Latest Case: Dimondstein v. Stidman (Civil Procedure)

No Good Men?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on a film called “Promising Young Women,” which purports to be a feminist movie about date rape. While Professor Colb describes the movie as interesting, thought-provoking, and “definitely” worth seeing, she argues that it suggests a view of men and sexual assault that is erroneous and potentially even anti-feminist.

Read More

Last Call at the Bar: Grading the Briefs in Trump Impeachment 2.0

DEAN FALVY

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, offers thoughts on the legal tactics and briefs filed by each side in former President Trump’s second impeachment trial. Mr. Falvy argues that if Trump can survive a second impeachment vote, it will show that he is still operating where he has always believed himself to be: well beyond the reach of the law.

Read More

Dimondstein v. Stidman

Docket: 19-7161

Opinion Date: February 5, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

Plaintiff, the President of the American Postal Workers Union, filed suit against two union members, Jerry Stidman and Jonathan Kelley, for defamation. Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident, Stidman is an Indiana resident, and Kelley is a Wisconsin resident. Stidman and Kelley moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of Indiana or, in the alternative, dismiss it under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and (b)(3). The district court dismissed the case for improper venue. The DC Circuit vacated the district court's order dismissing the case and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that the district court failed to provide a "sound prudential justification" for addressing venue before personal jurisdiction, nor is one easily ascertainable. In this case, the venue analysis involves issues that the court has yet to consider, including where publication occurs when allegedly defamatory material is published on both a public website and a limited access online social media page, as well as the significance of where the harm caused by defamation is felt. The court reasoned that dealing first with the venue question would neither provide "an easier resolution of the case," nor prevent the court from having to "decide a question of . . . law that it has not heretofore decided." The court stated that diving into the venue analysis required the district court to address previously undecided questions that it, and the court, might otherwise never have to face.