

Zuckerberg's Residence at Issue in Facebook Suit - grellas
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550141190640772.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews

======
grellas
This case, initially filed in state court, had been removed to federal court
on the ground that the federal court had so-called "diversity jurisdiction."

Basically, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, unless a
case presents a cognizable federal claim or unless some other limited ground
for federal jurisdiction exists (such as diversity of citizenship among the
parties), the federal court will lack jurisdiction and the case must be
remanded for processing and eventual trial in the state court from which it
originated.

For diversity jurisdiction to exist, there must be complete diversity of
citizenship among the parties, meaning that all defendants must be citizens of
some state other than that of the local jurisdiction (here, New York).
Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principal operations in California
and therefore is diverse from Mr. Ceglia, who is a New York resident. Mr.
Zuckerberg argues that he is a resident of California, having lived here since
2004 to drive his company's growth. In his motion to get the case remanded to
state court, Mr. Ceglia argues that Mr. Zuckerberg is in fact a New York
resident and that this fact defeats federal diversity jurisdiction,
necessitating that the federal court grant his motion to remand.

For a bit of editorializing, I would add (as one who has been highly skeptical
of this case) that this strikes me as a rather desperate attempt by the
plaintiff to get the case into a forum that might offer up more hope than
would a federal court for getting jackpot justice. The argument on the
technical point at issue is that Mr. Zuckerberg should be considered a
resident of New York even though he has lived continuously in California for
the last 5 years, has voted there, pays taxes there, etc. because he was held
by a different court to be a New York resident in 2004 and because he
allegedly "lives out of a suitcase" and has done nothing to establish a true
residence elsewhere since that time. This sort of argument, in my mind, in on
par with the rest of this case - essentially a wild swing that reflects an
underlying position that is fundamentally unsound.

Time will tell as to the overall case but, as to this motion, I see it as
basically frivolous. Whether the overall case is meritorious or not, it will
almost certainly be fought out in the federal court and not in a state forum
in which Mr. Ceglia evidently hopes that looser standards might apply.

~~~
jexe
That is the thing that mystifies me about this lawsuit so much: it seems
totally frivolous. Someone Facebook's size must be batting down inane lawsuits
like this continuously. Why is this one getting so much attention?

~~~
fleitz
Most frivolous lawsuits against Facebook do not contain prima facie evidence
of an 84% ownership stake in Facebook that Zuckerberg signed. (eg. they are
not claiming $25.2 billion). The issue at hand appears to now be, what does
the contract really say, and what does that mean within the context of the
jurisdiction it will be tried in.

Both parties must know that there is something about law in one of the
jurisdictions that adversely affects Facebook/Zuckerberg.

------
JangoSteve
_Judge Arcara raised doubts on the arguments for both sides, questioning Mr.
Grable's point that Mr. Zuckerberg could come back to live in his parent's
home while also asking why a man running a major company doesn't own any
property in California._

Since when is personally owning property a condition of running a company?

~~~
dmpatierno
...Or a condition of establishing state residence?

It's really a stupid argument, likely based on the myth that renting is
throwing money away. Most people still believe buying is always financially
better (and they're wrong).

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-
calcula...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-
calculator.html)

------
JustinSeriously
_Mr. Zuckerberg "is a 26-year-old man who has spent almost a quarter of his
life building this company,"_

Six. They could have just said six.

~~~
dasil003
Has hollywood taught you nothing of the showmanship of courtroom law?

------
nphase
I wonder how much of Zuckerberg's time all these lawsuits take up. I can just
imagine him saying, "AGHHHHHHHH, ANOTHER ONE?!"

~~~
qq66
He probably sees very little of these. His lawyers probably say "YAY, ANOTHER
ONE!"

