Ease Into Prep with a BAR® Question of the Day
Build prep into your routine until it's second nature.
Get a BAR question—with detailed answer explanations—in your inbox every day.
Build prep into your routine until it's second nature.
Get a BAR question—with detailed answer explanations—in your inbox every day.
Two plaintiffs sued a defendant in federal court for a state law tort cause of action for which there was no statutory cap on damages. The plaintiffs each alleged that more than $ 75,000 was in controversy as to his claim, and demanded a judgment for more than $ 75,000, but neither pled these damages with particularity. The first plaintiff was domiciled in State B but moved before the suit was filed to State A. This first plaintiff resided in State A at the time the suit was filed but at all times intended to return to State B upon the completion of a temporary work assignment. The second plaintiff was domiciled at all times in State A. The defendant was a corporation incorporated under the laws of State C with its principal place of business in State B. Just before trial, after two years of pleadings, discovery, and a final pretrial conference, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion.
Was the trial court correct to grant the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction?
No matter where you are on your journey, Kaplan's expert teachers can help you raise your score.
Find the course that fits you best.