Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-07131
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tantaros v. Fox News, Judge Carter directed argument on federal jurisdiction and abstention without deciding either issue.
The order affected Andrea Tantaros and Fox News Channel, LLC, along with the other respondents, by directing the issues they should address at the scheduled status conference.
What happened
In Andrea Tantaros v. Fox News Channel, LLC, et al., the court prepared for a November 19, 2019 status conference concerning state-law claims.
The court asked the parties to focus on whether it had authority to hear the case, including whether the claims necessarily raised federal issues and whether preemption created federal-question jurisdiction. The court also identified possible abstention under the Pullman doctrine, which can allow a federal court to pause while related state-law issues are addressed.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. did not decide jurisdiction, preemption, or abstention in this order. He directed the parties to address those issues at the scheduled conference.
The detailed version
- Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-07131
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background The court had previously scheduled oral argument for a status conference on November 19, 2019. The opinion concerns state-law claims brought in the case by Andrea Tantaros against Fox News Channel, LLC, and other respondents.
Issues Identified by the Court The court instructed the parties to focus their arguments on whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. It specifically asked the parties to address whether the federal issues were “necessarily raised” by the state-law claims. It also asked them to address whether the respondents’ preemption arguments independently supported federal-question jurisdiction.
The court further stated that the parties might address whether abstention was appropriate under the doctrine described in Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. Abstention can involve a federal court declining or delaying action in circumstances involving related state-law issues, but this order did not decide whether abstention applied here.
Disposition Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered no ruling on jurisdiction, preemption, or abstention. Instead, the order directed the parties’ attention to those issues for the scheduled oral argument. The opinion does not state a final disposition of the case or claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.