Thursday, April 25, 2024

Essays ## 7 and 8

Are available outside my office. Folders are separated by section and marked by number. I am happy to meet to review any papers and to ask any questions in advance of tomorrow's Q&A. Score info after the jump.

Q&A sessions will be tomorrow, Friday, April 26. Section A will be at 9:30 in RDB 2006; Section B will be at 12:30 in RDB 2008. These are Q&A--I will have no prepared remarks and we will stay as long or as short as you have questions.

If your creative project involves a video to be shown or something else web-based, please send a link or bring a thumb drive by my office today.

Creative projects should occupy about the first half hour, then we will move to Q&A.


Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Sample Answer: Essay # 8

Defendant’s motion to transfer venue under § 1404 is granted; the civil action is transferred to the United States District Court of the Northern District of California.

Sample Answer: Essay # 7 (Section B--Venue)

 The motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied.

Sample Answer: Essay # 7 (Section A--PJ)

 The court should deny the 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.

Monday, April 22, 2024

Sample Answer: Essay # 6

Essay # 6 is graded and available outside my office. Also, all prior graded essays are in the folder for the appropriate class.

Essay # 6:

    Section A: Mean: 11.72; Median: 12

    Section B: Mean: 12.4 Median: 11.5

Sample answer after the jump.

Remember the connection between statutes and cases interpreting and elaborating on a statute. They together create the RE in your CREAC. But you start with the precise text of the statute, then move to the interpretation and elaboration. For example, you don't begin with "complete diversity" (words that appear nowhere in § 1332). You begin with "between citizens of different states" in § 1332, then move to the complete diversity interpretation, what it means, and how it contrasts with minimal diversity. And always define your terms, from statute or case--don't assume even a law-trained reader knows the meaning. The definition is the key to the "A" in your CREAC--you can't explain why there is complete diversity if you have not defined that term.

The move from statutory text to judicial interpretation works the same for congressionally enacted laws and for rules enacted under the REA. Start with the text of § 1332, then move to Mas; start with the text of FRCP 8(a)(2), then move to Conley and Twiqbal.

Begin your analysis with the specific motion your are asked to resolve, then move from there to the rules, statutes, or cases that provide the legal rules for resolving that motion.

Remember the role you are asked to play and write the essay accordingly. If you are the court, there is no "should grant." Just grant it.

Friday, April 19, 2024

Final Class and Beyond

Last-day audio--Section A, Section B.

Essays 7 and 8 are due by the beginning of classtime on Monday (10 a.m. Section A, 2 p.m. Section B). I will leave folders outside my office beginning this afternoon if you finish early. I hope to have them graded before the final, but I can make no guarantees.

Essay # 6 should be available for pick-up outside my office by next Monday.

Q&A sessions will be on Friday, April 26. Section A will be at 9:30; Section B will be at 12:30. These are Q&A--I will have no prepared remarks and we will stay as long or as short as you have questions.

Creative projects will be displayed or presented at the beginning of each session. Visual projects will be displayed in the room; presentable things will be shown or presented. Please bring a thumb drive or send links for videos and anything else online. Please limit performances, videos, etc. to 3-5 minutes.

I will be in my office all of next week. I also am available by email. My practice with email questions is to anonymize and share the question on the blog.

The exam will be posted to the blog at 9 a.m. on Monday, April 29; it will be due outside my office by 1 p.m. on Tuesday, April 30. Details to follow.

Wednesday, April 17, 2024

For Thursday (final class)

Wednesday audio--Section A, Section B

We continue working through the Erie Puzzles, beginning with # 4. Now that you know how the analysis goes, take some time to work through the problems again and check your work against what we did today.

Note that what we are doing with # 4 is considering the arguments that each party will make--Plaintiff, arguing that the special motion is not available, needs FRCP to apply and makes the arguments we described; Defendant, arguing that the special motion is available, needs to state law to apply and makes the arguments we were describing at the end of class.

In addition, reconsider # 1 (the disclosure rule)--is there an argument that no Act of Congress controls and it requires an unguided Erie analysis?

Monday, April 15, 2024

Essay # 8: Meishe v. TikTok


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

BEIJING MEISHE    )

NETWORK TECH.   )

CO., LTD.,                 )

            Plaintiff          )

      v.                          )

TIKTOK, INC.,         )

            Defendant      )

 

 

Complaint

 

* * *

   1.   Plaintiff, Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Meishe”), is a Chinese limited-liability company with its principal place of business in Beijing. It maintains a 300-person office in Austin, Texas; this is a business and marketing office that does not engage in or perform engineering work, does not employee any engineers, and does not work with source code.

   2.   Defendant, TikTok, Inc. (“TikTok”), is a Chinese corporation with its principal place of business in Beijing. It employs a team of engineers in an office in Mountain View, California. One engineer works remotely, living and working in Irving, Texas. The engineers in the Mountain View office handle all implementation of all technology for TikTok’s app and social-media site.

 

* * *

 

   7.   Meishe owns several Chinese copyrights covering the source code for certain video- and audio-editing software.

   8.   A former Meishe employee disclosed the Meishe’s source code to defendant. Defendant used the improperly disclosed code to design and develop video- and audio-editing functionality in China. Defendant’s engineering team in Mountain View, California implemented the new functionality (which relied on the infringing source code) into the TikTok application. That functionality became part of the TikTok social-media site, used all over the United States and all over the world.

   9.   The source code used by TikTok in developing and implementing its editing functionality is virtually identical to Meishe’s copyrighted source code, as a comparison of the codes by knowledgeable engineers will reveal.

   10.  The source code disclosed to TikTok constitutes a protected trade secret, unlawfully provided to TikTok and therefore unlawfully used. Knowledgeable engineers can testify to the nature and secretness of the code.

 

 

Count One

Violation of Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501

 

Count Two

Violation of State Trade Secretes

 

Count Three

Conversion (State Law)

 

TikTok moves to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. In resolving the motion, you have the following information:

 

   • Irving, TX is in the Northern District of Texas.

   • Mountain View, CA is in the Northern District of California.

   • Irving, TX is 113 miles from the courthouse for the Western District of Texas.

   • The court has not resolved whether Texas or California law governs the state law claims. But the laws of conversion and trade secrets in Texas and California are substantially similar. Any differences do not involve complex or unique aspects of state law.

   • As of December 31, 2023, the Western District of Texas had 10,672 pending cases (civil and criminal); the average time from filing to disposition for all civil cases was 7.3 months; the average time from filing to trial (for civil cases that reach trial) is 28.3 months; and 8.5 % of its cases were more than three years old.

   • As of December 31, 2023, the Northern District of California had 14, 237 pending cases (civil and criminal); the average time from filing to disposition for all civil cases was 6.9 months; and the average time from filing to trial (for civil cases that reach trial) is 48.9 months; and 21.7 % of its pending civil cases were more than three years old.

   To the extent this answer requires any personal-jurisdiction analysis, do only the Shoe analysis; do not worry about the preliminaries.

    • TikTok concedes that the Western District of Texas is not its "home" in any sense.

 

 

For the court, resolve the motion.

Essay # 7: Samuel Johnson v. Kathy Griffin

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

 

SAMUEL JOHNSON    )

and JILL JOHNSON,     )

         Plaintiff                  )

   v.                                  )

KATHY GRIFFIN,         )

         Defendant              )

 

 

Complaint

 

* * *

 

4.   Plaintiff Samuel Johnson (“Samuel”) is a citizen of Franklin, TN.  Prior to late April 2023, Samuel was the CEO of VisuWell, Inc., a Tennessee healthcare tech start-up with its principal place of business in Nashville, TN.

5.   Plaintiff Jill Johnson (“Jill”) is a citizen of Franklin, TN.

6.   Defendant, Kathy Griffin (“Griffin”), is a California citizen; she has resided there for more than 40 years and owns a house in Los Angeles County, California. She has not resided outside of Los Angeles County since moving to California in 1979. She is a comedian, actress, celebrity, and political activities. She has more than two million Twitter followers, an unknown number of whom are in Tennessee; she posts about everything from comedy to politics. She has a long career doing comedy tours, returning from all tours to her home Los Angeles County, California; her comedy touring has stopped since 2019, when her Twitter post suggested violence against then-President Donald Trump, by depicting her holding the president’s severed head. Prior to 2019, Griffin performed at colleges and comedy clubs across the United States, including in Nashville, Knoxville, and Memphis.

 

* * *

 

8.   On April 24, 2023, Samuel and Jill were having dinner at a hotel in Franklin. A group of forty to fifty teenagers from a Nashville high school were taking prom pictures in a courtyard near the restaurant.

9.   When the noise level disturbed Samuel and other customers, he approached the group’s chaperone and asked him to get the teens to settle down.

10.  One of the teens, a young male student from the school wearing a red prom dress, overheard the request and confronted Samuel. Another student, apparently the first student’s boyfriend and also student at the school, video-recorded the encounter.

11.  During the encounter, Samuel told the student who confronted him that he “looks like an idiot in that dress.” Samuel regrets the comment, although the student clearly sought to goad him into a negative reaction.

12.  Samuel and Jill left the hotel soon after to have dinner elsewhere.

13.  The student’s boyfriend posted the video to TikTok, from which users downloaded the video and reposted it to other social media sites, including Twitter.

14.  On April 25, the chairman of VisuWell, having become aware of the video, assured Samuel the company would stand by him.

15.  On the morning of April 26, Griffin retweeted the video to her two million followers, adding the comment “If this is Sam Johnson of Nashville, Tennessee, the CEO of VisWell, healthcare-tech growth strategist, married to Jill Johnson where they reside in Franklin, Tennessee, it seems like he’s dying to be online famous.” The retweet included a caption from a previous post reading “Homophobic POS in Tennessee harasses a teenager for wearing a dress to prom.” The tweet tagged VisuWell’s Twitter account (tags send a tweet to the tagged user and allowed readers to link directly and comment to the company’s Twitter feed).

16.  Later on April 26, the student’s boyfriend (who recorded the incident) tweeted at Griffin, thanking her for helping the video go “viral.” Griffin responded that she was “grateful” he filmed and said she would do anything she could to help.

17.  Two hours later, Griffin tweeted two pictures of Samuel’s face with the caption “Who is? THIS Sam Johnson of Franklin Tennessee.”

18.  Several VisuWell customers—via social media and other methods of communication—condemned Samuel and threatened to reevaluate their business ties.

19.  Later on April 26, VisuWell fired Samuel and announced the firing in a reply to Griffin’s original tweet.

20.  Griffin responded in the same thread, asking if VisuWell had removed Samuel from the Board of Directors and what “measures” VisuWell was taking. Her tweet added “keeping him on the Board suggests VisuWell intends to rehire him” and “the nation will remain vigilant.”

21.  VisuWell responded to that with a new tweet stating that VisuWell no longer employed Samuel Johnson in any capacity.

22.  Some of Griffin’s social-media followers tweeted that they had “succeeded” in having Samuel removed as CEO.

23.  Griffin doxed Samuel and Jill by disclosing and emphasizing to her two million followers the private information that they lived in Franklin, TN.

24.  As a result, Samuel and Jill received and continued to receive threats and harassment from Twitter users online and by phone and mail in their Franklin, TN home. The threats and harassment began before VisuWell fired Samuel on April 26 and continued after the firing.

25.  As of April 2023, VisuWell was a fast-growing tech start-up. Its commercial success was due in large part to proprietary software Samuel developed.

26.  During Samuel’s three years as CEO, VisuWell sales increased by 1,200 %.

27.  Prior to Griffin’s tweets, VisuWell had offered Samuel support and promised to stand by him. VisuWell fired him after Griffin’s tweets about his encounter with the teens.

 

First Cause of Action

Tortious Interference with Employment Contract

 

Second Cause of Action

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

 

Third Cause of Action

Invasion of Privacy

 

 

In response to the Complaint, Griffin moves to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). For purposes of both motions:

   • Franklin is a suburb of Nashville; both are in the Middle District of Tennessee.

   • Los Angeles County—which includes Los Angeles, Hollywood, and other cities—is in the Central District of California.

   • Tennessee’s Long Arm Statute provides as follows: Courts of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Tennessee.

 

Section A: For Johnson, respond to the FRCP 12(b)(2) motion, including whether Griffin waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by litigating improper venue.

 

Section B: For the court, decide the FRCP 12(b)(3) motion, including whether Griffin waived the defense of improper venue by litigating lack of personal jurisdiction.(You want to build a complete record, so analyze all possible bases for venue).


 

Sunday, April 14, 2024

Clarifying § 1391(b)(3)

I have fielded several emails raising the same issue about the scope of § 1391(b)(3). I think I was not clear enough, so let me clarify.

The provision says "if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action." That does not mean you apply (b)(3) if (b)(1) and (b)(2) are not satisfied as to the current district. It means you turn to (b)(3) in the chosen district only if no other federal district satisfies (b)(1) or (b)(2). If another district satisfies either--even if it is not the district in which the plaintiff seeks to bring the action--then the first part of (b)(3) is not satisfied and cannot be used to establish venue in the current district.