Civil Procedure on the NextGen Bar Exam
Civil Procedure is the subject that makes or breaks candidates who skip it because it feels "boring." It's not glamorous. But roughly 1 in 8 of your exam questions will test it, and the questions follow predictable patterns once you learn to spot them.
The exam runs almost entirely through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The single most tested area is jurisdiction — and there's a reason for that. If a court lacks jurisdiction, nothing else matters. Subject matter jurisdiction breaks into federal question (§ 1331) and diversity (§ 1332). For diversity, you need complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants, plus an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The trap question everyone falls for: LLC citizenship. An LLC's citizenship is determined by every single member's citizenship — not its state of organization. Miss that distinction and you'll blow a straightforward diversity question.
Personal jurisdiction is the second most tested area, and Bristol-Myers Squibb changed the game. General jurisdiction only works where a defendant is "essentially at home" — for corporations, that's the state of incorporation and principal place of business. Period. Specific jurisdiction requires minimum contacts plus a relatedness requirement between the contacts and the claim. The exam loves fact patterns where a company has some contacts with a state but the claim arose elsewhere — that's a specific jurisdiction trap.
Pleading under Twombly/Iqbal trips people up because the standard sounds simple but applies tricky. "A short and plain statement" isn't enough — you need factual content that nudges the claim across the plausibility line. Conclusory allegations that just parrot the legal elements? Dismissed. The key is distinguishing factual allegations (accepted as true on a 12(b)(6) motion) from legal conclusions (ignored).
Discovery questions under Rules 26–37 focus on scope (relevant and proportional to the needs of the case), privilege protection, and spoliation of electronically stored information. E-discovery sanctions have become a favorite testing area because they're practical and fact-intensive.
Here's what most candidates waste time on: venue. It gets tested, but it's a straightforward statutory analysis under § 1391. Don't spend 15 hours memorizing venue rules when jurisdiction and pleading are worth 3x the points.
Exam Tips
- Run jurisdiction in order: subject matter jurisdiction first, then personal jurisdiction. If SMJ fails, stop — nothing else matters.
- LLC citizenship trap: determined by all members' citizenship, not state of organization. This catches 30%+ of candidates on diversity questions.
- On personal jurisdiction, always check general jurisdiction first (at-home test) before running specific jurisdiction analysis. If general applies, you're done.
- Twombly/Iqbal key move: separate factual allegations (accepted as true) from legal conclusions (ignored). The plausibility analysis only runs on the facts.
- Rule 12 waiver trap: 12(b)(2)-(5) defenses are waived if not raised in the first responsive pleading. But 12(b)(1) subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived — raised any time, even on appeal.
Key Rules to Know
- § 1332 diversity: complete diversity between ALL plaintiffs and ALL defendants + AIC exceeding $75,000
- Bristol-Myers Squibb: specific jurisdiction requires relatedness between the claim and the defendant's forum contacts
- Twombly/Iqbal: factual content must nudge the claim across the line from conceivable to plausible
- Rule 56: summary judgment when no genuine dispute of material fact exists — movant bears initial burden
- Rule 23 class certification: numerosity + commonality + typicality + adequacy, then satisfy one (b) category
Sample Practice Questions
Carla, a citizen of New Jersey, files suit in federal court against GreenTech Industries, Inc., a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey. The complaint alleges state-law claims for environmental contamination of Carla's property and seeks $150,000 in damages. Three months after GreenTech files its answer, Carla discovers that BioWaste Solutions, LLC—whose sole member is a citizen of Pennsylvania—also contributed to the contamination. Carla moves to amend her complaint to add BioWaste as a co-defendant with a separate state-law claim seeking $90,000 in damages. GreenTech does not object to the amendment. Should the court grant the motion to amend and exercise jurisdiction over the claim against BioWaste?
- Yes, because the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against BioWaste since it arises out of the same contamination events.
- Yes, because BioWaste's sole member is a citizen of Pennsylvania, which is diverse from both Carla and GreenTech, satisfying complete diversity.
- No, because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the original action since Carla and GreenTech are both citizens of New Jersey, and the court must dismiss the case.
- No, because the claim against BioWaste does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement of $75,000 and cannot be aggregated with the claim against GreenTech.
Show answer
Correct: No, because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the original action since Carla and GreenTech are both citizens of New Jersey, and the court must dismiss the case.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. Under § 1332(c)(1), a corporation is deemed a citizen of every state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business. GreenTech is a citizen of both Delaware and New Jersey. Because Carla is also a citizen of New Jersey, complete diversity is destroyed. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or consented to (see Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinée, 456 U.S. 694 (1982)), and the court must raise the deficiency sua sponte at any time under FRCP Rule 12(h)(3). The court must dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, making the motion to add BioWaste moot.
Petra, a citizen of Germany who has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence and domiciled in Texas, sues DevCorp, a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Texas, in federal court. Petra's complaint alleges state-law claims and seeks $150,000 in damages. DevCorp moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court rule?
- Deny the motion, because diversity jurisdiction exists between a foreign citizen and a domestic corporation.
- Grant the motion, because a permanent resident alien domiciled in the same state as the defendant corporation destroys diversity.
- Deny the motion, because Petra's German citizenship provides an independent basis for alienage jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(2).
- Grant the motion, because federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over any claim brought by a permanent resident alien.
Show answer
Correct: Grant the motion, because a permanent resident alien domiciled in the same state as the defendant corporation destroys diversity.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), an alien admitted for permanent residence is 'deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.' Petra is domiciled in Texas and is therefore deemed a Texas citizen. DevCorp is a citizen of both Delaware (state of incorporation) and Texas (principal place of business) under § 1332(c)(1). Because both Petra and DevCorp are citizens of Texas, complete diversity is lacking, and the court must grant the motion to dismiss.
A plaintiff filed a breach of contract action in federal court against a corporation. After the corporation was properly served with the summons and complaint, it failed to file any responsive pleading. The plaintiff requested that the clerk enter default under FRCP Rule 55(a), and the clerk did so. The plaintiff then moved for default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2). Before the court ruled on the motion, the corporation's newly retained attorney filed a motion to set aside the clerk's entry of default, arguing that the corporation's failure to respond was due to an excusable internal mail-handling error, that the corporation had a meritorious defense of statute of limitations, and that the plaintiff would suffer no prejudice from the delay. What standard governs the court's decision on the corporation's motion to set aside the entry of default?
- The court must apply the Rule 60(b) standard, requiring the corporation to show extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from a final judgment.
- The court must apply the Rule 55(c) "good cause" standard, considering factors such as whether the default was willful, whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and whether the plaintiff would be prejudiced.
- The court must automatically set aside the entry of default because the corporation filed its motion before a default judgment was entered.
- The court must apply the Rule 55(c) standard applicable to setting aside a default judgment, which requires satisfying both good cause and the conditions of Rule 60(b).
Show answer
Correct: The court must apply the Rule 55(c) "good cause" standard, considering factors such as whether the default was willful, whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and whether the plaintiff would be prejudiced.
Under FRCP Rule 55(c), the court may set aside an entry of default for 'good cause shown.' Courts typically evaluate good cause by examining three factors: (1) whether the default was willful or culpable, (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and (3) whether setting aside the default would prejudice the plaintiff. See Ennis v. Royal, 912 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1990). This is a less demanding standard than the Rule 60(b) standard applicable to setting aside a default judgment. Here, only the clerk's entry of default has occurred, so Rule 55(c)'s good cause standard applies.
Related Reading
Other Subjects
Practice hundreds more Civil Procedure questions in the app.
Download on the App Store