Lawsuit filed by conspiracy nuts against DNC is dismissed.

[Jim Lane]

8. Allow me to show your error by quoting the actual decision

You write:

And you're wrong that the case was dismissed only because of jurisdiction. That was only one of many reasons.

Judge Zloch wrote:

At this
stage, the Court is required to construe the First Amended
Complaint ... in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and
accept its well-pled allegations as true. ...
This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.

(Decision, pages 8-9 (emphasis added))

After explaining his reasoning in detail, he wrote the following as the decretal paragraphs:

Accordingly, after due consideration, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint (DE 44) be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and
2. The above-styled cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

(Decision, page 28)

So, yes, it was dismissed only because of jurisdiction. That's why the dismissal was without prejudice.

Side note on "prejudice": As a general rule, litigants don't get to endlessly re-litigate the same issues, hoping that if one court disagreed with them, maybe a different court will rule for them. If Judge Zloch had found that the case was without merit, then his decision against the plaintiffs would bar a subsequent action on the same theories in a different court, such as a District of Columbia court of general jurisdiction. He wrote "without prejudice" to make clear that his decision was not on the merits and therefore did not have such preclusive effect.

I referred to "a District of Columbia court of general jurisdiction" because the cornerstone of Judge Zloch's decision was his adherence to the well-established rule that "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction...." (Decision, page 10) By contrast, every state court system (and for this purpose DC is like a state) has a court of general jurisdiction. That's why I wouldn't be surprised to see a new case brought in DC.

The issues you mention that he discussed were all in the context of federal jurisdiction, and specifically whether the allegations showed that the case fell under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the applicable statutory provision concerning the jurisdiction of federal district courts.

I haven't read the plaintiffs' complaint. Judging from the decision, however, the lawyers were somewhat sloppy in drafting it. For example, you write, "The judge also found that none of the plaintiffs could show that the promises of impartiality induced contributions." In fact, he "found" no such thing, as indeed he could not on a motion to dismiss. As he correctly stated, "In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true...." (Decision, page 2)

The problem wasn't in the proof, but in the pleading. The judge summarized the plaintiffs' legal theory on the fraud claim this way: "According to Plaintiffs, the DNC knew or should have known that those promises of neutrality were false and intended to induce members of the DNC Donor Class and Sanders Donor Class’s reliance." (Decision, page 7) He then explained why the plaintiffs failed on this point -- not because of a failure of their proof (he was assuming everything in the complaint to be true), but because of a failure in the wording of the complaint itself:

Plaintiffs fail to allege any causal connection between their
injuries and Defendants’ statements. The Plaintiffs asserting each
of these causes of action specifically allege that they donated to
the DNC or to Bernie Sanders’s campaign. See DE 8, ¶¶ 2-109. But
not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNC’s charter or
heard the statements they now claim are false before making their
donations. And not one of them alleges that they took action in
reliance on the DNC’s charter or the statements identified in the
First Amended Complaint (DE 8). Absent such allegations, these
Plaintiffs lack standing.

That a fraud plaintiff must allege and prove reliance has been part of American law since before there were primaries. To me, as a lawyer, the failure to make a proper allegation is a worse offense than giving an interview to Alex Jones!

My guess is that these plaintiffs didn't allege reliance because they couldn't do so truthfully. IIRC, if the court had ever reached the point of evaluating proof, the defendants were ready with evidence that at least some of the plaintiffs had been publicly blasting the DNC's obvious non-neutrality well before any internal emails were released. It was obvious to me personally, before even the first debate, that the DNC was not being neutral. Some people don't like this legal requirement of reliance as an element of a fraud claim, but it is the rule, not one conjured up to defeat Sanders supporters: If someone lies to you but you don't believe the lie, you have no cause of action for fraud. "Defendants are despicable liars" may be true but it's not a claim that a court will address.

To get around this problem, the plaintiffs might have to find additional representative plaintiffs who can allege reliance. That means finding at least one donor who was sufficiently well informed to know that the DNC promised neutrality but who was at the same time so ignorant as not to know that the DNC Chair had been a national campaign co-chair for Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign and that she was clearly favoring Clinton this time. There may well be no such donor. If, instead, the same plaintiffs bring a new case in DC, they'll still have this reliance problem. Because of it, they might well survive the motion to dismiss, because that court will have jurisdiction, but then lose the motion for summary judgment (these are two different ways of ending a case before trial), or they might lose at trial.

As you can see from that paragraph, my correction of your erroneous attacks on these plaintiffs doesn't mean I'm on their side. My current opinion, without having done a lot of research, is that the DNC acted wrongfully but not in a way that will support any legal remedy relating to the 2016 cycle. I hope that Judge Zloch's smackdown of the DNC's "smoke-filled room" argument will have some beneficial effect on its conduct in future elections.