Here are some questions on PJ in federal court.

1) P (NJ) sues D (NY) in S.D.N.Y. Suit is under MD battery law concerning a brawl between P, D and X in MD. Using Rule 14, D impleads X, on the grounds that if D is liable to P, X will be liable to D because they were acting as joint tortfeasors in the brawl X is served while in Greenwich CT on a brief trip. PJ over X (assume no contacts between X and NY)?

2) P (NJ) sues D (NY) in S.D.N.Y. Suit is under MD battery law concerning a brawl between P, D and X in MD. Using Rule 14, D impleads X, on the grounds that if D is liable to P, X will be liable to D because they were acting as joint tortfeasors in the brawl. X is domiciled in Greenwich CT. X is served however in Hartford CT (more than 100 miles from SDNY). PJ over X (assume no contacts between X and NY)?

3) P (NJ) sues D (NY) in S.D.N.Y. Suit is under MD battery law concerning a brawl between P and D in MD. Using Rule 14, D impleads X, his insurance company. The X insurance company is incorporated in Cal. and has its PPB in Cal. It does no business in CT. The CEO of the X insurance co. is served while in Greenwich CT on a brief trip.  PJ over X (assume no contacts between X and NY)?

4) P (NJ) sues D (NY) in S.D.N.Y. Suit is under MD battery law concerning a brawl between P and D in MD. Using Rule 14, D impleads X, his insurance company. The X insurance company is incorporated in Cal. and has its PPB in Cal. It does substantial and continuous business in CT however, although all of this business is in Hartford. The CEO of the X insurance co. is served while in Greenwich CT on a brief trip. PJ over X (assume no contacts between X and NY)?

5) P (NJ) sues D (NY) in S.D.N.Y. Suit is under MD battery law concerning a brawl between P and D in MD. Using Rule 14, D impleads X, his insurance company. The X insurance company is incorporated in Cal. and has its PPB in Cal.  The insurance contract between D and X was sent out from a small X office in Greenwich CT, subsequently closed, to D while D was living in Wisconsin.  The CEO of the X insurance co. is served while in Greenwich CT on a brief trip.  PJ over X (assume no contacts between X and NY)?

6) Same as 5, except, under CT law no PJ would be asserted over X if the suit were brought in CT, because it would not fall under CT's long-arm statute. PJ over X?

7) Why does Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(B) (the 100-mile bulge provision) exist? Why doesn't it apply not merely to joinder of necessary parties and impleaders but also to other forms of party joinder? Why is is constitutional, given that it allows for PJ even if there are no minimum contacts with the state where the action is being brought?

8) What happens if R. 4(k)(1)(B) is used to get PJ over a corporation? What does it mean for that party to be "served"? Does there have to be minimum contacts with the bulge?

9) A brings suit in federal court in Virginia against B, a German domiciliary residing in Germany, for a battery that the German committed against him Delaware. The German has no other contacts with the United States. Is personal jurisdiction over B constitutionally allowed? Is it allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)?

10) Same question as 9, except A is suing B under federal law.

11) Assume that Yasser Arafat is sued under a federal antiterrorism act allowing for American victims of foreign terrorism to sue for damages. The action is brought in federal court in New York. Does the federal court ahve the power to take the case under 4(k)?

12) Why does Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) exist? Why does it apply only to actions brought under federal law, not state law?