James O'Keefe III vs Twitter (2021)

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Wyróżnienie
mindlessobserver powiedział(a):
Oh now that IS clever. The 75,000 dollars rule is usually used to kick things out of federal court. This is the first time I have seen it used strategically to keep a case in State Court, i.e, alleging no monetary damage in excess of 75,000 dollars. So long as O'Keefe sticks to that Twitter can't get this out of State court.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
It would have been more clever to plead exactly $75,000.00 in damages to prevent it being removed to federal court in the first place. O'Keefe's counsel fixed this rather quickly, though, so it's hard to assign much blame.
 
twattycake powiedział(a):
They can also still move to remove this to California state court: Damages in excess of $75,000 are a requirement for removal based on federal diversity rules but this clause from Twitter's ToS:
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
O'Keefe seems to be relying on the natural inclination of NY state courts to hoard their jurisdiction like it's gold in order to prevent it from going to California.
 
AnOminous powiedział(a):
It would have been more clever to plead exactly $75,000.00 in damages to prevent it being removed to federal court in the first place. O'Keefe's counsel fixed this rather quickly, though, so it's hard to assign much blame.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
This case is essentially a fundraiser for O'Keefe and a fishing expedition to maybe somehow find a judge gullible enough to order discovery.
 
I just want to see salty journos emails exposed to see how hard they cope in private while pretending to be evil masterminds. I would wager it is more juicier than the public freak-outs they have when they snap.
 
Useful_Mistake powiedział(a):
Sorta related:
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Don't read too much into it if CNN loses this motion: A motion to dismiss cannot claim that the plaintiff's initial complaint is false or omits information which would change the outcome of the trial if included, it can only argue that even if the plaintiff's allegations were all true the lawsuit still has some irredeemable flaw. An easy example here would be filing after the statute of limitations has expired. It's an intentionally plaintiff friendly standard which will screen out some but not all lolsuits, not a magic way to predict how the full trial will go.​
 
AnOminous powiedział(a):
O'Keefe doesn't have that kind of money, though, and it was his mistake that got it sent up to federal court.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
the amount in controversy standard only requires a good faith belief that such damages are warranted though. it's not like it will be tossed for that alone, even if it has to be replead in state court.
 
soy_king powiedział(a):
the amount in controversy standard only requires a good faith belief that such damages are warranted though. it's not like it will be tossed for that alone, even if it has to be replead in state court.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
It was clearly just an oversight to leave it out, but I'm surprised how many cases brought under diversity jurisdiction make that exact mistake. The funniest is when someone gets a case remanded for claiming an amount in controversy of exactly $75,000 when it must be more than $75,000. All that hassle for want of pleading an extra penny.
 
AnOminous powiedział(a):
I hope they somehow both lose, like whatever is found in discovery is hugely embarrassing but not helpful to O'Queefe, who loses and gets shafted with costs and fees.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
He is probably only wanting the embarrassment anyway, so that might be a win for him. He's probably considering anything they spend in the case as lost money anyway. It's lost money to him, if he's smart.
 
themasterlurker powiedział(a):
I don't know why he's even bothering, 99% of social media companies are in massive debt and can just barely pay it off, they'll be dead in a few years, and banning Trump didn't help Twitter's adrev at all
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Because now that he has discovery he can force them to turn over documents showing their back-room deals and internal efforts to stop political speech they dislike. It's not about the money, it's about making them take a fat L in front of all of America.
 
themasterlurker powiedział(a):
I don't know why he's even bothering, 99% of social media companies are in massive debt and can just barely pay it off, they'll be dead in a few years, and banning Trump didn't help Twitter's adrev at all
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
They are being subsidised by other more profitable arms of multi-corps. They do not have to break even themselves. They will NOT go bankrupt.
 
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole