Connection lost
Server error
Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An unsuccessful bidder sued in federal court to void a city contract awarded to a competitor. The court dismissed the case, finding the potential value to the plaintiff—a chance to rebid—was too speculative to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that in the Eleventh Circuit, the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction must be measured from the plaintiff’s viewpoint. It also holds that the speculative value of an opportunity to rebid on a government contract is insufficient to meet the jurisdictional minimum.
Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. (“EGE”) and Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc. (“Motorola”) submitted bids for a public safety radio system contract with the City of Birmingham. EGE bid $9.7 million on one technology system (APCO 16), while Motorola bid $11.3 million on a different, newer system (APCO 25). The City decided the APCO 25 system better suited its needs, rejected both formal bids, and then negotiated a contract directly with Motorola. EGE filed a diversity action in federal court under Alabama’s Competitive Bid Law, alleging the process was improper and seeking an injunction to void the City’s contract with Motorola. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the amount in controversy requirement was met. After a trial, the district court voided the contract, and the defendants appealed, challenging both the jurisdictional ruling and the merits.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a diversity action seeking only to enjoin a government contract awarded to a competitor, is the amount in controversy requirement satisfied where the plaintiff’s sole potential benefit is the speculative opportunity to rebid on the contract?
No. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
In a diversity action seeking only to enjoin a government contract awarded to a competitor, is the amount in controversy requirement satisfied where the plaintiff’s sole potential benefit is the speculative opportunity to rebid on the contract?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the plaintiff-viewpoint rule for determining the amount in controversy Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ul
Legal Rule
In the Eleventh Circuit, the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel
Legal Analysis
The court first conducted a thorough analysis of circuit precedent to determine Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Eleventh Circuit follows the plaintiff-viewpoint rule for determining the amount