# Most Tested MBE Civil Procedure Topics | BarPrepPlay

Canonical: https://www.barprepplay.com/most-tested/civil-procedure/
Markdown mirror: https://www.barprepplay.com/llms/most-tested/civil-procedure.md
Byline: BarPrepPlay
Last reviewed: April 22, 2026
Subject: Civil Procedure
CTA: https://www.barprepplay.com/?seo_slug=personal-jurisdiction-saas-trap&seo_action=drill

## Overview

Civil Procedure punishes rushed ordering. Personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, Erie, removal, and preclusion stay near the top because they control entire answers.

## 1. Personal Jurisdiction

GENERAL JURISDICTION: D "at home" in forum (domicile for individuals; state of incorporation or principal place of business for corporations). Can sue for ANY claim. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION: Claim arises from D's contacts with forum. Requirements: (1) Purposeful availment of forum's benefits; (2) Claim arises from or relates to contacts; (3) Reasonableness. MINIMUM CONTACTS: Must be intentional, not random/fortuitous. Stream of commerce: Split authority. CONSENT (forum selection clause, appearance without objection), WAIVER, and IN-STATE SERVICE also confer PJ. LONG-ARM STATUTES: Must authorize + satisfy due process.

HYPO: P (FL) sues D Corp (incorporated in DE, HQ in NY) in FL federal court. D Corp sold one product to P through D's website. Product malfunctioned and injured P. Does FL have personal jurisdiction? ANALYSIS: GENERAL JURISDICTION? D must be "at home" - only in DE (incorporation) or NY (principal place of business). Not FL. SPECIFIC JURISDICTION? (1) Purposeful availment - Did D purposefully direct activities at FL? One sale via website = close question. Did D target FL specifically or just have national website? (2) Claim arises from FL contact - Yes, injury from FL sale. (3) Reasonableness - Burden on D vs. P's interest. RESULT: Likely NO general jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction depends on whether D specifically targeted FL market or just had passive website - courts split on internet jurisdiction.

- Exam shortcut: General vs specific; minimum contacts
Sources: civpro-28-1332, civpro-international-shoe, civpro-erie

## 2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

FEDERAL QUESTION (§1331): Claim arises under federal law. Must appear on face of well-pleaded complaint (not defense or anticipated defense). DIVERSITY (§1332): COMPLETE diversity (no P and D share state) + amount exceeds $75,000. Citizenship: Individuals = domicile; corporations = state of incorporation AND principal place of business. Aggregation: One P can aggregate claims vs one D; can't aggregate multiple Ps/Ds unless joint/common interest. SUPPLEMENTAL (§1367): Court can hear related state claims. Limit: In diversity cases, can't extend jurisdiction over claims by Ps against nondiverse parties.

HYPO: P (FL citizen) sues D1 (GA citizen) and D2 (FL citizen) in federal court for $100K arising from car accident. All claims are state law negligence. Does federal court have SMJ? ANALYSIS: NO federal question - only state law claims. Diversity? Requires COMPLETE diversity - no P citizen of same state as any D. P (FL) and D2 (FL) share citizenship. Complete diversity DESTROYED. Amount over $75K? Yes, but irrelevant without diversity. Can P sue just D1? Yes - P (FL) vs D1 (GA) = diverse. Can P add D2 as party later? Not under diversity - would destroy it. What about supplemental jurisdiction over D2? NO - §1367(b) bars supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs that would destroy diversity. RESULT: No SMJ with D2 as defendant. Must sue D1 alone in federal court OR sue both in state court.

- Exam shortcut: Complete diversity; $75K+; federal question
Sources: civpro-28-1332, civpro-international-shoe, civpro-erie

## 3. Erie Doctrine

In diversity cases, federal court applies STATE SUBSTANTIVE law and FEDERAL PROCEDURAL law. ANALYSIS: (1) Is there a federal rule/statute on point? If yes, apply if valid (REA - doesn't abridge substantive rights). (2) If no federal rule, is state rule substantive? OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE: Would applying federal rule cause forum shopping or inequitable administration? If yes, apply state law. SUBSTANCE: Statute of limitations, burden of proof, choice of law rules, elements of claim. PROCEDURE: Pleading standards (but FL uses notice pleading), service rules, evidence rules (but state privilege law applies). Conflicts between state constitution and federal procedure → federal wins.

HYPO: Diversity case in federal court. State law requires that medical malpractice plaintiffs submit claims to a screening panel before filing suit. P filed directly in federal court without screening. D moves to dismiss. Should federal court apply state screening requirement? ANALYSIS: ERIE framework: (1) Is there federal rule on point? No FRCP covers pre-suit screening. (2) Is state rule substantive or procedural? OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE test: Would different rules cause forum shopping? If P can avoid screening by suing in federal court, P will always choose federal. This is exactly what Erie aimed to prevent. State screening = SUBSTANTIVE for Erie purposes. Even though it looks procedural, it affects outcomes and would cause forum shopping. RESULT: Federal court must APPLY state screening requirement. P must comply before proceeding.

- Exam shortcut: Diversity: State substantive, federal procedural
Sources: civpro-28-1332, civpro-international-shoe, civpro-erie

## 4. Claim & Issue Preclusion

CLAIM PRECLUSION (res judicata): Bars relitigation of claims that were or should have been raised. Requirements: (1) Final judgment on merits; (2) Same parties (or privity); (3) Same claim (same transaction or occurrence). ISSUE PRECLUSION (collateral estoppel): Bars relitigation of issues actually litigated and decided. Requirements: (1) Same issue; (2) Actually litigated and decided; (3) Essential to judgment; (4) Full and fair opportunity to litigate. MUTUALITY: Traditional rule required same parties. Modern: Nonmutual defensive preclusion allowed; nonmutual offensive preclusion discretionary (Parklane factors).

HYPO: P1 sues D for negligence in car accident. Jury finds D was NOT negligent. Judgment entered. P2 (passenger in P1's car) now sues D for same accident. D argues P2 is precluded. P2 argues D is precluded. Who's right? ANALYSIS: CLAIM PRECLUSION against P2? NO - different parties (P2 wasn't party to first suit). ISSUE PRECLUSION against P2? D wants to use prior finding of "not negligent." This is NONMUTUAL DEFENSIVE preclusion (D using prior judgment as shield). Generally ALLOWED. P2 could have joined first case; was issue fully litigated? Yes. ISSUE PRECLUSION against D? P2 wants to use hypothetical finding of D's negligence offensively. But D WON - was found not negligent. Can't use losing finding. RESULT: D can use ISSUE PRECLUSION against P2. The "not negligent" finding bars P2's claim.

- Exam shortcut: Same transaction = one claim; same issue = preclusion
Sources: civpro-28-1332, civpro-international-shoe, civpro-erie

## 5. Removal

REMOVAL: D can remove from state to federal court if federal court would have original jurisdiction. PROCEDURE: Notice of removal within 30 days of service (or learning of federal question/diversity). All Ds must join. DIVERSITY REMOVAL: FORUM DEFENDANT RULE - Cannot remove on diversity if any D is citizen of forum state. No removal more than 1 year after commencement (unless bad faith to prevent removal). FEDERAL QUESTION: No forum defendant rule. Removable even if D is forum citizen. REMAND: For procedural defects, must move within 30 days. For lack of SMJ, any time. Bad faith removal = costs and fees.

HYPO: P (FL) sues D (GA) in FL state court for state law negligence, seeking $100K. D wants to remove to federal court. Can D remove? What if D was FL citizen? What if case was 14 months old? ANALYSIS: Basic removal: Diversity exists (FL vs GA, >$75K). Federal court would have original jurisdiction. D can remove within 30 days of service. FORUM DEFENDANT RULE: If D was FL citizen (forum state), NO removal based on diversity. D can't remove from home state. 1-YEAR RULE: If case was 14 months old, generally too late (1-year limit for diversity removal). BUT: Exception if P acted in bad faith to prevent removal (e.g., waited to amend to increase damages above $75K). RESULT: D (GA) CAN remove from FL state court. FL defendant could NOT remove. After 1 year, removal barred unless P's bad faith.

- Exam shortcut: Diversity removal; forum defendant rule
Sources: civpro-28-1332, civpro-international-shoe, civpro-erie

## Primary law and source anchors

- **28 U.S.C. Section 1332**: Federal diversity-jurisdiction statute for complete diversity and amount in controversy. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1332)
- **International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)**: Minimum-contacts baseline for personal-jurisdiction analysis. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/310/)
- **Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)**: The core state-substantive/federal-procedural framework in diversity cases. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/304/64/)

## FAQ

- **How should I use this Civil Procedure ranking page?**: Use it to decide review order, not as a substitute for practice. Start with the first two or three topics, then reinforce them with timed multiple-choice work.
- **Does "most tested" mean the lower-ranked topics are unimportant?**: No. It means the higher-ranked topics deserve earlier and more frequent review because they trigger more downstream issues and more repeat appearances across mixed sets.

## Related pages

- [Personal Jurisdiction Framework for Civ Pro Questions](https://www.barprepplay.com/deep-dives/civil-procedure/personal-jurisdiction-framework/)
- [Civil Procedure One-Pager](https://www.barprepplay.com/one-pagers/civil-procedure/)