body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScriptを使用できません。

このブラウザではJavaScriptが無効になっています。引き続きtwitter.comを利用するため、JavaScriptを有効にするか、サポートされているブラウザに切り替えてください。サポートされているブラウザのリストについては、ヘルプセンターをご覧ください。

ヘルプセンター

利用規約プライバシーポリシー Cookieのポリシー Imprint 広告情報 © 2023 Twitter, Inc.

「いま」起きていることを見つけよう

Twitterなら、「いま」起きていることをいち早くチェックできます。

アカウント作成

スレッド

新しいツイートを表示

会話

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

返信先:

さん

This action concerns the failure of Defendant, Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) to reinstate the accounts of two attorneys suspended for engaging in political speech + advocacy, despite announcing a “general amnesty” in November 2022 + reinstating numerous other accounts since that time

1

3

11

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

The complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, asserting a single claim for breach of contract.

1

2

8

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Twitter removed the action to this Court, and then filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

1

3

6

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Because this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, however, it cannot authorize a venue transfer under § 1404(a). The motion to transfer venue should be denied.

1

2

6

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff initiated this action on January 20, 2023, by filing its Complaint1 in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

1

2

7

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

The Complaint asserts a single state-law claim for breach of contract against Twitter. Compl. ¶¶ 20-26.

1

2

7

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

It alleges that Jared Beck and Elizabeth Lee Beck (collectively, “the Becks”) are married attorneys who filed suit against the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) and its former chair, congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz,

1

3

5

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters for rigging the 2016 Democratic primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton. Id. ¶ 7; see also Wilding v. DNC Servs. Corp., 941 F.3d 1116 (11th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2828 (2020).

1

3

7

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

The Complaint alleges that the Becks became fierce and outspoken critics of the DNC on social media and in 2019, Twitter permanently suspended both of their accounts in the wake of tweets critical of Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign.

1

4

9

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Plaintiff goes on to allege that Harris’s former press secretary was a high-level Twitter executive at the time the Becks’ accounts were suspended.

1

5

9

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

In October 2022, billionaire Elon Musk purchased Twitter, promising to address concerns that the social media company responsible for hosting the “digital town square” was increasingly suppressing free speech.

1

2

8

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Internal documents released after Musk’s acquisition (the “Twitter Files”) exposed intense coordination between Twitter and various government agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and Department of Defense as well as the Democratic Party,

1

3

7

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

to censor discourse on the platform around select public issues including the 2020 presidential election, the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, and COVID-19.

1

3

4

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

On November 24, 2022, Twitter announced, through Musk, “a general amnesty to suspended accounts[.]” To be eligible, a suspended account must “have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam[.]”

1

2

6

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

The amnesty was scheduled to begin the week of November 28, 2022, and Twitter has reinstated numerous accounts pursuant to the policy.

1

3

6

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Despite never having broken the law or engaging in spam – and never having even been accused of doing so by Twitter – the Becks’ accounts have not been reinstated. Plaintiff is the assignee of all of the Becks’ rights pursuant to their respective contracts with Twitter.

1

2

4

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

On March 9, 2023, Twitter removed the action to this Court, claiming diversity jurisdiction. On March 15, 2023, Twitter filed its Motion to Transfer and Motion to Dismiss.

1

2

3

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Plaintiff filed its Motion to Remand Based on Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Request for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Caused By Improvident Removal (“Motion to Remand”) on March 28, 2023.

1

2

4

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

While Twitter calls Plaintiff’s beliefs about why the Becks’ accounts were suspended and not reinstated “misguided” (Motion to Dismiss at 1), it has persistently refused to offer any alternative explanation.

1

4

8

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Legal Standard “District courts ask three questions to decide whether transfer is appropriate under §1404(a).” Regenicin, Inc. v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-3596-TCB, 2014 WL 11930591, *2 (N.D. Ga. May 1, 2014).

1

2

5

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

The Motion to Transfer filed by Twitter omits any mention of the first of these questions: “First, are venue and subject-matter jurisdiction proper in the transferor court, i.e., the court in which the transfer motion is made.

1

2

5

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

The transferor court needs both in order to transfer under § 1404(a).” Id. (footnote omitted).

1

2

4

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Analysis Because The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, The Court Must Deny Twitter’s Motion To Transfer As Moot

1

2

4

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

It is apodictic that a district court must possess subject-matter jurisdiction in order to transfer an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Integrated Health Servs. of Cliff Manor, Inc. v. THCI Co., LLC, 417 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 2005)

1

2

4

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

(“[A] court without subject matter jurisdiction cannot transfer a case to another court under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).”); see also Regenicin, 2014 WL 11930591, at *2; Clark v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-452-JEG-RAW, 2018 WL 4516000, *9 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 1, 2018)

1

3

5

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

(denying § 1404(a) venue transfer motion as moot where court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction).

1

3

5

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Here, there is no subject-matter jurisdiction because Twitter has failed to meet its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as is necessary for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

1

2

4

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

This is demonstrated and discussed at length in Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, which the Court should resolve before deciding Twitter’s Motion to Transfer. See Kamana O’Kala, LLC v. Lite Solar, Case No. 3:16-CV-1532-PK, 2017 WL 1100568, *4 (D. Or. Feb. 13, 2017)

1

2

4

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

(“Most courts, when faced with concurrent motions to remand and transfer, resolve the motion to remand prior to, and/or to the exclusion of, the motion to transfer”; collecting district court opinions from various jurisdictions).

1

2

4

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Twitter devotes a single paragraph to its brash assertion that, “This action should be transferred before the Court considers any other aspect of this action.” Motion to Transfer at 6. Case 1:23-cv-20943-KMM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 4 of 75

1

2

3

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Unsurprisingly, the two citations fail to support its audacious proposition that the Court should send this action to California without considering Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand or even assuring itself of its own jurisdiction to transfer under § 1404(a).

1

2

2

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

See Regenicin, 2014 WL 11930591, at *2 (district court must first ask itself whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction when ruling on a § 1404(a) transfer motion); RES-GA Cobblestone, LLC v. Blake Constr. & Dev., LLC, 718 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2013)

1

1

2

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

(“Federal courts operate under a continuing obligation to inquire into the existence of subject matter jurisdiction whenever it may be lacking. That obligation continues through every stage of a case, even if no party raises the issue.” (emphasis added)).

2

1

2

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Twitter presents the Federal Circuit completely out of context when it quotes from In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020), where the court’s jurisdiction to order a § 1404(a) transfer was not at issue.

1

1

1

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

By the same token, Zampa v. JUUL Labs, Inc., Case No. 18-25005-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES, 2019 WL 1777730 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2019) involved multi-district litigation,

1

1

1

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

one of the narrow exceptions to the rule that motions to remand take priority over motions to transfer venue, neither of which are present in this case. See Kamana, 2017 WL1100568, at *4.

1

1

1

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Twitter’s Motion to Transfer Venue as moot. DATED: March 29, 2023 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, JARED H. BECK ELIZABETH LEE BECK Attorneys for Plaintiff

1

4

9

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

(images of last two filings to follow)

1

1

2

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

1

3

3

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

2

1

2

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

午後8:03 · 2023年4月4日

117

件の表示

件のリツイート

件のいいね

Beth B #American4Assange #Panquake

返信先:

さん

@threadreaderapp

Unroll, please.

2

1

Free banned attorneys @JaredBeck and @eleebeck

返信先:

さん,

@threadreaderapp

さん

1

@firemanjohn629

返信先:

さん

メディアを再生できません。

再読み込み

Twitterを使ってみよう

今すぐ登録して、タイムラインをカスタマイズしましょう。

Appleのアカウントで登録

アカウントを作成

アカウントを登録することにより、利用規約とプライバシーポリシー（Cookieの使用を含む）に同意したとみなされます。

トレンド

いまどうしてる？

音楽 · トレンド

#Beautiful_Flower

14,719件のツイート

日本のトレンド

緊急生放送

トレンドトピック: さとみの最悪ファンサ講座、写真過去一好き

日本のトレンド

月のワルツ

野球 · トレンド

大野手術

トレンドトピック: 中日ドラゴンズ、モイネロ

日本のトレンド

#あなたの飼育方法マニュアル

さらに表示