealing trade secrets. In describing the events that led to the false accusations, the complaint quoted a statement of a competitor made to the employer about the worker’s alleged theft. During discovery, the worker deposed the competitor. One week after discovery closed, the worker moved to amend the complaint to add the competitor as a defendant. The competitor opposed the motion on the ground that the statutory limitations period had expired. Is the court likely to grant the motion? A: No, because discovery has closed, and the competitor will be prejudiced. B: No, because the amendment would not relate back and thus would be futile. C: Yes, because leave to amend should be freely granted when the underlying action was timely. D: Yes, because the allegations against the competitor arise out of the same factual circumstances and relate back to the allegations in the original complaint. Question #2291 - You correctly answered B Question An insurance company filed suit in federal court against a pharmacy and alleged that the pharmacy engaged in fraud when it submitted claims to be reimbursed for high-priced drugs when, in fact, the pharmacy had filled prescriptions with lower-priced generic substitutes. The insurance company sought to recoup the excess amount it had paid the pharmacy as a result of these alleged fraudulent claims. The complaint did not allege the pharmacy's state of mind in submitting the allegedly fraudulent claims nor did it state the particulars of the various alleged fraudulent claim submissions. The pharmacy moved to dismiss the insurance company's complaint and alleged that the insurance company failed to meet the requirements for this type of pleading. Is the court likely to grant the pharmacy's motion to dismiss? A: Yes, because complaints of fraud require a party to provide specific allegations detailing malice, which the insurance company failed to provide. B: Yes, because complaints of fraud must be pleaded with particularity and the insurance company has failed to meet this requirement. C: No, because the complaint included a short and plain statement of the court’s jurisdiction and showing that the insurance company is entitled to relief. D: No, because the complaint included a short and plain statement showing that the insurance company is entitled to relief. Question #2246 - You correctly answered B A model filed suit against a photographer in federal court, alleging breach of contract and requesting damages. The sole defense available to the photographer was that he was a minor at the time he entered into the contract. Under applicable state law, minors may not enter into enforceable contracts. Before answering, the photographer moved to dismiss the model’s complaint. Is the court likely to grant the photographer’s motion to dismiss? A: No, because he must file an answer denying liability and, at trial, introduce evidence of his age at the time he contracted with the model. B: No, because he must file an answer including the affirmative defense that he was a minor when he entered into the contract. C: Yes, because without any facts supporting the photographer’s capacity, the model’s complaint failed to show that an enforceable contract existed. D: Yes, because the model's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Question #2251 - The correct answer is D A copyright holder of a book sued a corporation in federal court. The book’s author had conducted video interviews and included the accompanying transcripts in the book. The copyright holder claimed that the corporation had been using and distributing the videos over the express objection by the author. Although the copyright holder had not registered a separate copyright for the interview videos, he alleged copyright infringement on the theory that his book copyright extended to the videos as well. In the complaint, the copyright holder explicitly sought a modification of the law. While this lawsuit was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided an unrelated case in which it rejected the same legal argument the copyright holder was making. The corporation moved to dismiss the copyright holder's complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The copyright holder opposed the motion and continued to press the federal district court to accept his legal theory for months after the Supreme Court's decision. The corporation then served the copyright holder a motion for sanctions for failing to plead in good faith. The copyright holder did not withdraw or alter his complaint, and after three weeks, the corporation filed its motion for sanctions with the court. Should the court grant the corporation's motion for sanctions against the copyright holder? A: No, because the copyright holder is entitled to have the court rule on its theory of the case. B: No, because the corporation failed to move for sanctions within a reasonable time after the copyright holder filed its complaint. C: Yes, because the copyright holder knew that existing law did not support his complaint when it was filed. D: Yes, because the copyright holder advocated for a legal position that became frivolous in light of new precedent, and the sanctions motion was filed properly. Question #2292 - You correctly answered B An investor sued a stockbroker in federal court on a federal statutory claim for securities fraud. The stockbroker’s attorney prepared a motion under FRCP 12(b) arguing that the complaint should be dismissed because the statute under which the suit is brought does not allow a private right of action. The day before the stockbroker served the motion, the stockbroker’s attorney learned of a new U.S. Supreme Court decision that held private lawsuits under this particular statute are allowed. May the stockbroker’s attorney still file the motion to dismiss? A: No, because the defense must be raised in an answer to the complaint, not a Rule 12(b) motion. B: No, because Rule 11 prohibits bringing a motion not warranted by existing law or a frivolous argument for modifying existing law. C: Yes, because the stockbroker is not required to certify a pre-answer motion under Rule 11. D: Yes, because it is the responsibility of the investor to make the argument that a private action is still allowed under the statute. Question #2117 - You correctly answered A A pedestrian was struck in a crosswalk by a truck and severely injured. The pedestrian brought a federal diversity action against the driver of the truck, alleging the following in the complaint: "On January 15, 2016, on Broad Street in City A, located in State B, the defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle, striking the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff was physically injured, lost wages or income, suffered physical and mental pain, and incurred medical expenses of $100, 000." The truck driver has moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim, arguing that the complaint lacks sufficient detail. Is the court likely to grant the motion? A: No, because the complaint alleges facts showing plausible entitlement to relief. B: No, because the pedestrian has not had an opportunity to conduct discovery. C: Yes, because the complaint fails to allege facts showing probable entitlement to relief. D: Yes, because the complaint uses the term ""negligently,"" which is a legal conclusion. Question #2168 - You correctly answered C On July 29, 2012, a car manufacturer filed a lawsuit against a corporation in federal court. The manufacturer mistakenly believed that the corporation was the entity responsible for producing the bolts used to secure the car tires onto the car manufacturer's cars. The manufacturer was sued after some of the cars' tires became detached during transit due to faulty bolts. The manufacturer is seeking contractual indemnification for losses stemming from these lawsuits. State law provides a five-year statute of limitations for contract claims, which starts running when a plaintiff first learns of its contract claim. The manufacturer learned of the faulty bolts on August 1, 2007, and realized it might have a contract claim. Two weeks after filing its lawsuit, the manufacturer realized it had mistaken the corporation for a different entity that was, in fact, responsible for producing the faulty bolts. The other entity not only knew the bolts were faulty, but was also aware of the original lawsuit against the corporation. The other entity was hoping that the manufacturer would not realize its mistake. Is the court likely to allow the manufacturer to substitute the other entity as a defendant? A: No, because it would be unconstitutional to allow the other entity to be made a defendant after the statute of limitations has expired. B: No, because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a party to be added to a lawsuit after the statute of limitations has expired. C: Yes, because the other entity knew about the manufacturer’s original lawsuit and that it would have been sued but for the mistake concerning the party's identity. D: Yes, because the claim against the other entity arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the manufacturer's original complaint. Question #2252 - The correct answer is C A firefighter sued an entertainer in federal court even though the firefighter knew that he lacked an evidentiary basis for a number of the allegations in the complaint against the entertainer. In response to the firefighter's complaint, the entertainer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The entertainer then served a motion for sanctions on the firefighter. Eighteen days after the entertainer's motion for sanctions, the firefighter withdrew his complaint. The entertainer then filed her motion for sanctions upon the firefighter with the court. Should the court grant the entertainer's motion and impose sanctions on the firefighter? A: Yes, because the firefighter filed his complaint in bad faith and should be sanctioned under Rule 11. B: Yes, because the mere filing of a complaint without evidentiary support warrants automatic sanctions. C: No, because it was improper for the entertainer to file a motion for sanctions with the court before 21 days had passed. D: No, because the entertainer was required to file her motion for sanctions with the court prior to serving the firefighter with the motion for sanctions. Question #2169 - You correctly answered B A woman met with a heart surgeon and his nurse practitioner about having surgery to fix a blockage in her artery. The heart surgeon and nurse together described the procedure and informed her of the risks. The woman agreed to have the surgery exactly one week later and signed the consent form. One week later, the surgeon performed the surgery on the woman and the nurse practitioner was not present. The surgery went badly. On the last day before the statute of limitations for tort claims in that state ran out, unhappy with the results, the woman filed a single-count complaint against the heart surgeon, as the sole defendant, in federal court. The complaint’s only assertion was that the heart surgeon failed to obtain informed consent because he did not disclose an alternative method he could have used to perform the surgery. Four weeks after the initial complaint, the woman sought to amend the complaint to add a negligence claim against the heart surgeon on the theory that he poorly performed the surgery and post-operative procedures. Is the court likely to allow the woman to amend her complaint? A: No, because the statute of limitations expired the day after the woman filed her initial complaint and she did not add the related negligence claim until four weeks later. B: No, because the negligence claim around the physician’s performance during and after the surgery did not arise out of the same event set forth in the original complaint. C: Yes, because the heart surgeon knew or should have known that the woman would have also brought a negligence claim against him, but for a mistake. D: Yes, because the negligence claim relates back to the date of the original complaint, which was filed within the statute of limitations. Problem Set #1 Number of Questions: 12 Question #2138 - The correct answer is D A pilot from State A sued a librarian from State B in a federal district court in State A. The librarian sold the pilot an expensive collectible watch through a website that generated a valid sales contract. The pilot's complaint alleged that the librarian breached the contract's terms because the librarian sold the pilot a watch that materially varied from the description the librarian had provided. The pilot is seeking $175,000 in damages. Shortly after selling the watch, the librarian went to State A on vacation with her family. This was the librarian's first time ever in State A. While visiting State A, the librarian was served with the pilot's complaint and a summons in accordance with State A law. The librarian filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Should the court grant the librarian’s motion to dismiss? A: Yes, because only federal courts have jurisdiction to hear disputes between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy over $75,000. B: Yes, because the librarian does not have sufficient minimum contacts with State A to establish personal jurisdiction. C: No, because personal jurisdiction requirements only apply to federal courts, not state courts. D: No, because the librarian's physical presence in State A when she was served is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Question #2217 - The correct answer is A A student was riding on a bus owned and operated by a travel company when the bus collided with a truck in State B, thereby injuring the student. The student then brought a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit against the travel company in state court in State A. The court found the travel company not negligent and dismissed the student’s lawsuit. A teacher had been riding on the same bus as the student and thereafter brought a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit against the travel company in State B federal court for injuries. Will the travel company's finding of non-liability in the student’s case apply in the teacher’s lawsuit? A: No, because the teacher was not a party in the first lawsuit. B: No, because non-mutual collateral estoppel is unconstitutional. C: Yes, because due process permits the use of non-mutual collateral estoppel against a non-party to the first lawsuit. D: Yes, because a finding from State A state court is binding on a State B federal court. Question #2128 - You correctly answered C An accountant from State A sued a biologist from State A in a federal court in State A. The accountant did not state a claim based on federal law in her complaint. However, the accountant believes the biologist will use a federal law in his defense. Should the court dismiss the accountant's complaint? A: No, because the judge should wait and determine if any pleadings, filed by either side, contain a federal question. B: No, because the judge should wait to see whether the biologist's answer contains a defense based on a federal question. C: Yes, because the complaint does not contain a federal question. D: Yes, because the complaint did not state the anticipated defense based in federal law. Question #2222 - You correctly answered B A politician from State B filed a lawsuit against a stockbroker from State A, in state court in State A. The politician sought over $75,000 as compensation for damages incurred in a car accident. The jury found, pursuant to a special verdict, that the stockbroker had not been negligent and awarded no damages to the politician. Six months later, a doctor, who had also been involved in the car accident in another vehicle, filed a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit against the stockbroker in State A federal court. Is the doctor likely to be precluded from litigating any issues or claims against the stockbroker? A: The doctor will be precluded from arguing that the stockbroker was negligent. B: The doctor will not be precluded from arguing that the stockbroker was negligent. C: The doctor’s lawsuit will be dismissed on the grounds of issue preclusion. D: The doctor’s lawsuit will be dismissed on the grounds of claim preclusion. Question #2245 - You correctly answered B A plumber filed suit against a manufacturer in federal court in State A alleging that a widget was negligently designed by the widget’s manufacturer, causing injury to the plumber. The manufacturer’s answer admitted that the manufacturer designed the widget. Ten days after the manufacturer filed her answer, the statute of limitations ran on the plumber's claim. Five days after that, the manufacturer filed an amended answer, denying that the manufacturer designed the widget that injured the plumber. The plumber moved to strike the amendment to the answer. Is the court likely to grant the plumber’s motion to strike the manufacturer's amended answer? A: No, because a court may strike only redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from a pleading. B: No, because the manufacturer may amend her answer once "as a matter of course" within 21 days after it was served. C: Yes, because the manufacturer is bound by all admissions in her initial answer. D: Yes, because the manufacturer misrepresented itself as the designer and the statute of limitations would prevent the plumber from suing the true designer. Question #2213 - You correctly answered D A biker filed a lawsuit against a driver in state court in State A, seeking compensation for damages incurred in a collision. The driver defended on the ground of contributory negligence, a full defense under State A law. The jury rendered a general verdict for the driver, thereby not identifying its specific findings. A doctor, who was also injured in the same collision, subsequently filed a jurisdictionally valid diversity lawsuit against the driver in State A federal court. Will preclusion prevent litigation of the negligence claim in the doctor’s lawsuit? A: Yes, the driver will be precluded from relitigating the issue of his negligence because of the first lawsuit. B: Yes, the doctor will be precluded from relitigating the issue of the driver's negligence because of the first lawsuit. C: No, issue preclusion will not apply because of the first lawsuit, but claim preclusion may apply. D: No, neither issue preclusion nor claim preclusion will apply because of the first lawsuit. Question #2135 - The correct answer is C An illustrator from State B sued his former employer, a State A corporation, in a federal district court in State B. The illustrator had worked at the corporation's headquarters in State B. The complaint asserted that the corporation: (i) violated federal employment law; and (ii) breached the illustrator's employment contract. The illustrator is seeking $50,000 in damages. The corporation filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the illustrator's employment contract claim. Should the court grant the corporation's motion to dismiss? A: Yes, because the corporation is incorporated in State A, which means there is no complete diversity. B: Yes, because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. C: No, because the illustrator's employment contract claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the federal employment law claim. D: No, because the federal court has personal jurisdiction over the corporation given that its headquarters are located in State B. Question #2228 - The correct answer is C A patient brought a negligence action in federal district court in State A against a dentist and a nurse following a root canal procedure they performed together. The patient is seeking more than $75,000 in compensatory damages. The patient is a citizen of State A, the dentist is a citizen of State B, and the nurse is a citizen of State A. The nurse moved to dismiss the case for lack of complete diversity between the parties. In response, the patient argued that the court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over her claim against the nurse. Should the district court grant the nurse's motion to dismiss? A: No, because the patient's claim against the nurse falls under supplemental jurisdiction as part of the same case or controversy as the claim against the dentist. B: No, because judicial economy would be served by litigating the patient's claims against the dentist and the nurse together. C: Yes, because there is a lack of complete diversity between the parties, which means the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. D: Yes, because the claim against the nurse does not arise from the same case or controversy as the claim against the dentist. Question #2140 - Civil Procedure / Motions (Simulated) Date Answered: 10/19/2024 You correctly answered B Question A patient from State A sued a pharmacist from State B in a federal district court in State A, seeking $100,000 compensation for tortious injuries caused by the pharmacist's allegedly negligent acts in State B. The pharmacist had never been to State A and never had any contact with State A. Prior to filing an answer to the patient's complaint, the pharmacist's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the court denied. Then, after answering the patient's complaint, the pharmacist's lawyer filed a second motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Is the court likely to grant the pharmacist's motion to dismiss? A: No, because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. B: No, because the pharmacist waived the personal jurisdiction defense. C: Yes, because a lack of personal jurisdiction may not be waived. D: Yes, because the pharmacist has never been to State A. Question #2239 - The correct answer is C A woman from State A was struck by a limousine. The woman sued the limousine company, a citizen of both State B and State C, in state court in State A for $100,000 to compensate for her injuries. The limousine company timely removed the action to the local federal district court. Several months later, during discovery, the woman moved to amend her complaint to add the limousine driver, a citizen of State A, as a defendant. The woman told the court that she didn't sue the driver sooner because she did not know his name and she did not think the driver would have the resources to pay her judgment. The limousine company and the driver both argue that the woman should not be permitted to join the driver as a defendant. May the court permit the woman to join the driver as a defendant? A: Yes, because the Federal Rules have a liberal philosophy around pleading amendments. B: Yes, because courts may permit a party to amend its complaint when justice so requires. C: No, because the court would then lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. D: No, because parties are barred from amending their pleadings 21 days after service. Question #1921 - You correctly answered C A plaintiff filed a tort action in state court but then failed to prosecute the action. The defendant moved to dismiss the action, and the court granted the motion in an order that stated: “The defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice.” The court accordingly entered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff then filed the same claim against the defendant in federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. The defendant has asserted the defense of res judicata (claim preclusion) in its answer. Should the federal court give preclusive effect to the state court judgment? A: No, because the judgment was entered by a state court, not a federal court. B: No, because the state court did not rule on the merits in its dismissal. C: Yes, because a dismissal with prejudice operates as a judgment on the merits. D: Yes, because a judgment for failure to prosecute operates as a judgment on the merits under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Question #2220 - The correct answer is B A journalist, a citizen of State A, filed a lawsuit against a grocer, a citizen of State B, in State B’s state court. The journalist sought compensation for damages to his antique automobile incurred in a car accident in State B. A jury found that the grocer drove negligently and awarded the journalist $95,000. Six months later, the journalist filed a lawsuit against the grocer in federal court in State B, seeking $125,000 for personal injuries the journalist suffered in the same car accident. The grocer moved to dismiss the suit. Is the court likely to grant the grocer’s motion to dismiss? A: Yes, because the journalist is precluded from relitigating the issue of his negligence under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. B: Yes, because the journalist is precluded from bringing this lawsuit under the doctrine of claim preclusion. C: No, because the parties may still litigate whether and to what extent the journalist suffered personal injuries in the accident. D: No, because the journalist has alleged that the expected value of his claim exceeds $75,000. Question #2288 - You correctly answered B A bank sued a student in federal court alleging that the student failed to repay a loan that came due on May 1, 2020. The student answered the bank's complaint, denying liability and raising payment of the loan as an affirmative defense. The student then moved for summary judgment and supported his motion with his own affidavit and the affidavits of four eyewitnesses. Each eyewitness stated that the student repaid the bank the full value of the loan in cash on May 1, 2020, at a meeting involving the bank, the student, and the four eyewitnesses. Which action should the bank take to ensure a trial by jury? A: Offer evidence that challenges the student's affidavits on the ground that they were made without personal knowledge. B: Offer evidence that raises a material issue of fact relating to the accuracy of the affidavits by showing that a reasonable jury could find for the bank. C: Not offer evidence in opposition to the summary judgment motion and demand a jury based on the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. D: Not offer evidence in opposition to the summary judgment motion and demand a jury based on insufficient evidence in support of the student’s motion. Question #2264 - The correct answer is C After the date for delivery had passed, a buyer sued a dealership that had promised to deliver to him, by June 1, 2021, a new car meeting certain specifications. The suit was filed in federal court. In its initial disclosures, the dealership timely provided to the buyer the name, address, and phone number of the dealership manager and of persons who worked at the auto manufacturer who had information regarding the failed delivery. The dealership did not provide the name, address or phone number of other persons who worked at the dealership who knew of the dealership's delay in delivery because the dealership did not believe these individuals had additional discoverable information and the dealership did not intend on calling these individuals as witnesses should the case proceed to trial. The buyer failed to make a timely initial disclosure to the dealership. The buyer then moved for an order compelling further disclosures from the dealership, arguing that the dealership's disclosures were materially incomplete, and certifying that the buyer had, in good faith, made attempts to confer with the dealership to obtain further disclosures without court action. Should the court grant the buyer's motion to compel? A: Yes, because the buyer's failure to properly disclose did not excuse the dealership's failure to make complete initial disclosures. B: Yes, because the buyer's failure to properly disclose did not excuse the dealership's failure to supplement discovery. C: No, because the dealership has no obligation to disclose information that it does not intend to use in support of its defenses at trial. D: No, because the dealership has no obligation to complete its initial disclosures until the buyer has made his own initial disclosures. Question #2473 - The correct answer is D A decedent’s executor has brought a federal diversity action against a man, alleging that while the decedent and the man were riding dirt bikes on a track, the man’s bike ran into the decedent’s bike, causing the decedent to fall to her death. The man denies fault for the decedent’s death. At trial, the executor’s only witness testifies that shortly before the accident he was riding 50 feet behind the man and saw the man rapidly approaching the decedent until they were only a few feet apart. This witness briefly looked away, heard an unusual noise, and immediately afterward saw the decedent and the decedent’s bike on the ground. The man calls three witnesses, none of whom had met the decedent or the man before. Two riders testify that they were riding parallel to the man and never saw his bike touch the decedent’s bike. A track attendant, who was stationed close to the area where the decedent fell, testifies that he was watching the track and never saw any contact between the decedent and the man. The man has moved for judgment as a matter of law. Should the court grant the motion? A: No, because the executor’s evidence is sufficient for the jury to find for the executor. B: No, because there is a credibility dispute for the jury to resolve. C: Yes, because a verdict for the executor would be against the great weight of the evidence. D: Yes, because the executor has presented insufficient evidence to support a verdict. Question #2197 - You correctly answered D A woman filed a diversity action in State A federal court against an insurance company to recover insurance proceeds pursuant to the accidental death provision of her husband’s life insurance policy. The evidence showed that the husband was last seen on a business trip five years ago, that he has not been heard from since, and that his body was never recovered. Under State A law, the party seeking recovery under an accidental death policy has the burden of establishing the insured’s death. The insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment. In her memorandum in opposition to the motion, the woman included an affidavit that recited the evidence stated above and added, “To my knowledge, my husband is dead.” Is the court likely to grant the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment? A: No, because the insurance company has not met its burden of showing that the husband is alive. B: No, because the woman’s affidavit establishes a genuine issue of material fact. C: Yes, because the party opposing summary judgment may not establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact simply by means of an affidavit. D: Yes, because the woman’s affidavit was not made with personal knowledge. Question #1901 - You correctly answered D A railroad worker’s widow brought a wrongful death action in federal court against the railroad, claiming that its negligence had caused her husband’s death. At trial, the widow offered the testimony of a coworker of the husband. The coworker testified that he had seen the rail car on which the husband was riding slow down and the cars behind it gain speed. The coworker also stated that he later heard a loud crash, but did not turn around to look because loud noises were common in the yard. Three other railroad employees testified that no collision had occurred. At the close of the evidence, the railroad moved for judgment as a matter of law, which was denied, and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for the widow. The railroad has made a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. What standard should the court apply to determine how to rule on the motion? A: Whether the evidence revealed a genuine dispute of material fact supporting the widow’s claim. B: Whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. C: Whether the widow presented a scintilla of evidence to support the verdict. D: Whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict, resolving all disputed issues in the widow’s favor. Question #1915 - The correct answer is C A mechanic sued his former employer in federal court, claiming that the employer had discharged him because of his age in violation of federal law. The employer answered, denying the claims and promptly moving for summary judgment. In support of the motion, the employer attached the mechanic’s employment evaluations for the past three years, which rated his skills and performance as poor and culminated in a recommendation for his discharge. What is the mechanic’s best argument to defeat the summary judgment motion? A: The allegations in the complaint conflict with the mechanic’s employment evaluations, raising a genuine dispute as to material facts. B: The employer cannot rely in his motion on matters outside the pleadings. C: The essential facts are unavailable to the mechanic and therefore discovery is required. D: The motion was filed before the close of discovery. Question #2522 - You correctly answered D A train conductor brought an action against her railroad employer under a federal statute providing liability for work-related injuries occurring on railroads. The employer denied liability, claiming that the conductor’s injuries pre-dated her employment and were outside the scope of the statute. At the close of the evidence at trial, the employer moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), which the court denied. The jury returned a verdict for the conductor. The employer has renewed its JMOL motion. What standard should the court apply in ruling on the motion? A: Whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the verdict. B: Whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. C: Whether there is a scintilla of evidence to support the verdict. D: Whether there is legally sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Question #2121 - The correct answer is D An actor brought a federal diversity action against a theater company for breach of contract. Twenty days after discovery closed, the company moved for summary judgment. The company attached to the motion affidavits of its managing director and artistic director and a verified copy of its contract with the actor. In their affidavits, the directors stated facts establishing that the company had fully performed the contract. The actor's brief opposing the motion relied solely on the allegations of the complaint. Should the court grant the summary-judgment motion? A: No, because in deciding the motion, the court must take the allegations and inferences of the complaint as true. B: No, because the company did not timely file the motion. C: Yes, because the actor filed no evidence in opposition to the motion. D: Yes, because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the company is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Question #1906 - The correct answer is A A construction worker sued an insulation manufacturer in federal court, claiming that he had developed a chronic health condition as a result of 20 years of exposure to the manufacturer’s insulation at his work sites. The manufacturer answered, denying all liability and stating that it had never supplied its insulation to the worker’s employer. The worker’s attorney deposed the manufacturer’s president, and the manufacturer’s attorney deposed the worker. Immediately thereafter, the manufacturer moved for summary judgment on the ground that the worker had no evidence showing that the insulation had ever been used by the worker’s employer. What would be the worker’s best response to the motion for summary judgment? A: Argue that more time is needed for additional discovery to show the manufacturer’s liability, and attach a declaration describing the desired discovery. B: Argue that the motion should be denied, because a central issue in the case will be the manufacturer’s credibility on the question of its distribution of the insulation, and only a jury can decide questions of credibility. C: Argue that the motion should be denied, because the manufacturer failed to attach any evidence to its motion to show that the insulation was not used by the worker’s employer. D: Make a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that the manufacturer has introduced no evidence to show that its insulation did not harm the worker. Question #1823 - The correct answer is B A man brought a federal diversity action against his insurance company, alleging that the company had breached its duty under his insurance policy by refusing to pay for his medical expenses resulting from a mountain-biking accident. At the jury trial, the man presented evidence that he had paid all premiums on the insurance policy and that the policy covered personal-injury-related medical expenses arising from accidents. After he rested his case, the company presented evidence that a provision of the policy excluded payment for injury-related expenses resulting from an insured’s "unduly risky" behavior. The company also presented a witness who testified that the accident had occurred in an area where posted signs warned bikers not to enter. The man did not cross-examine the witness. After resting its case, the company moved for judgment as a matter of law. Should the court grant the motion? A: No, because a motion for judgment as a matter of law must first be made at the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief. B: No, because whether the man's behavior was unduly risky is a question of fact for the jury to resolve. C: Yes, because the company's uncontradicted evidence of the man's unduly risky behavior means that no reasonable jury could find that the policy covers his injuries. D: Yes, because the man waived his right to rebut the company's evidence by not addressing the "unduly risky" policy provision in his case-in-chief. Question #2262 - The correct answer is A A farmer sued a manufacturer in federal court after she suffered injuries while using one of the manufacturer's farming machines. Jurisdiction was based on diversity. The farmer asked the manufacturer to produce "all electronically stored documents regarding the manufacturer's advertising strategy between 2005 and 2012, concerning the farming machines manufactured by the manufacturer." In response, the manufacturer offered to turn over all its advertising files for the years in question. The manufacturer explained that all its documents pertaining to advertising are filed chronologically, without regard to the product. The manufacturer produces at least 20 distinct products. The farmer moved to compel the production of only the advertising files she originally requested. Should the district court grant the farmer's motion to compel? A: Yes, because the manufacturer may not place the burden of identifying those documents on the farmer without a showing of undue burden or cost to produce them. B: Yes, because it would be more difficult for the farmer to identify the requested documents than the manufacturer. C: No, because it would be no more difficult for the farmer to identify the requested documents than the manufacturer. D: No, because the farmer did not define the words "advertising strategy" in her request for the documents. Question #2297 - You correctly answered A A manufacturer of loudspeaker systems filed suit in federal district court against a reporter for a consumer-product testing organization. The suit arose following the publication of the reporter's review of the manufacturer's loudspeakers. The court ruled that the manufacturer was a "public figure" and thus had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the reporter made a false and disparaging statement about the speakers with "actual malice." "Actual malice" requires knowledge that one is making a false statement or reckless disregard of the truthfulness of one's statement. The reporter moved for summary judgment. In support of his motion, the reporter offered an affidavit from himself. In the affidavit, the reporter explained that he had tried his best to put into words his experience with the loudspeakers, that he was unaware that his statements were "false," and that he was not indifferent to whether his review was "true" or not. The manufacturer did not respond to the reporter's motion by providing any evidence to contradict the reporter's statements. Is the court likely to grant the reporter's motion for summary judgment? A: Yes, because the manufacturer did not meet its burden to defeat the reporter’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of actual malice. B: Yes, because the manufacturer acted in bad faith by not providing evidence to contradict the reporter's affidavit regarding the issue of actual malice. C: No, because a party to a suit may not submit a personal affidavit as evidence in support of their motion for summary judgment. D: No, because the court should first order the manufacturer to respond to the reporter's motion for summary judgment before it may properly rule on the reporter's motion. Question #2205 - You correctly answered A A contractor filed a diversity action against a homeowner in federal court in State A. The contractor alleged that the homeowner failed to pay $150,000 due on a valid service contract to install a kitchen in the homeowner's home. At trial, however, the homeowner disputed the contract's validity, testifying before the jury that the contractor installed the kitchen as a gift and exchanged emails referring to a “contract” that had been in jest. The homeowner’s testimony also made clear that both parties were citizens of State A. Shortly into the homeowner's presentation of evidence, the contractor's attorney became concerned that the jury was overly sympathetic to the homeowner. Is the contractor's attorney able to prevent the case from being submitted to the jury? A: Yes, because the contractor’s attorney may file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. B: Yes, because the contractor’s attorney may file a motion for summary judgment. C: No, because the contractor is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. D: No, because the contractor’s attorney has no option but to continue with the trial. Question #2269 - You correctly answered A After having slipped and fallen in the store, a shopper brought suit against a large retail store for negligence in federal district court. The shopper alleged that the fall was caused by a wet floor. During discovery, the shopper requested the production of a store surveillance video that showed her slip and fall. The retail store objected on the ground that the video constituted work product. The video was recorded in the ordinary course of business. The video was preserved, rather than recorded over, in anticipation that the slip and fall might eventuate in litigation. The shopper has moved to compel production of the videotape. Is the court likely to grant the shopper’s motion to compel? A: Yes, because the videotape does not constitute work product and is discoverable. B: Yes, because the videotape is work product and the shopper failed to make the necessary showing to overcome work product immunity. C: No, because the videotape is work product, which triggers absolute immunity over the materials. D: No, because the videotape is relevant to the shopper’s claim and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, even though it is work product. Question #2295 - The correct answer is B A sailor filed suit in federal court against several boat manufacturers that all used asbestos products on the ships they built. The sailor alleged she had been exposed to asbestos while working in the naval shipyard. Discovery revealed that several ships containing asbestos had been at the naval yard where the sailor had worked at various times over the course of her employment. Each of the named defendants manufactured the ships. One of the named manufacturers moved for summary judgment, arguing that the sailor had no evidence she had been exposed to asbestos products used by the particular boating manufacturer. In its motion for summary judgment, the manufacturer did not provide any evidence contradicting its presence in the naval yard, nor did it provide any support to negate the evidence put forth by the sailor. Is the court likely to grant the manufacturer's motion for summary judgment? A: No, because the manufacturer failed to make the required affirmative evidentiary showing in support of its motion. B: No, because the manufacturer failed to make an affirmative evidentiary showing in support of its motion or show an absence of evidence in the record in support of the sailor's case. C: Yes, because it is clear that there is no genuine dispute of material fact between the manufacturer and the sailor. D: Yes, because the sailor acted in bad faith when she filed the suit without knowledge of which manufacturers were present in the naval yard when she was working.