Diversity Jurisdiction (Civ Pro) holds that a case should be tried in a single action when there is a common nucleus of operative fact.

Enhance your Bar Exam preparation with Themis Bar Exam Quiz. Use hints and multiple choice questions to sharpen your understanding. Excel in your Bar Exam!

Multiple Choice

Diversity Jurisdiction (Civ Pro) holds that a case should be tried in a single action when there is a common nucleus of operative fact.

The main idea tested is that diversity jurisdiction is used to bring related claims with a common nucleus of operative fact into one federal action to avoid piecemeal litigation. When the claims share central facts—the same events, transactions, or occurrences form the basis for multiple theories—courts favor proceeding in a single action. This promotes judicial economy, ensures consistent results, and avoids duplicative discovery and conflicting judgments that could arise if the same core facts were tried separately. So, choosing a single action for all related claims under diversity jurisdiction is the preferred approach, provided the jurisdictional requirements (like complete diversity and amount in controversy) are still met. The other statements misstate aspects of subject matter or diversity jurisdiction (for example, that federal jurisdiction is limited to federal questions, or that it applies only to appellate courts), which is why they aren’t correct.

The main idea tested is that diversity jurisdiction is used to bring related claims with a common nucleus of operative fact into one federal action to avoid piecemeal litigation. When the claims share central facts—the same events, transactions, or occurrences form the basis for multiple theories—courts favor proceeding in a single action. This promotes judicial economy, ensures consistent results, and avoids duplicative discovery and conflicting judgments that could arise if the same core facts were tried separately.

So, choosing a single action for all related claims under diversity jurisdiction is the preferred approach, provided the jurisdictional requirements (like complete diversity and amount in controversy) are still met. The other statements misstate aspects of subject matter or diversity jurisdiction (for example, that federal jurisdiction is limited to federal questions, or that it applies only to appellate courts), which is why they aren’t correct.

More practice questions