You are working on a case that is now being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. You have been asked to find out whether a defendant who made and lost a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process can now subsequently move to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Don't worry about exactly what that means. Just know that Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to dismiss in federal courts.)You have found the following authority, all of which squarely addresses your issue. Make a preliminary ranking of the authorities solely from the information provided below. California and Nevada are both in the Ninth Circuit.

List to assort...

Catdog v. AmundsenU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2008

Great Basin Realty Co. v. RandNevada Supreme Court, 2002

Matthewson's treatise titled Federal Courts (published last year) Wilkes v. Jae Sun Trading Corp.U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1977

Pincus v. McGrathU.S. Supreme Court, 1953

Mader v. City of Las VegasU.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, 2013

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (revised last year)

Barking Pumpkins Records, Inc. v. SepulvedaCalifornia Supreme Court, 2009

Garibaldi v. City of BoulderU.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 2007

Ali v. FrazierU.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1935

Here is my answer; is this correct or what would you switch around?

Chapter 7

1.Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 12(b) (revised last year) - This is a mandatory authority as it is aprocedural rulegoverning motion to dismiss. It is binding and must be followed.

2. Wilkes v. Jae Sun Trading Corp.U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1977 - This authority is mandatory as it comes from the Ninth Circuit,which is the court where the case is pending.

3. Great Basin Realty Co. v. RandNevada Supreme Court, 2002 - This authority is mandatory as it comes from the highest court in the state of Nevada, which has jurisdiction over the case.

4. Mader v. City ofLas VegasU.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, 2013 - This authority is mandatory to some extent as it comes from the samedistrict courtwhere the case is pending. However, district court decisions are not binding on other courts.

5.Pincus v. McGrathU.S. Supreme Court, 1953 - This authority is highly persuasive as it comes from the highest court in the United States. Although it may not directly address the issue at hand,Supreme Courtdecisions carry significant weight.

6.Catdog v. AmundsenU.S. Court of Appeals for theFourth Circuit, 2008 - This authority is persuasive but not mandatory since it comes from a different circuit. It may provide some guidance, but it is not binding on the Ninth Circuit.

7. Matthewson's treatise titledFederal Courts(published last year) - Treatises can be persuasive authorities, especially when they provide comprehensive analysis and interpretation of the law. However, they are not mandatory and can be subject to differing opinions.

8. Barking Pumpkins Records, Inc. v. SepulvedaCalifornia Supreme Court,2009 - This authority is persuasive but not mandatory as it comes from a different state's supreme court, which is not directly applicable to the case at hand.

9. Garibaldi v. City of BoulderU.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 2007 - This authority is persuasive but not mandatory as it comes from a different circuit and does not have direct applicability to the case.

10. Otti v. FrazierU.S. Court of Appeals for theSeventh Circuit, 1935 - This authority is persuasive but not mandatory as it comes from a different circuit and may not directly address the issue in question.