I wonder if this new effort opens up opportunities for a Rule 23(b)(2) nationwide class. There are ripeness Qs, but they could be overcome in the 1A context. And the logic of mandatory class action is also about overcoming just such collective action problems. review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/u...

I wonder if this new effort opens up opportunities for a Rule 23(b)(2) nationwide class. There are ripeness Qs, but they could be overcome in the 1A context. And the logic of mandatory class action is also about overcoming just such collective action problems. review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/u...

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.

The assignment was responsive motions and pleadings. So, the students had to work in teams to address what motions we could (and should) file before we answered, and then, to determine what we include in our answer, including any affirmative defenses and counterclaims.

Thank you for supporting Team Zimmerman!

They're unpaid, unlicensed associates at the firm--not partners--so I'm less worried about a lawsuit to dissolve our great firm. But now you mention it, maybe I should worry about a Fair Labor Standards Act or similar state law claim when we do class actions at the end of the semester!

The weird thing is--in almost every one of my Civil Procedure classes--something like this seems to happen. I guess it's the price you pay for running the premier fake limited liability law firm in the greater LA area. Fortunately, my student associates are very bright and take it all in stride.

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.

7. So, if we don't succeed on our motions to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, venue, service of process, or failure to state a claim fail under (b)(2)-(6), we'll keep a record of our video and chat for our counterclaims. Long live TheZimmermanGroupLLPCivilProcedure2025!

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

5. Some courts have allowed service over Facebook and Twitter. But no case has yet permitted service by Zoom-bombing. t.co/7SgzcJJ5tx

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.

2. Today, we learned why Jaros sued us--a fake LA law firm--on behalf of a Minnesota company in Texas. In August 2020, Texas said it would allow service through social media if ordinary methods fail (e.g. mail). So, he thought Zoom-bombing would do. t.co/pZteOPYISO

15. The broader lesson I've taken is that the forum *where* we do justice doesn't matter. Courts, agencies, schools, private organization. There are many places to collectively redress mass pleas in a dark world. But the overriding concern is that they stay open to our hear stories. And do justice.

14. After my clerkship, I took a job that required I relive that day over and over again. I worked as the Deputy Special Master for the 9-11 Victim Compensation Fund. Ken would give me daily dispatches from the Judge. I now write about mass torts--and to this day, I start my Torts class with 9-11.

13. He also talked about the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. He handed out his business cards, so they could call if they had any questions. (Some did.) He always believed the federal district courts should be open to everyone for a reason. That day was no exception.

12. The problem was, no one else, including the INS officer needed to swear them in, was around. So, they asked the Judge if he could come down and explain everything. So, Judge Weinstein, who had just turned 80, headed down to the ceremonial courtroom to explain the situation.