Adam Zimmerman
@profadamszimmerman.bsky.social
Law Professor at USC Gould School of Law
SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1026179
SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1026179
Here’s mine!
November 17, 2025 at 4:33 AM
Here’s mine!
Well, they were "virtual" billboards, designed by my students, but sadly, Jaros heartlessly defaced those, after he hacked into our Brightspace page. We‘re considering including that in our counterclaim.
September 17, 2025 at 3:44 AM
Well, they were "virtual" billboards, designed by my students, but sadly, Jaros heartlessly defaced those, after he hacked into our Brightspace page. We‘re considering including that in our counterclaim.
You can see the first page of the complaint & PI below. I've always run my class as a fake law firm, The Zimmerman Group LLP. So, Jaros found a company in Minnesota, also called the Zimmerman Group, to sue me for violating its trademarked name. Fortunately, great minds at ZG LLP were there to help.
September 16, 2025 at 7:33 PM
You can see the first page of the complaint & PI below. I've always run my class as a fake law firm, The Zimmerman Group LLP. So, Jaros found a company in Minnesota, also called the Zimmerman Group, to sue me for violating its trademarked name. Fortunately, great minds at ZG LLP were there to help.
6. But by Zoom-bombing us in class, and vandalizing our Brightspace page with fake images to "serve" us, he did something else: He exposed himself and his client to liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. t.co/b59buEGrMi
September 16, 2025 at 5:23 PM
6. But by Zoom-bombing us in class, and vandalizing our Brightspace page with fake images to "serve" us, he did something else: He exposed himself and his client to liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. t.co/b59buEGrMi
4. But TX state law (a) does not allow you to serve someone electronically unless you've tried to do it through a more traditional way first (mail/in person) and (b) only allows service to a D "sent to their social media" presence. And is Zoom even a "social media" presence?
September 16, 2025 at 5:23 PM
4. But TX state law (a) does not allow you to serve someone electronically unless you've tried to do it through a more traditional way first (mail/in person) and (b) only allows service to a D "sent to their social media" presence. And is Zoom even a "social media" presence?
3. Remarkable as this may sound, David Jaros
was right to say that Rule 4(e)(1) allows you to serve someone according to the state law where a federal court sits.
was right to say that Rule 4(e)(1) allows you to serve someone according to the state law where a federal court sits.
September 16, 2025 at 5:23 PM
3. Remarkable as this may sound, David Jaros
was right to say that Rule 4(e)(1) allows you to serve someone according to the state law where a federal court sits.
was right to say that Rule 4(e)(1) allows you to serve someone according to the state law where a federal court sits.
1. Word to the wise: Don't tell your nemesis about when you hold your class. He may zoom-bomb you and try to serve your Civil Procedure class with a frivolous lawsuit from Texas in the chat!
A 🧵on the hurdles to service via Zoom-bombing.
A 🧵on the hurdles to service via Zoom-bombing.
September 16, 2025 at 5:23 PM
1. Word to the wise: Don't tell your nemesis about when you hold your class. He may zoom-bomb you and try to serve your Civil Procedure class with a frivolous lawsuit from Texas in the chat!
A 🧵on the hurdles to service via Zoom-bombing.
A 🧵on the hurdles to service via Zoom-bombing.
I give up. Which is it?
September 5, 2025 at 4:24 PM
I give up. Which is it?
I think Judge Young, the subject of that opinion, would agree with you. His apology was really an indictment about where the Supreme Court has left us.
September 4, 2025 at 1:37 AM
I think Judge Young, the subject of that opinion, would agree with you. His apology was really an indictment about where the Supreme Court has left us.
Do you have a thought about the requirement that—whatever the “cause” for firing— it must be based on conduct that takes place while “in office”? The Complaint heavily relies on this.
August 29, 2025 at 7:01 PM
Do you have a thought about the requirement that—whatever the “cause” for firing— it must be based on conduct that takes place while “in office”? The Complaint heavily relies on this.
I think this is a genuine question. Why did the Court say you have an enforceable right to notice and a hearing in this first case, five weeks ago, but not in this case, today? Is there any difference between these two cases?
July 4, 2025 at 3:49 PM
I think this is a genuine question. Why did the Court say you have an enforceable right to notice and a hearing in this first case, five weeks ago, but not in this case, today? Is there any difference between these two cases?
1. This is great. Question and comment. First, is there case law suggesting states cannot bring class actions? The Rule says "parties," and at least fifty years ago, the Supreme Court seemed open to the idea that States could be class action plaintiffs.
June 28, 2025 at 4:54 PM
1. This is great. Question and comment. First, is there case law suggesting states cannot bring class actions? The Rule says "parties," and at least fifty years ago, the Supreme Court seemed open to the idea that States could be class action plaintiffs.
A very textualist approach in today’s tariff opinion. The plain meaning of the word “regulate” doesn’t include “tariffs” or “duties” in IEEPA & the Constitution. The Court also calls into question more expansive readings of an earlier law: “That is no longer how we do statutory interpretation.”
May 29, 2025 at 6:32 PM
A very textualist approach in today’s tariff opinion. The plain meaning of the word “regulate” doesn’t include “tariffs” or “duties” in IEEPA & the Constitution. The Court also calls into question more expansive readings of an earlier law: “That is no longer how we do statutory interpretation.”
Update: I took a quick look. The notice of appeal for the Federal Circuit has already been filed. I can’t tell if an appeal is already at the Supreme Court. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
May 29, 2025 at 1:33 AM
Update: I took a quick look. The notice of appeal for the Federal Circuit has already been filed. I can’t tell if an appeal is already at the Supreme Court. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
That's why I know them, too. And because I've been relying on them to start identifying habeas statutes--over history--that *explicitly contemplated* multiple parties would petition for habeas. The others are older, but here's another that same note cites from the 1840s.
May 17, 2025 at 6:07 AM
That's why I know them, too. And because I've been relying on them to start identifying habeas statutes--over history--that *explicitly contemplated* multiple parties would petition for habeas. The others are older, but here's another that same note cites from the 1840s.
(I posted the incorrect part of this rule. Here's what it actually says.)
May 17, 2025 at 12:14 AM
(I posted the incorrect part of this rule. Here's what it actually says.)
13. Second, historically, there has not been a problem joining multiple habeas cases in a single proceeding. Early federal habeas laws referred to “person or persons” or “prisoners or prisoners” obtaining “his or their” writs. As an example, here’s language from habeas statutes in 1679 and 1833.
May 16, 2025 at 11:59 PM
13. Second, historically, there has not been a problem joining multiple habeas cases in a single proceeding. Early federal habeas laws referred to “person or persons” or “prisoners or prisoners” obtaining “his or their” writs. As an example, here’s language from habeas statutes in 1679 and 1833.
12. (The dissent also questions the use of class actions under the AWA. But this rule was specifically adopted after several appellate courts had adopted the use of class actions under the AWA, too.)
May 16, 2025 at 11:59 PM
12. (The dissent also questions the use of class actions under the AWA. But this rule was specifically adopted after several appellate courts had adopted the use of class actions under the AWA, too.)
11. Why is this mistaken. First, the dissent ignores that afterwards, in 1977, the habeas rules were amended to make the federal rules--which include class actions--applicable to habeas cases. The writers of that rules also called for the flexible use of procedures under the AWA in habeas cases.
May 16, 2025 at 11:59 PM
11. Why is this mistaken. First, the dissent ignores that afterwards, in 1977, the habeas rules were amended to make the federal rules--which include class actions--applicable to habeas cases. The writers of that rules also called for the flexible use of procedures under the AWA in habeas cases.
5. Second, the Court was right to say that a class action could be certified over, among other things, whether 24-hours of notice was sufficient for plaintiffs to assert their rights in a hearing.
May 16, 2025 at 11:59 PM
5. Second, the Court was right to say that a class action could be certified over, among other things, whether 24-hours of notice was sufficient for plaintiffs to assert their rights in a hearing.
4. As I’ve said elsewhere, this is a well-settled principle that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed again and again, particularly in the context of systemic errors that might otherwise continuously evade appellate review.
May 16, 2025 at 11:59 PM
4. As I’ve said elsewhere, this is a well-settled principle that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed again and again, particularly in the context of systemic errors that might otherwise continuously evade appellate review.
2. First, the Court correctly holds it has power to hear the case, despite the dissent's contrary arguments. It relies on the All Writs Act, which is a "break glass in case of emergency" statute. It allows courts to protect their jurisdiction with writs "necessary and appropriate" to hear a case.
May 16, 2025 at 11:59 PM
2. First, the Court correctly holds it has power to hear the case, despite the dissent's contrary arguments. It relies on the All Writs Act, which is a "break glass in case of emergency" statute. It allows courts to protect their jurisdiction with writs "necessary and appropriate" to hear a case.
1. I can see an argument for a subclass here. And, just to be clear, when the SG said at oral argument the gov’t will still oppose classes on “commonality” grounds, he believes even the most fine-grained distinctions between plaintiffs to defeat a class action. Here’s the SG brief in the AEA case.
May 16, 2025 at 3:57 PM
1. I can see an argument for a subclass here. And, just to be clear, when the SG said at oral argument the gov’t will still oppose classes on “commonality” grounds, he believes even the most fine-grained distinctions between plaintiffs to defeat a class action. Here’s the SG brief in the AEA case.
1. I enjoyed this. A friendly amendment to this passage. Injunctive classes *should* be easy to certify in case like this. But the SG—and some courts—have misread Rule 23(b)(2) to argue that every little difference between plaintiffs should defeat a class action for injunctive relief.
May 16, 2025 at 2:05 PM
1. I enjoyed this. A friendly amendment to this passage. Injunctive classes *should* be easy to certify in case like this. But the SG—and some courts—have misread Rule 23(b)(2) to argue that every little difference between plaintiffs should defeat a class action for injunctive relief.
15. This creates opportunities for workarounds. As @kovarsky.bsky.social and Teddy Rave explain today, if just one court decides to not certify a class action in the AEA cases, the government can send detainees there to avoid certified classes everywhere else. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/clas...
May 15, 2025 at 9:28 PM
15. This creates opportunities for workarounds. As @kovarsky.bsky.social and Teddy Rave explain today, if just one court decides to not certify a class action in the AEA cases, the government can send detainees there to avoid certified classes everywhere else. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/clas...