CIVIL PROCEDURE — ANNOTATED MODEL ESSAY
This essay models a classic Civil Procedure cluster — personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity and supplemental), and venue/transfer. Read the black text as the answer you would write under timed conditions; the gold boxes explain why each move earns points.
Driver, a citizen of Ohio, was injured when a ladder she bought online collapsed. The ladder was designed and manufactured by Ladderco, a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its headquarters and only factory in Michigan. Ladderco maintains an interactive website through which it sells directly to consumers nationwide; roughly 4% of its annual sales are to Ohio residents, and it ships those orders into Ohio by common carrier. Ladderco has no offices, employees, or property in Ohio.
Driver sued Ladderco in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, asserting a state-law product-liability claim and seeking $250,000 in damages. Driver also joined a second claim against Retailer, an Ohio citizen who had inspected and resold the same ladder to Driver at an Ohio flea market, alleging negligent inspection and seeking $40,000 on that claim. Ladderco moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Michigan.
(1) May the Ohio federal court exercise personal jurisdiction over Ladderco? (2) Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over both claims? (3) Should the court transfer the action to the Eastern District of Michigan?
Model Answer — with annotations
Black text is the answer you could realistically write under timed conditions. The gold boxes explain why each move earns points.
I. Personal Jurisdiction Over Ladderco
The issue is whether the Ohio federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Ladderco consistent with the forum's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A federal court ordinarily has personal jurisdiction to the extent the state where it sits would. Most long-arm statutes extend to the constitutional limit, so the analysis turns on due process.
Due process permits either general or specific jurisdiction. General (all-purpose) jurisdiction exists only where the defendant is "at home." For a corporation, that is its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. Ladderco is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan; it is not at home in Ohio, and its 4% sales there are not so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home. General jurisdiction therefore fails.
Specific jurisdiction requires that (a) the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum, (b) the claim arises out of or relates to the forum contacts, and (c) jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. Ladderco operates an interactive website through which it sells directly to Ohio consumers and ships goods into Ohio by carrier. By targeting and serving the Ohio market for profit, Ladderco purposefully availed itself of Ohio's market rather than being haled in by a plaintiff's unilateral act; this is far more than placing a product into the stream of commerce. Driver's injury arose from a ladder of the very type Ladderco sells into Ohio, so the claim relates to those contacts. Finally, exercising jurisdiction is reasonable: the burden on a multistate seller litigating in a neighboring state is slight, Ohio has a strong interest in providing a forum for its injured resident, and Driver has a strong interest in convenient relief. Specific jurisdiction is proper.
II. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. There is no federal question because both claims arise under state law, so jurisdiction must rest on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
As to the claim against Ladderco, Driver is an Ohio citizen and Ladderco is a citizen of both Delaware (incorporation) and Michigan (principal place of business); the parties are completely diverse. The $250,000 demanded, pleaded in good faith, exceeds $75,000. Diversity jurisdiction over the Ladderco claim is satisfied.
The claim against Retailer is more difficult. Retailer is an Ohio citizen, the same as Driver, so that claim destroys complete diversity and the amount sought ($40,000) is below the threshold; it cannot stand on its own under § 1332. The court may nonetheless hear it through supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 if it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim — here it does, as both claims concern the same ladder and the same injury. However, § 1367(b) withdraws supplemental jurisdiction over claims by plaintiffs against persons joined under Rule 20 when doing so would defeat complete diversity in a diversity-only case. Because Driver (the plaintiff) seeks to use supplemental jurisdiction against a non-diverse defendant joined under Rule 20, § 1367(b) bars the claim against Retailer.
III. Transfer of Venue
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any district where it might have been brought, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Venue would have been proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because Ladderco resides there and a substantial part of the design and manufacture occurred there, so the case "might have been brought" in that district.
The court then weighs private factors (convenience of parties and witnesses, access to proof) and public factors (court congestion, the forum's interest, and familiarity with governing law). The plaintiff's choice of her home forum is entitled to substantial deference, key witnesses and the injury lie in Ohio, and Ohio has a strong interest in adjudicating injuries to its residents. Transfer should be denied, as Ladderco has not shown that the balance strongly favors Michigan.
Conclusion. The Ohio court has specific personal jurisdiction over Ladderco and diversity jurisdiction over Driver's claim against it, but it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim against Retailer under § 1367(b). Transfer to Michigan should be denied.
- Spots every tested issue: general vs. specific personal jurisdiction, diversity, supplemental jurisdiction, and § 1404(a) transfer.
- Uses disciplined IRAC with bold headings, so the grader can find each issue and award points quickly.
- States rules precisely — the "essentially at home" test, the three-part specific-jurisdiction test, and the § 1367(b) carve-out — rather than vague generalities.
- Applies facts to law on both sides (purposeful availment vs. stream of commerce; common nucleus vs. the § 1367(b) bar).
- Catches the hidden trap that supplemental jurisdiction cannot save the plaintiff's claim against a non-diverse Rule 20 defendant.
- Reaches clean, claim-specific conclusions that directly answer all three calls.
📝 Now make it yours. Learn the rules behind this essay in the Black Letter Law book and Essay Model Language bank, sharpen your radar with the Issue-Spotting Checklists, then write your own and get it AI-graded at BarExamNextGen.