OK. This is going to be a relatively short thread, because it's a relatively short decision.
First, some background about the way Federal Courts work
Not everything can go to federal court. In fact, they only take two types of cases: federal question (case involving federal law/constitution) or diversity (case between citizens of different states or a US citizen and a foreigner).
State law dispute between 2 NYers?
Or, to pick a random example, a lawsuit between a Canadian and an Italian?
Now, the thing about subject matter jurisdiction - which is "what types of cases does this court have the power to hear" is that it can't be created by the parties' agreement. The court either has it or it doesn't.
So while an objection to personal jurisdiction can be waived by not raising it - you may not be able to sue me in Nome, Alaska, but if you do and I show up to litigate instead of moving to dismiss, then it turns out you can - that's not true for subject matter jurisdiction
That's what happened in this case. Two parties litigated in Federal Court. For. Years.
After a hard fought battle, the defendant won a summary judgment motion.
And then, on appeal? THIS happened
How could this happen?
Well, it turned on the parties not understanding the differences between LLCs and corporations, and the Court not paying attention to it.
The law treats different types of business organization differently. As distinct legal entities, the law treats corporations as distinct from their shareholders. They're taxed differently. And, for diversity purposes, "who the shareholders are" doesn't matter.
Basically, a corporation is a citizen where it's incorporated and where it's HQ is.
Partnerships are different. They're treated as the amalgamation of the individual partners - bunch of people coming together - so they're citizens of anywhere one of their partners is.
Want to sue a large law firm? Good luck with diversity jurisdiction; if any of its partners live in your state, you don't have it. (Some law firms are actually corporations; go hog wild against them)
How about LLCs? They're not an incorporated entity, but they're also not technically a partnership. But it's a pass-through entity for tax purposes, and the courts basically decided to treat them the same way as partnerships: An LLC has the citizenship of all of its members
And that bit about "sub-members"? That's where it gets really fun. Because sometimes the members of an LLC you want to sue (or are suing) are *themselves* LLCs. So to figure out what the citizenship is, you need to trace through ALL of that until you get to real people (or corps)
And you potentially run into problems when the lawyers don't notice that an LLC is different from a corporation for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, which is what happened here.
Step by step:
1) Plaintiff's lawyer acted like his LLC client was a corporation, and just alleged it was a Michigan citizen because the LLC was created under Michigan law
2) The defendant didn't catch that. Neither did the court (typically, the court WILL notice and instruct the plaintiff to allege where the members are based)
3) So they spent 3 years doing discovery and motion practice. And defendant won! Hooray! (Oh no)
Plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeals, being a little more attentive to detail this time than the trial court judge (and btw, you can bet their clerk did not have a fun time reading this decision) went
Anyway, the court orders briefing, and the plaintiff goes "oh, hey, your honors, it turns out that the ultimate owner in the LLC chain is a Swiss company owned by an Italian dude. Oh well"
And if that's true, and the court has no reason to think it isn't, that means the trial court never had jurisdiction to begin with, because both parties are non-US citizens, so there's no diversity.
The result? The 6th Circuit kicks it back down to the trial court (the defendant will at least get to do some discovery to confirm if what the Plaintiff said is true) and absent a miracle, the case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
That's a big win for the Plaintiff; assuming the statute of limitations hasn't run, it gets to retry the case knowing what did and didn't work the first time, and every decision by the trial court is wiped from existence.
As a lawyer ... nightmare fuel.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The SCOTUS affirmative action decision was legally wrong - poorly reasoned and legally silly. But in the long run, and if it spurs schools to use socioeconomic status and opportunity as the finger on the scales, it will be a net positive
Race is a blunt instrument, and I think we *all* agree that, for example, Willow Smith doesn't need or warrant any sort of bump on her college application. But Willow Smith is a WILD outlier and "but what about [insert rare exception]" isn't a useful policy framework
So yeah, it was perfectly reasonable for universities to use that blunt instrument.
As many of these university reaction statements are making clear, the burden will now be to find finer instruments that allow for the same intended benefit of taking into account the very real
This thread from Yesh is a good example of a philosophical mistake I like to call "solutionism" - the belief that if a problem is bad enough then there must be a solution out there to resolve it, because "yeah, it sucks, it can't be solved for" is too unthinkable to bear
You see it a lot in the context of Israel/Palestine, with people convinced that the right mixture of fairy dust & button pushing can lead to a peaceful resolution that addresses all of the important and competing imperatives, it's just that nobody has found the right mixture yet
And we're seeing it with "a large portion of the population is willing to believe any prosecution of crimes by Trump is political"
Yes, that sucks. Yes, that's a potentially society-destroying problem.
@yesh222 You don't worry about that, because it's not a solveable problem. You keep doing the right thing and hope that convictions and mounting evidence prevents more people from joining the conspiracy theorists, but that's all you can do
@yesh222 I said this 4 years ago, and it's proven true in every particular.
Literally nothing she did on the video is consistent with her new story. When her colleague came over and the kids said "that's his bike, he already paid for it" she didn't deny it, or look surprised by the claim.
Like ... how do you determine truth in a they-said-she-said situation? Watch human behavior. Throughout the video, the kids' tone is exactly what you'd expect for someone who believes their own story. Hers very much is not
And when her colleague comes and suggests that the kids get another bike, and they say "no, he paid for that bike, he unlocked it, it's his" there's exactly no reaction of "no, *I* paid for it" or "what the hell", which is what you'd expect if they were lying
Hey, Twitter, and especially my #LitigationDisasterTourists, gather round. B/cwhile DM is focusing in on the court finding that selling videogame cheats is criminal copyright infringement and RICO, I'd like to tell you about something different. The CFAA, and @KathrynTewson
And don't get me wrong - that RICO stuff is big news that should be sending shockwaves through the cheat software industry. Cheatmakers often use resellers. Being found liable on a RICO violation means that every reseller could potentially be liable for 100% of the damage caused
by the cheat software.
And by 100%, of course, I mean 300%, since RICO comes with treble damages. Plus attorneys' fees. So that's a big deal.
As is the finding that it's criminal copyright infringement. Those are both new precedents in the area, and that's huge.
I'm not inclined to forgive antisemitism, but this is more a learning opportunity than a defenestration opportunity. There are people who still legitimately don't understand that "Jew down" or "gyp" are slurs; it's just a phrase they've grown up around and use w/o thought
And yes, he doubled down when called out on it. That's almost always going to happen when someone who sincerely doesn't believe they're doing anything bigoted is called out for it in a public setting.
The real test will be whether he can learn (& apologize) as he gets more info
Also, HOLY FUCKING SHIT @pnj, you couldn't find an *actual* Jew to get a quote from, so you decided to go to a Christian LARPing as a Jew for missionizing purposes? What the absolute fuck? pnj.com/story/news/loc…