A plaintiff filed a negligence action against two defendants in federal district court, invoking the court's diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Prior to serving their answers, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, concluding that subject matter jurisdiction was proper. The defendants then filed their answers responding to the merits of the complaint and denying negligence. The defendants' answers also contained motions to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Five weeks later, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for improper venue. If the court determines that venue in fact is improper, how should the court rule on the defendants' venue motion

If the court determines that the venue is inappropriate, it will be necessary for the court to deny the venue motion.

Explanation:

If the court determines that the venue is inappropriate, it will be necessary for the court to deny the venue motion. This will be the right thing to do because the defendants did not raise any objections during the pre-answer motion that would demonstrate that they were seeking jurisdiction over the matter. In this case, the defendants waived any objection to the venue motion.

quid pro quo sexual harassment typically involves an employee being pressured by a superior to provide sexual favors in order to avoid being fired or demoted, or in order to get a promotion, raise or perk.

more people will not obey the law or vice vice versa

explanation: the answer really speaks for itself if the number of prisoners are going up then that means that more people will not obey the law and if less people are going to prison then that means that more people are obeying the law.