Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
So you haven't even read enough of the thread to know what you're talking about but you're gonna call someone else a dumbass?
You sir are proof that you don't actually have to be very smart, or even have common sense, to pass the Bar Exam and become a Lawyer.
*pedal, apparently Mirtz is delivering info via bicycle.
You know what they cay about law school being adult day care.
*There are some great lawyers out there, there are also a lot of shit examples as well.
What do you call 2,000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
I always remember this from the book of tasteless jokes when the subject of lawyers comes up.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
The court's order is below; it didn't actually dismiss the case, just demanded an amendment with more detail to the allegations claiming jurisdiction.
Purely speculation on my part, but I assume WMG elected just to dismiss and bounce to state court either because it did not want to disclose its members or doing so would make clear that it could not establish diversity based on the state citizenship of at least some of the LLC members. Fair enough, this is small potatoes for WMG and probably not worth exposing who its members (i.e., the LLC owners) are. It definitely reflects that federal judges strip search diversity jurisdiction claims to keep cases off their dockets.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
WASSERMAN MEDIA GROUP,
LLC
v.
LUCAS MIRTL, ET AL.
CIVIL NO. 4:25-CV-243-SDJ
ORDER
The Court’s jurisdiction over this case remains an open question because
Plaintiff Wasserman Media Group, LLC (“Wasserman”) has failed to adequately
allege a basis for federal jurisdiction. Thus, the Court ORDERS Wasserman to file
an amended complaint alleging the facts required to establish federal jurisdiction.
Wasserman alleges that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 due to diversity in the parties’ citizenships. (Dkt. #1 ¶ 16). “To properly
allege diversity jurisdiction under § 1332, the parties need to allege complete
diversity.” MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 313
(5th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). Complete diversity requires that “all persons on
one side of the controversy [must] be citizens of different states than all persons on
the other side.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Citizenship of an entity depends on its form. Relevant here, a limited liability
company is a citizen where each of its members is a citizen. E.g., Harvey v. Grey Wolf
Drilling, Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008). Allegations regarding the
citizenship of a limited liability company must allege the citizenship of each member.
Settlement Funding, L.L.C. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 851 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir.
2017). And, as necessary, such allegations may require tracing entities’ citizenships
down the various organizational layers. See, e.g., Thomason v. Outback Steakhouse of
Fla., L.L.C., No. 1:17-CV-01541, 2019 WL 3526839, at *1 n.1 (W.D. La. May 14, 2019)
(holding that, where a defendant LLC’s sole member was itself an LLC, and the
member LLC’s sole member was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Florida, the defendant LLC’s citizenship was both Delaware and Florida).
Thus, each member’s citizenship must be alleged “distinctly and affirmatively”;
general allegations are insufficient. See Getty Oil Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North
America, 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988). A court cannot determine whether
federal jurisdiction exists without these allegations. See MidCap, 929 F.3d at 313.
Wasserman has failed to properly allege diversity of citizenship because it has
failed to properly allege its own citizenship. Wasserman states that it “is [a]
entertainment agency and a limited liability company organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 10900
Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1200, Los Angeles, California 90024. Wasserman’s members are
not domiciled in Texas.” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 12). But as explained above, because Wasserman
represents that it is a limited liability company, Wasserman’s citizenship for diversity
purposes is determined by the State(s) where its members are citizens. See MidCap,
929 F.3d at 313–14; Harvey, 542 F.3d at 1080. Wasserman must therefore identify its
members and allege their State(s) of citizenship.
Wasserman also failed to properly allege Defendant Mirtl’s citizenship.
Wasserman’s allegation that Mirtl is a citizen of Texas rests solely on the assertion
that Mirtl resides in Texas. Allegations of residency are not sufficient to establish the
citizenship of an individual; “[f]or diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile;
mere residence in the State is not sufficient.” Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th
Cir. 1974). As the Fifth Circuit has explained, “[t]he difference between citizenship
and residency is a frequent source of confusion.” MidCap, 929 F.3d at 313. Citizenship
requires not only “[r]esidence in fact” but also “the purpose to make the place of
residence one’s home.” Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 424, 59 S.Ct. 563, 83 L.Ed. 817
(1939). Accordingly, when allegations regarding an individual’s state of citizenship
are based solely on where that individual resides, that individual’s citizenship has
not been established. See MidCap, 929 F.3d at 313. In the amended complaint,
Wasserman must allege Mirtl’s state of citizenship—not merely his state of residence.
For these reasons, the Court ORDERS that, by no later than March 14, 2025,
Wasserman must file an amended complaint that alleges facts sufficient to invoke
this Court’s jurisdiction.
Someday there will be an original lawyer joke that hasn't been heard a thousand times.
The closest I've come is my surgeon telling me he joked with the nurses during my transplant that they could wire me closed without the donor heart because I was a lawyer. HAHA!!!
My favorite: a dying man wants to "take it with him" and hands his priest, accountant and lawyer each $400,000 cash with the instruction to hide the cash in his casket before he's buried. At the wake, the priest confides that he kept the cash because it was better used to serve ministry. The accountant then admits that he also held the cash back for the man's heirs. The lawyer admonishes them for not respecting the man's wishes and brags "I'll have you know that I put my personal check for the full $400,000 in that casket."
I just hope when this is all said and done that they get Nick Swardson to play Mirtl in the eventual movie.
$15k for babysitting!!!!!!??
She was hot
I bet she took care of the human baby and the yet to be born babies if you know what I mean.....
That's a bargain to only charge $15,000 to watch 200 million kids.
my non-lawyer take: Mirtl's only "defense" to this is going to be him showing the court that yes, he "borrowed" that money with the intent to repay. If he can show how he had been doing something similar for years and always repaid the account, it's going to suck a lot of the air out of the allegations. If he cannot show that, then he's honestly got no defense. He'd be caught with his hand in the literal cookie jar and then saying "I was gonna put it back!"
Babysitting, the world's oldest profession.
“Borrowing” money without the owner of the money knowing is stealing, means fuck all if you eventually deposit it back. He has no defense either way. He used their money without their knowledge or consent
I made sure to cite my source on that turd of a joke but for some reason it's always stuck in my head. Not all lawyers suck.
I dated a girl back in 1990 named Connie. My roommate at the time took great delight in referring to her as Connie Lingus.
The relationship didn't last long. She was too coy and i didn't feel like putting in the effort.
I just realized some of my posts are starting to read like a professional125 contribution accept my spelling is mostly accurate and I use paragraphs.
Did you use the wrong “except” here on purpose because if so A+ level satire brother
Pit Row
I am not a lawyer either, but seems to me those two scenarios are functionally the same thing:
If he borrowed the money with intent to repay, then he agrees that he (minimally) owes the amount borrowed. And If he made unauthorized personal expenditures with the client's funds, then he (minimally) owes damages in the amount misappropriated.
I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that if mirtl can show up and say "Look, yell at me all you want but I've done this 37 times and repaid it every time. This time was no different!" then it's just going to suck a lot of the force out of the allegations. I'm not defending Mirtl nor offering anything other than I think it really dillutes the charges if he has a track record of "fixing everything in the end."
The only question at hand in the suit is whether he owes the Lawrences $600,000 or not. It is a civil suit seeking repayment of damages, not a criminal one, so I don't know what "sucking the wind out of the allegations" even means.
If he agrees he owes the money, then it is a very simple case: the Lawrences win.
She probably had PTSD from her ex, Phil Laesheoh. That guy can be a big dick when he wants.
Yeah she was probably the cause of the divorce…
Please don't offend the people with down syndrome by making this harsh comparison. They have nothing to do with Cooksey, neither with Jake Paul or Magoofan 😅😘
But I see an opportunity for us all a community agency "Vitards LLC" and who made something happen, earns 12%. 🤑💰
He's an agent, which means he had a fiduciary duty to not do that without the express agreement of his principals, the Lawrences. That likely would have to be documented in writing.
I don't know the facts, just the allegations. But if a person embezzles funds 37 times - your hypothetical - it's still embezzlement and, for an agent, a breach of fiduciary duty, even if paid back each time. Any past repayment would simply reduce the damages.
I have heard nipping in the butt can cause severe deformation
https://x.com/lucasmirtl/status/1911934028426490253
Whats this all about?
I saw this yesterday too. Visited the forum but didn't see any threads revisited... Could just be some more incomprehensible tweeting from his end? I'm here for it. Let'er rip Mirtz
Probably saw that Darren Lawrence was going on pulp yesterday.
Post a reply to: Lucas Mirtl Update, Case Dismissed!?