November 13 Webinar/Online Study Group Quiz Venue/Battle of the Forms

Can a party move to dismiss a case for improper venue?

No. But a party can move to transfer the case pursuant to 28 USC s. 1404
No. But a party can move to transfer the case pursuant to 28 USC s. 1406
Yes. A party can move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3).
Yes. A party can move to dismiss pursuant to 28 USC s. 1404.

Which of the following is a difference between 28 USC s. 1404 and 28 USC s 1406?

A court can dismiss a case pursuant to 28 USC s. 1404 but will only transfer a case under 28 USC s 1404
A court can dismiss a case under 28 USC s. 1406 but may transfer a case under 28 USC s. 1404
A court must transfer a case under 28 USC s. 1406 and must dismiss a case under 28 USC s 1404
Citizens of other countries may move to dismiss under 28 USC s 1406 but that relief is not available to US Citizens or permanent residents.

What does it mean for a federal court to transfer a case?

The federal court removes a case to state court
The federal court sends a case to another state
The federal court sends a case to a federal court in another state
The federal court sends a case to another federal judicial district

If plaintiff sues a defendant who resides in Brooklyn, NY (EDNY) and a defendant who resides in Manhattan (SDNY) for an incident in Brooklyn, where is venue proper?

Under 1391(b)(3) venue is proper in either EDNY or SDNY.
Under 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in SDNY.
Under 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in SDNY and EDNY.
Under 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in SDNY but EDNY law should apply.

If plaintiff sues a defendant who resides in Brooklyn, NY (EDNY) and a defendant who resides in Trenton, NJ (DNJ), for an incident in Bolivia, where is venue proper?

Under 1391(b)(1), EDNY.
Under 1391 (b)(1), EDNY or DNJ
Under 1391(b)(2), a court of competent jurisdiction in Bolivia acting under the imprimatur of the federal courts
Under 1391(b)(3), EDNY or DNJ.

Plaintiff sues a defendant who resides in Brooklyn, NY (EDNY) and a defendant who resides in Trenton, NJ (DNJ), for an incident in Bolivia. If plaintiff sues in EDNY can defendants move to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens?

Yes, defendants may argue that Bolivia is an adequate alternative forum and the public and private factors favor dismissing the case on forum non conveniens grounds.
No, defendants are at home in NY, therefore, they have no basis to move for dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds
Yes, defendants may argue that Bolivia has personal jurisdiction over plaintiff.
No, the only statutory grounds to dismiss this case is under 28 USC s. 1406.

Which of the following accurately states a difference between 28 USC s. 1404 and 1406?

When there is a transfer under 1406, the law of the transferor state applies because it is the state of original jurisdiction.
When there is a transfer under 1406, the law of the transferor state does not apply because venue was improper there.
Where there is a transfer under 1404, the law of the transferor state does not apply because venue was improper there.
The law of the transferor state never applies.

Which of the following accurately states a difference between 1391(b)(1) and (b)(3) on the one hand and (b)(2) on the other?

1391(b)(1) and (b)(3) are based on personal jurisdiction over plaintiff, and (b)(2) depends on personal jurisdiction over defendant.
1391(b)(1) and (b)(3) are based on personal jurisdiction over plaintiff, and (b)(2) depends on subject matter jurisdiction.
1391(b)(1) and (b)(3) are based on personal jurisdiction over defendant(s), and (b)(2) depends on where the events underlying the dispute took place.
1391(b)(1) and (b)(3) are based on personal jurisdiction over defendant(s), and (b)(2) depends on personal jurisdiction over plaintiff.

Which of the following best expresses how UCC 2-207 changes the mirror image rule?

Under UCC 2-207, an acceptance that has additional or different terms from an offer is considered an acceptance.
Under UCC 2-207, an acceptance that has additional or different terms from an offer is not considered an acceptance.
Under UCC 2-207, an acceptance that has additional or different terms from an offer is considered an acceptance provided both parties are merchants.
Under UCC 2-207 an acceptance that has additional or different terms is considered a conditional rejection of the offer.

How can an offeror prevent additional terms in an acceptance from becoming part of a contract if both parties are merchants?

He cannot because the parties are merchants.
He cannot if the goods are valued greater than $500.
By stating in the offer that acceptance may only be according to the terms of the offer and rejecting any additional terms.
By making the offer in writing.

November 13 Webinar/Online Study Group Quiz Venue/Battle of the Forms

November 13 Webinar/Online Study Group Quiz Venue/Battle of the Forms

Quiz Summary

Information

Results

Results

Categories

1. Question

2. Question

3. Question

4. Question

5. Question

6. Question

7. Question

8. Question

9. Question

10. Question