Two federal judges in Texas recently granted motions to transfer cases to other courts. Then the Fifth Circuit got involved. Now, it's a nationwide mess.
This must be driving Civ Pro professors nuts. What exactly are they supposed to be teaching about jurisdiction? What was the claim for jurisdiction based on in the first case if no parties were connected with Texas? If I in Washington want to sue an Oregon resident in federal court, can I now just file it with Judge Katastrophe in Texas for...reasons?
Do you think either of these cases will make it to the Extremes so there is an actual RULING that binds even the 5th Circuit? Do you think this scotus would refuse to rein the 5th circuit in?
This is fascinating. Because in the parallel universe IP world, the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling on a mandamus petition late last year that blessed the Federal Circuit's approach which made it significantly easier to get cases without a local connection out of two Texas courts that are hotbeds for patent litigation (Eastern and Western Districts). It's hard to know what the difference is
The difference is the Fifth Circuit wants these cases because they want to stick it to the administration and reward wealthy Republican donors. Hard to come to any other conclusion.
It really isn't about money for the most part. It is about ideology and power to enforce one's ideology. It's also some small measure of petty vindictiveness.
One can fairly assume that some Fifth Circuit judges, like many of their reactionary forbears on that court and other, have a visceral hatred of the NLRB and all it stands for and would love to help bury it.
That may be the plaintiff's interests, but the Fifth is more about downsizing or even undercutting the federal government than because they see themselves getting some kind of financial reward.
And even the Musk case is as much about his determination to see himself as the king of his own kingdom than money. Unions put a crimp into his plans for total domination.
Was familiar with the Musk case, not the other. What now? Does this have to go to SCOTUS? And what next? Is the Fifth going to just willy nilly grab cases from other courts because in their opinion, it's their case?
SCOTUS should in effect tell the lower courts to stop fucking around and insist that judge shopping stop (because it's literally caused them issues as well). But... this SCOTUS who knows.
Requests for mandamus in the Court of Appeals on an interlocutory is basically - how should I say it - BS? That almost never has merit and doesn't have any here.
This must be driving Civ Pro professors nuts. What exactly are they supposed to be teaching about jurisdiction? What was the claim for jurisdiction based on in the first case if no parties were connected with Texas? If I in Washington want to sue an Oregon resident in federal court, can I now just file it with Judge Katastrophe in Texas for...reasons?
Do you think either of these cases will make it to the Extremes so there is an actual RULING that binds even the 5th Circuit? Do you think this scotus would refuse to rein the 5th circuit in?
So translation: The Fifth Circuit has gone mad with power?
Mad vibes judges, as Chris has put it before.
This is fascinating. Because in the parallel universe IP world, the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling on a mandamus petition late last year that blessed the Federal Circuit's approach which made it significantly easier to get cases without a local connection out of two Texas courts that are hotbeds for patent litigation (Eastern and Western Districts). It's hard to know what the difference is
The difference is the Fifth Circuit wants these cases because they want to stick it to the administration and reward wealthy Republican donors. Hard to come to any other conclusion.
It really isn't about money for the most part. It is about ideology and power to enforce one's ideology. It's also some small measure of petty vindictiveness.
One can fairly assume that some Fifth Circuit judges, like many of their reactionary forbears on that court and other, have a visceral hatred of the NLRB and all it stands for and would love to help bury it.
I just found it interesting that these were both cases involving money, rather than 'cultural' (i.e. human rights) issues.
That may be the plaintiff's interests, but the Fifth is more about downsizing or even undercutting the federal government than because they see themselves getting some kind of financial reward.
And even the Musk case is as much about his determination to see himself as the king of his own kingdom than money. Unions put a crimp into his plans for total domination.
Yes. I guess I'm just cynical enough to think some of them envy justices Thomas and 'Son of Sam' Alito.
Was familiar with the Musk case, not the other. What now? Does this have to go to SCOTUS? And what next? Is the Fifth going to just willy nilly grab cases from other courts because in their opinion, it's their case?
Where's the control in all of this?
In the Chamber of Commerce case, the Judge writing:
'Venue is not a continental breakfast; you cannot pick and choose on a Plaintiffs’ whim where and how a lawsuit is filed.'
Gold.
SCOTUS should in effect tell the lower courts to stop fucking around and insist that judge shopping stop (because it's literally caused them issues as well). But... this SCOTUS who knows.
How serendipitous. Steve Vladeck's One First Monday post is all about SCOTUS' rulemaking authority
https://stevevladeck.substack.com/p/75-the-supreme-courts-formal-rulemaking
I don't believe the Supreme Court has this authority.
I mean it could have a ruling that sets precedent for the lower courts... but whether the lower courts ever respect it is another question.
That is the question, indeed.
I think they could make it happen via their “supervisory power” or as an incident of due process.
Requests for mandamus in the Court of Appeals on an interlocutory is basically - how should I say it - BS? That almost never has merit and doesn't have any here.
But wait...there's more
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.387342/gov.uscourts.txnd.387342.71.0.pdf
Well, yes, but that was expected. The real question is what happens in DC.
And SCOTUS in regards to CFPB and life as we know it.
But it would be funny if DC said "No."
Maybe we could have a cage fight: two courts enter, but only one will leave.