Essay playbook
The Jurisdiction Puzzle
Work through The Jurisdiction Puzzle as a public essay playbook with a fresh UBE / MEE-style fact pattern, scored issues, and a model answer.
On this page
Fact pattern
Paula, a Florida citizen, was injured when her car's brakes - manufactured by BrakeCo - failed. She wants to sue: - AutoCorp (incorporated in Delaware, headquarters in Michigan) - BrakeCo (incorporated and headquartered in Florida) Paula's damages are $100,000. Her complaint alleges that BrakeCo is a Florida corporation and that it manufactured the brakes. Paula files suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She serves AutoCorp by mailing the complaint to its Michigan headquarters 95 days after filing. She has a nonparty adult process server deliver the summons and complaint to BrakeCo's registered agent in Florida on day 30. AutoCorp files a motion to dismiss on day 40 for lack of personal jurisdiction. AutoCorp does not raise any other defenses in this motion. BrakeCo files an answer on day 45 that states in full: "BrakeCo denies all allegations and asserts Paula was contributorily negligent." On day 100, AutoCorp seeks to amend its motion to add a defense of improper venue.
Scored issues to spot
No complete diversity—Paula (FL) and BrakeCo (FL) are both FL citizens.
Subject: CivPro | Points: 20
TWO CATEGORIES OF PROBLEM. METHOD (several independent defects): FRCP 4(c)(1) requires a SUMMONS with the complaint (Paula mailed the complaint alone), 4(c)(2) bars service by a PARTY, and the mailing satisfies neither the federal delivery method of 4(h)(1)(B) - to an officer, a managing or general agent, or another authorized agent - nor any state-law alternative shown by these facts. So no valid service occurred at all. TIMING: FRCP 4(m) allows 90 days from filing; the defective attempt came on day 95.
Subject: CivPro | Points: 10
PJ raised in the first motion, so it is preserved. ANY improper-venue defense available on day 40 was omitted from that motion and is therefore WAIVED - note the facts do not establish whether such a defense existed. Contrast the SERVICE objections: they did not exist on day 40 (no service had been attempted), so under the availability limitation in Rule 12(g)(2) they were NOT waived.
Subject: CivPro | Points: 15
This is a FEDERAL court, so the FEDERAL RULES govern the sufficiency of the answer even in a diversity case (Hanna v. Plumer) - do not reach for Florida pleading law, and note Twombly/Iqbal construe FRCP 8(a)(2) for CLAIMS, not denials. FRCP 8(b)(1)(B) requires admitting or denying; 8(b)(3) allows a GENERAL denial only where the pleader can in good faith deny everything including the jurisdictional grounds; and 8(b)(6) treats an undenied allegation, other than one concerning the amount of damages, as ADMITTED. The contributory-negligence defense was TIMELY IDENTIFIED and therefore not omitted - FRCP 8(c)(1) enumerates it - subject to any fair-notice pleading requirement a court may impose on a bare label.
Subject: CivPro | Points: 10
Unlike PJ and venue, SMJ can never be waived—can be raised anytime, even on appeal.
Subject: CivPro | Points: 15