I never noticed this, but Judge Boasberg relied on one of my obscure law review articles to certify this very important class action in JGG v. Trump five weeks ago.
03.02.2026 05:41
👍 10
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
I never noticed this, but Judge Boasberg relied on one of my obscure law review articles to certify this very important class action in JGG v. Trump five weeks ago.
I spoke to @bloomberglaw.com about Edison’s new wildfire compensation fund, and the difficult choices CA homeowners now face in the wake of last year’s wildfires in Los Angeles. news.bloomberglaw.com/california-b...
👇
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will be the first state high court to resolve if addictive social media platforms are a “nuisance“ and whether such claims are consistent with the First Amendment and federal law— with me, @alahav.bsky.social, and Teddy Rave. urldefense.com/v3/__https:/...
I'm revising the Wright & Miller treatise right now on this very topic and there is no case I can find in which the litigants' assessment that an order was plainly illegal could be violated without contempt. The closest is a case of prior restraint of a newspaper and there the court said...
Just now reading about the radical leftist judge who supported the dismissal of both James Comey’s & Letitia James’ indictments. www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
I’m currently enjoying John Fabian Witt’s “The Radical Fund.” a.co/d/3dBg7A2
I was proud to join a very distinguished group of constitutional law professors organized by @dorfonlaw.bsky.social to file this SCOTUS brief in support of trans rights. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...
Here’s mine!
Purdue’s lawyers told the Supreme Court this Opioid deal would never happen—unless, that is, plaintiffs were forced to give up their separate claims against the Sackler family.
They were wrong. In nearly all mass tort settlements, when there’s a will, there’s a way. www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/h...
160 faculty from all 5 UC law schools signed this open letter detailing why the Trump demands to UCLA are unlawful, unconstitutional, and wrong: sites.google.com/view/uclawfa... Great to work with @fishkin.bsky.social @blakeprof.bsky.social @seanashiffrin.bsky.social on this statement.
Oral argument today in Bowe v US presents one of the most profound constitutional questions: Just how much power does Article III's Exceptions Clause give Congress to strip SCOTUS of appellate jurisdiction? I offer some history and context in my latest column for @justiaverdict.bsky.social 👇
I wonder if this new effort opens up opportunities for a Rule 23(b)(2) nationwide class. There are ripeness Qs, but they could be overcome in the 1A context. And the logic of mandatory class action is also about overcoming just such collective action problems. review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/u...
I wonder if this new effort opens up opportunities for a Rule 23(b)(2) nationwide class. There are ripeness Qs, but they could be overcome in the 1A context. And the logic of mandatory class action is also about overcoming just such collective action problems. review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/u...
Please help me get the word out about the new websites for Legal Theory Blog and the Legal Theory Lexicon. Reposting here and on other social media sites is great. It would be especially helpful if law school faculty members could send an email to their colleagues with the new addresses.
I spoke to @bloomberg.com about a new SEC proposal that would gut securities class actions by sending securities cases into mandatory arbitration.
TLDR: States would have to go along--and even then--it could backfire--sparking costly forms of mass arbitration. news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/s...
Well, they were "virtual" billboards, designed by my students, but sadly, Jaros heartlessly defaced those, after he hacked into our Brightspace page. We‘re considering including that in our counterclaim.
The assignment was responsive motions and pleadings. So, the students had to work in teams to address what motions we could (and should) file before we answered, and then, to determine what we include in our answer, including any affirmative defenses and counterclaims.
Thank you for supporting Team Zimmerman!
They're unpaid, unlicensed associates at the firm--not partners--so I'm less worried about a lawsuit to dissolve our great firm. But now you mention it, maybe I should worry about a Fair Labor Standards Act or similar state law claim when we do class actions at the end of the semester!
The weird thing is--in almost every one of my Civil Procedure classes--something like this seems to happen. I guess it's the price you pay for running the premier fake limited liability law firm in the greater LA area. Fortunately, my student associates are very bright and take it all in stride.
You can see the first page of the complaint & PI below. I've always run my class as a fake law firm, The Zimmerman Group LLP. So, Jaros found a company in Minnesota, also called the Zimmerman Group, to sue me for violating its trademarked name. Fortunately, great minds at ZG LLP were there to help.
7. So, if we don't succeed on our motions to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, venue, service of process, or failure to state a claim fail under (b)(2)-(6), we'll keep a record of our video and chat for our counterclaims. Long live TheZimmermanGroupLLPCivilProcedure2025!
6. But by Zoom-bombing us in class, and vandalizing our Brightspace page with fake images to "serve" us, he did something else: He exposed himself and his client to liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. t.co/b59buEGrMi
5. Some courts have allowed service over Facebook and Twitter. But no case has yet permitted service by Zoom-bombing. t.co/7SgzcJJ5tx
4. But TX state law (a) does not allow you to serve someone electronically unless you've tried to do it through a more traditional way first (mail/in person) and (b) only allows service to a D "sent to their social media" presence. And is Zoom even a "social media" presence?
3. Remarkable as this may sound, David Jaros
was right to say that Rule 4(e)(1) allows you to serve someone according to the state law where a federal court sits.
