Sinclair v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.

Background

The defendant, Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., told the court that Rodney Sinclair had filed a second renewed motion for class certification. The defendant stated that the court had previously denied two earlier class-certification motions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the federal statute governing certain diversity cases.

In the court’s most recent prior order, it denied Sinclair’s first renewed class-certification motion and directed him to show why his individual claims should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also directed him to explain whether, and on what basis, the court had diversity jurisdiction over those claims.

Parties’ Positions

The defendant asked the court to hold the second renewed class-certification motion in abeyance, meaning to pause consideration of it, until the defendant could respond on the jurisdiction issue and the court could decide whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction over Sinclair’s individual claims. The defendant argued that the court needed jurisdiction over the individual claims before considering the class claims.

The defendant also stated that Sinclair’s counsel opposed the request because Sinclair believed the jurisdiction and class-certification issues could be decided together. The opinion does not provide Sinclair’s further arguments on the merits of class certification.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered that the court resolve the subject-matter-jurisdiction question before addressing class certification. The order did not decide whether the court has jurisdiction over Sinclair’s individual claims, did not dismiss any claims, and did not decide whether a class should be certified. The docket entry states that the matter was resolved, but the opinion does not expressly label the request as granted or denied.