Work it, decide it, then compare

Subject-matter jurisdiction. This is a state-law claim, but Maya and Ridge are completely diverse on the stipulated citizenship facts. The good-faith $180,000 demand exceeds the ordinary diversity threshold. Section 1332 therefore supplies a federal subject-matter basis; the absence of a federal cause of action is not disqualifying. J2

Personal jurisdiction. Rule 4(k)(1)(A) and the stipulated long-arm statute supply the authorization route. Ridge purposefully serves State A's market for this very model. Maya is a forum resident who used it and was injured there. Ridge's best argument is the out-of-state original sale of this unit. Under Ford, relatedness need not always be a strict causal chain from the defendant's in-state sale of the particular item. The forum activities and this injury strongly support specific jurisdiction, with no supplied facts making its exercise unreasonable. This does not depend on proving Ridge generally “at home” in State A. R4 C2

Venue. The accident and alleged injury in the district are substantial events giving rise to the claim. Section 1391(b)(2) supports venue even though other relevant conduct occurred elsewhere. J4

Result. The court should reject these objections on the given facts. Maya still must establish the substantive claim through the applicable litigation process.

Mark any that match what you would have concluded, even partly. They go to your review list below.

Close the answer. In your own words, explain the motion, the governing test, two decisive facts, the strongest counterargument, and the likely ruling. Then check yourself against the rubric.

Say it aloud or write it on paper — nothing is recorded. Tick what your explanation actually did.

Self-assessed: 0 / 20 · this is your judgement of your own explanation, not a grade.

First motion. Rule 8 and the plausibility framework require adequate factual allegations, not completion of evidentiary proof before discovery. The complaint identifies concrete events corresponding to the stipulated elements. Twombly and Iqbal require more than conclusions, but do not authorize deciding credibility between these parties on this pleaded record. The motion should fail on the stated grounds. R8 C3 C4

Second motion. North Dock's previously available personal-jurisdiction defense was omitted from its initial Rule 12 motion. Rules 12(g)(2) and 12(h)(1) make that omission consequential; the defendant cannot preserve this defense simply by presenting it in a later motion. R12

Consequence. Luis has passed the pleading challenge. He has not established that the alleged breach happened. North Dock ordinarily must proceed with an answer within the applicable response period, and the parties move toward developing a record.

“The court should deny the pleading motion because the complaint identifies the contract, performance, specified conduct constituting breach, and resulting loss. North Dock's contrary account presents a factual contest; it does not defeat the stipulated plausibility of the allegations at this stage. Luis will still need evidentiary support later. North Dock's separate personal-jurisdiction challenge encounters a preservation problem because that available defense was omitted from its first Rule 12 motion.”

Mark any that match what you would have concluded, even partly. They go to your review list below.

Close the answer. In your own words, explain the motion, the governing test, two decisive facts, the strongest counterargument, and the likely ruling. Then check yourself against the rubric.

Say it aloud or write it on paper — nothing is recorded. Tick what your explanation actually did.

Self-assessed: 0 / 20 · this is your judgement of your own explanation, not a grade.

BuildCo against Sam. The alleged indemnity obligation is derivative: Sam may owe BuildCo the liability BuildCo incurs to Nora. That is the kind of relationship Rule 14 addresses, rather than merely an allegation that Sam injured Nora. R14

The stipulated same-case relationship satisfies § 1367(a). Section 1367(b)'s relevant limitation on claims by plaintiffs against Rule 14 parties does not bar BuildCo's defending-party indemnity claim. On the given facts, supplemental jurisdiction is available, subject to applicable discretion under § 1367(c). BuildCo and Sam are also diverse; if the indemnity claim puts the full $150,000 at issue in good faith, it has an independent § 1332 basis as well. A strong answer recognizes that alternative instead of assuming supplemental jurisdiction is the only route. J2 J3

Nora against Sam. Permission to assert this related claim under Rule 14 does not supply jurisdiction. Nora and Sam share State A citizenship. Her claim lacks an independent basis, and § 1367(b) restricts this original plaintiff's claim against a person made a party under Rule 14 when exercising jurisdiction would be inconsistent with § 1332. The direct claim cannot proceed here on the offered supplemental theory. J3

Consequence. The federal action can retain Nora's claim against BuildCo and the properly supported indemnity claim while declining to entertain Nora's direct claim for lack of jurisdiction. That is not a merits judgment that Sam was careful. Any separate filing requires its own forum, timing, and preclusion analysis.

Mark any that match what you would have concluded, even partly. They go to your review list below.

Close the answer. In your own words, explain the motion, the governing test, two decisive facts, the strongest counterargument, and the likely ruling. Then check yourself against the rubric.

Say it aloud or write it on paper — nothing is recorded. Tick what your explanation actually did.

Self-assessed: 0 / 20 · this is your judgement of your own explanation, not a grade.

Notice and trial. MarketCo properly directs attention to an asserted absence of proof on an element Amira must establish. But the shopper's declaration supplies a specific contrary account: warning a responsible manager twenty minutes beforehand. Notice is material under the stipulated substantive law. A reasonable jury could credit this account, and the manager's denial creates a credibility contest rather than eliminating it. The court should deny summary judgment on this ground. Amira has not thereby proved notice at trial. C5 C6

Lost ESI. The stipulated facts satisfy the loss-and-preservation predicates of Rule 37(e) and establish prejudice. The requested mandatory unfavorable presumption is among the more severe measures under Rule 37(e)(2), which requires intent to deprive. Negligent failure to preserve does not satisfy that predicate. Under (e)(1), the court may consider measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice, with attention to what remains available and without using a nominal cure to evade the intent requirement. R37

Information still unavailable. If the declaration is removed and identified material discovery remains unresolved, Amira should consider a properly supported Rule 56(d) request. She must specify why she cannot yet present facts essential to opposition; merely saying “discovery is incomplete” does not automatically defeat the motion. The court can consider the authorized responses, including time for appropriate discovery. R56

Mark any that match what you would have concluded, even partly. They go to your review list below.

Close the answer. In your own words, explain the motion, the governing test, two decisive facts, the strongest counterargument, and the likely ruling. Then check yourself against the rubric.

Say it aloud or write it on paper — nothing is recorded. Tick what your explanation actually did.

Self-assessed: 0 / 20 · this is your judgement of your own explanation, not a grade.

Preservation. The defendant identified the specific sufficiency ground in a timely Rule 50(a) motion and renewed that ground within Rule 50(b)'s period. This gives the trial court the required opportunity to address the contention before appellate review. The jury's verdict does not by itself foreclose a properly preserved legal-sufficiency challenge. The record's actual support for Element X would determine whether the challenge succeeds; the facts here establish the route, not its merits. R50

Reviewability and timing. Final judgment resolved all claims and parties, supplying the ordinary § 1291 route. A timely Rule 50(b) motion affects the appeal clock under Appellate Rule 4(a)(4). On the stipulated timely appeal, the challenge is procedurally positioned for review. The reviewing court examines the sufficiency question under the applicable standard on the existing record rather than taking a new trial's evidence. J10 A4

Later lawsuit. The separate preclusion question is governed by the expressly supplied transactional rule. The same parties already have a valid final merits judgment concerning the same completed transaction. Repackaging an available theory does not avoid the stipulated bar. The second suit is not an appeal from the first judgment.

Distinction. Claim preclusion can reach theories that could have been brought. Issue preclusion instead concerns a qualifying issue actually litigated and determined, with necessity, finality, party/opportunity, and other requirements governed by the applicable law. A real preclusion problem must identify the source of that law rather than assume the stipulated teaching rule applies universally. C11 C12 C13 J12

Mark any that match what you would have concluded, even partly. They go to your review list below.

Close the answer. In your own words, explain the motion, the governing test, two decisive facts, the strongest counterargument, and the likely ruling. Then check yourself against the rubric.

Say it aloud or write it on paper — nothing is recorded. Tick what your explanation actually did.

Self-assessed: 0 / 20 · this is your judgement of your own explanation, not a grade.