(11-11-2019 02:19 PM)Tigers and Tide Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 09:57 AM)HiddenTiger Wrote:  While I am not a litigator or trial attorney (I do real estate and corporate work), I work with many of them. Over the weekend, I have read many articles suggesting that the Wiseman lawsuit would be removed to federal court. I discussed this issue this morning with several attorneys in my office. We all agree that this is unlikely on jurisdictional grounds.

Federal court is not open to all matters. It is only open to certain matters based upon whether the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the matter. If the matter is a question of federal law, then the federal court has jurisdiction. If the matter is between two states (e.g., Mississippi v. Tennessee), then the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. That is not the case here. So, we have to start looking at other matters. It has been a long time since I took a CivPro course. But, there must be complete diversity between the litigants. That means that the parties must be from different states. For example, Wiseman (TN), NCAA (IN), and UofM (TN) is not completely diverse. Thus, there is a lack of diversity. There must be subject matter jurisdiction, meaning an amount in contraversy over $75K or a federal question. There is no federal question. Whether the damages to Mr. Wiseman are over $75K is unknown. Finally, since the University is a state university, legal matters pertaining to it are proper in state courts. Thus, it is unlikely that this will get removed to a federal court.

It is possible that Chancellor Kyle will be asked to transfer the matter to another Chancery Court in Tennessee. In the end though, that would be his decision.

In sum, should this go to a hearing, it will be in a Tennessee court, and likely in Shelby County. It could be appealed, but it would first be through the Tennessee court system.

I think this analysis is correct. While I am also an attorney on the transactional side, I did take civ pro and federal courts in law school only a few years ago.

I have not seen a copy of the complaint, but presumably Wiseman's allegations do not raise a federal question. Thus, the only way the NCAA would be able to remove to federal court is by diversity jurisdiction. To properly have diversity jurisdiction, a case must meet BOTH parts of this test:

1. All of the parties on the plaintiff's side cannot be residents of the same state as any party on the defendant's side. Put another way, all parties on one side of the "v" cannot be citizens of any party on the other side of the "v."
2. The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.

Assuming the amount in controversy will exceed $75k, the question becomes one of the citizenship of the defendants. While the UofM is named as a defendant, there is a rule that provides that a defendant who is merely a nominal party will be ignored for purposes of the diversity test. There is a strong argument that the UofM is merely a nominal defendant, and would thus not affect the NCAA's ability to prove diversity jurisdiction simply because Wiseman and the UofM are citizens of Tennessee. Personally, I think this issue could go both ways, but, ultimately, it may not matter because...

The NCAA is likely a citizen of every state in which its member institutions reside. The federal courts have different citizenship rules for incorporated and unincorporated entities. While corporations typically have one state of residency (the state that is found to be the corporation's "central nervous system"), unincorporated entities or organizations are residents of each state in which a member of the organization resides. This same rule even applies to partnerships and LLCs. The evidence seems to strongly point to the NCAA being an unincorporated organization, which means it is a citizen of Tennessee. Thus, without a federal question, there appears to be no way in which the NCAA could successfully remove this case to federal court.

(11-11-2019 02:19 PM)Tigers and Tide Wrote:  I think this analysis is correct. While I am also an attorney on the transactional side, I did take civ pro and federal courts in law school only a few years ago.

I have not seen a copy of the complaint, but presumably Wiseman's allegations do not raise a federal question. Thus, the only way the NCAA would be able to remove to federal court is by diversity jurisdiction. To properly have diversity jurisdiction, a case must meet BOTH parts of this test:

1. All of the parties on the plaintiff's side cannot be residents of the same state as any party on the defendant's side. Put another way, all parties on one side of the "v" cannot be citizens of any party on the other side of the "v."
2. The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.

Assuming the amount in controversy will exceed $75k...

Fishman said that this was a non-monetary civil suit. They are not seeking monetary damages at this time.

I think this means that:
A) They just want to play - not get paid.
B) They are avoiding the Federal removal criteria test.

(11-12-2019 05:15 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 02:19 PM)Tigers and Tide Wrote:  I think this analysis is correct. While I am also an attorney on the transactional side, I did take civ pro and federal courts in law school only a few years ago.

I have not seen a copy of the complaint, but presumably Wiseman's allegations do not raise a federal question. Thus, the only way the NCAA would be able to remove to federal court is by diversity jurisdiction. To properly have diversity jurisdiction, a case must meet BOTH parts of this test:

1. All of the parties on the plaintiff's side cannot be residents of the same state as any party on the defendant's side. Put another way, all parties on one side of the "v" cannot be citizens of any party on the other side of the "v."
2. The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.

Assuming the amount in controversy will exceed $75k...

Fishman said that this was a non-monetary civil suit. They are not seeking monetary damages at this time.

I think this means that:
A) They just want to play - not get paid.
B) They are avoiding the Federal removal criteria test.

You're right. I've since read the complaint and have posted the link below. There are no grounds for removal to a federal court on either grounds for federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

https://www.localmemphis.com/wp-content/...awsuit.pdf