This is a weekly feature produced by my friend Ginger. Let us know what you think.
This week, in news from Dallas-Fort Worth, we have a wide variety of topics: late election news; Lege bills; more bad financial news for the City of Dallas; a Fair Park update; a Dallas County juvenile justice update (it’s bad); public health in Fort Worth; the DMN wags its finger at Elon Musk; how the Bluebonnet Curriculum got passed on NTX votes; Dickies leaves Fort Worth; great news for a local musician. And more!
This week’s post was brought to you by the music of Franz Ferdinand, who have a new album coming out in January.
Let’s dive into the turkey week grab bag while you enjoy your leftovers:
WHERE TO LITIGATE
“The DMN has an editorial Elon Musk’s judge-shopping, where his terms of service require all cases be filed in Tarrant County or the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas. Their take is that Musk does this because we let him.”
Comment: There is nothing unusual about such forum selection clauses. They are contractual. If improper legally speaking, this can be challenged once a suit is brought.
It’s not even “forum shopping” as usually defined, namely as manipulation. The forum is specified ahead of time and the judge can’t be specified by name, only the district/location. Let the lawyers here correct me if I am mistaken.
In any event, even the real forum-shopping, it’s very common. Professor V. has been railing against forum shopping by conservatives, but liberals do it likewise. Alas, law profs typically lean left and don’t want to acknowledge it, or don’t see it as a problem when their policy preferences are favored by the choice of forum/district/judge. Goose-gander type of dynamic. Who complained that Judge Pitman (W.D. Texas in Austin) heard the offensive litigation against Texas abortion laws?
An example of tactical forum-shopping: The first-filed case in the Texas Heartbeat MDL litigation (n=14), was filed in Dallas County, then nonsuited when the randomly assigned judge turned out to be a Republican. Then all fourteen (a dozen copy-cat suits) were filed in Travis County on Democratic territory. They were assigned to different district courts until Texas Right to Life went to the MDL Panel to seek consolidation and appointment of an appointed pre-MDL judge [seeking to get a different judge that might be more favorable to them]. The Plaintiffs then suggested their favorite Democratic judge among the ones they had drawn in Austin, but the Judicial MDL Panel snubbed them. It’s against the mores to lobby for a particular assigned MDL pretrial judge, if not against the rules outright. They got Judge David Peeples, and he actually ruled in favor of the abortionists and advocates, but thanks to a recent SCOTX ruling the declaration that the civil enforcement mechanism of S.B.8 is unconstitutional is now in doubt even though that ruling wasn’t appealed because it was interlocutory and couldn’t be appealed. Go figure.
Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Mino, PhD (Political Science)
PS: I apologize for posting my comments on the spat involving Chief Wisdom Center Judge Edith Jones vs. Professor Steve Vladeck under the wrong Kuff post last week (one on abortion). Mea culpa.
If I got something else wrong, by all means, correct me. Motto: Knowledge is good, error-corrected knowledge even better.