I realize we may have had our fill of trash talk of late, but few things get my dander up more than seeing a media outlet completely misconstruing – if not outright misrepresenting – developments in a legal matter. So it was that Axios’ Thursday morning headline regarding the suit filed against Elon Musk and his super PAC over his million-dollar-a-day giveaway made me see red.
Here’s the back story:
Philadelphia District Attorney Goes After Elon Musk Over $1 Million Giveaway
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner filed a lawsuit Monday against Elon Musk and his super political action committee PAC America in an effort to stop Musk’s one million dollar voter giveaway in Pennsylvania. The district attorney alleges that the sweepstakes is an “illegal lottery scheme.”
The lawsuit claims Musk’s sweepstakes is aimed at persuading registered voters to pledge support for the X owner’s favored causes in exchange for a chance to win a considerable sum of money, according to CNN.
One of the very first things any defense attorney worth his or her salt will analyze upon receipt of a new lawsuit filed in state court is whether or not removal to federal court is available and warranted. There may occasionally be a strategic reason to leave a case in state court, even if it is eligible for removal, but more often than not, if a case is removable, you remove it to federal court. Particularly, when one of the parties is a representative of the jurisdiction in which the case is brought, the opposing party is likely to prefer having the case heard in federal court rather than in that very same jurisdiction.
Thus, it makes perfect sense that Musk’s attorneys would look to remove the matter to federal court, if at all possible. In their notice of removal, they lay out quite clearly why federal jurisdiction is appropriate in the case. In a nutshell, not only are the claims brought against Musk and the super PAC directly related to a federal election and involving a federal question, the parties also have what is known as “diversity jurisdiction.” What that means is that neither of the defendants are residents of a different (diverse) state than the plaintiff (in this case, the Philadelphia DA). I’m oversimplifying a bit here, but the main point is that there are legitimate legitimate reasons why removal is appropriate in the case.
Here’s where Axios comes in: Krasner filed the suit on Monday. On Wednesday, the judge presiding over the case in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas set the matter for hearing on Thursday. Musk’s attorneys also filed the notice of removal on Wednesday — a move he is well within his rights to do and which makes perfect sense in this case, as noted above.
Yet, in reporting on the development, Axios elected to go with the following headline:
“Musk tries to dodge court hearing over $1M voter giveaways lawsuit”
So, while Musk’s legal team is making a perfectly normal — even expected — procedural move in his defense, Axios decides the proper way to frame that move is to insinuate that Musk is doing something shady, rather than availing himself of the legal remedies to which he is fully entitled. What a load of hooey.
I said as much on X/Twitter:
This is hot garbage @axios – removal to federal court is a standard procedural move in cases where there’s either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. And if there’s a legit basis for removal, it would be ignorant (and potentially malpractice) not to attempt removal.
Something tells me if Musk were supporting Kamala Harris: A) Krasner would never have filed the suit; and B) even if he had, Axios wouldn’t have characterized the decision to remove to federal court as a “dodge.”
Maybe Axios just had Dodgers on the brain this morning?
