Akiva Cohen Profile picture
Aug 9 21 tweets 6 min read
Hey, #LitigationDisasterTourists

Want an explainer on why this is nightmare fuel - and why it's so important to have lawyers who know what the rules are?
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
 

Keep Current with Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AkivaMCohen

Aug 2
OK, #LitigationDisasterTourists, I promised you a breakdown of the #DeshaunWatson decision, so here it comes.

Fair warning - there's some pretty gross conduct described in the opinion and the outcome is, IMO, a disaster.
Judge Robinson, who decided this case after being jointly appointed by the NFLPA and NFL is an extremely experienced former federal judge; she retired from the District of Delaware in 2017.
Read 36 tweets
Aug 1
OK, folks. Republicans are insisting they voted against funding Veterans' healthcare last week because there was a secret 400M "slush fund" in the bill (that they somehow missed when they voted for it weeks earlier). So let's just read the bill.

Yes, all of it.
You can find it here. congress.gov/bill/117th-con…. I'm skipping the amendment to the short title ("This bill can be referred to as ...") and the table of contents
Start with sections 101 and 102. 101 is literally the "Short Title" and tells you how you can refer to the bill; it was amended from the "COVENANT ACT" to the "PACT ACT" in that amendment I skipped.

102 edits the definitions in 38 U.S.C. 1710. Let's take those 1 at a time
Read 61 tweets
Aug 1
This. Bottom line, the NFLPA specifically negotiated the appeals process when it agreed to the CBA; the NFL has no right to appeal on liability, only on punishment (meaning that if the arbitrator says "not guilty" they can't appeal to Goodell, but if she says "guilty, 4 games ...
they can go to Goodell and have Goodell adjust the punishment to whatever he wants).

What the NFLPA and #Watson are signaling is they expect Robinson to find he violated the NFL's personal conduct policy but to give him a slap on the wrist
As I said a week or two ago, that's the NFL's worst nightmare, and they're just not going to leave a slap on the wrist alone, especially not when it will likely be based on "you didn't punish owners and FO people harshly enough when they violated the policy"
Read 5 tweets
Jul 27
Hey, #LitigationDisasterTourists, in a SHOCKING twist, Sandmann has lost his defamation cases. Let's read the order, shall we?

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Gonna skip past the procedural background and get to the description of the evidence on the motion:
So, how did Sandmann's deposition go?
Read 26 tweets
Jul 27
Hey, #LitigationDisasterTourists and CivPro geeks, this is definitely worth a look.

Tl;dr: In 2018, the NJ AG sent cease and desist letters to people who were publishing 3d-printing files for guns and gun parts.

Those folks sued the NJ AG in Texas.
The NJ AG moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the Texas Ct granted it.

The 5th Circuit reversed.

The NJ AG then asked to transfer the case to NJ, where another similar case was pending. TX court granted it. Case was transferred and consolidated with the NJ case.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff asked the 5th circuit to order the judge to take the case back. And it did. Except, because the case had already been transferred, all it could do was order the Texas district court to ASK the NJ district court to send the case back
Read 6 tweets
Jul 19
Twitter v. Musk (hearing on motion to expedite) starting up soon. tel:774-267-2687 if you're interested in listening in
OK, just back from a meeting. From what I can tell, Twitter's lawyer has been talking for about 15 minutes without interruption from the judge. Explaining why Twitter needs this expedited (including that Musk has a consent right holding up Twitter decisions)
Now arguing "number of spam accounts" isn't going to be an issue for trial, because that's not a basis for avoiding the merger.

"The claim that we represented there were no more than 5% spam accounts is just false."
Read 35 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(