Rose v. Giamatti case brief summary

Rose v. Giamatti ~ 721 F. Supp. 906 (S.D. Ohio 1989)

§         Facts: : D initiated an investigation regarding allegations that P wagered on major league games. D then retained a special counsel to give a report on the evidence. After that D scheduled a hearing concerning the allegations against P. P filed an action to seek temporary restarting order and preliminary injunction against pending disciplinary proceedings. P filed in Ohio state court. He contends he was being denied the right to a fair hearing on the gambling allegations by an unbiased decision maker. Temp restraining order was issued. D tried to appeal that order issued by the court. It was unsuccessful, and then D filed a notice of removal to tried to claim diversity jurisdiction and remove the case to federal court. The P then filed a motion to remand this action asserting lack of complete diversity

§         Issue:

·         Whether there exists complete diversity jurisdiction, so that federal court has jurisdiction.

o        Whether the Cincinnati Reds can be defendants in the suit merely for an anticipatory breach of contract

·         Whether the P acted illegally by including The Cincinnati Reds as Ds in order to through out diversity jurisdiction and keep the case in state court. Necessary collision of interests

§         Holding:

·         Yes there exists diversity jurisdiction

o        There was no wrongdoing by the Reds and so there is no controversy between the parties

·         The court concludes that for the purposes of determining diversity of citizenship, P fraudulently joined the Cincinnati Reds as Ds in the suit and at best they are a nominal party in this action

o        Another part of this principle is that the federal court must base this diversity on the citizenship of real parties to the controversy not nominal ones