Connection lost
Server error
Rose v. Giamatti 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: Pete Rose sued the MLB Commissioner and others in Ohio state court. The Commissioner removed the case to federal court. The court denied Rose’s motion to remand, finding that the non-diverse defendants, the Cincinnati Reds and MLB, were improperly joined nominal parties, thus preserving federal diversity jurisdiction.
Legal Significance: This case is a leading example of a federal court piercing the pleadings to disregard the citizenship of nominal and fraudulently joined parties to find diversity jurisdiction. It demonstrates how a party’s unique contractual structure can insulate its members from being considered real parties in interest.
Rose v. Giamatti 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
Plaintiff Pete Rose, the manager of the Cincinnati Reds and a citizen of Ohio, filed suit in Ohio state court to prevent a disciplinary hearing regarding his alleged gambling. He named as defendants the Commissioner of Baseball, A. Bartlett Giamatti (a citizen of New York), the Cincinnati Reds (an Ohio citizen), and Major League Baseball (MLB), an unincorporated association with an Ohio member, making it an Ohio citizen for diversity purposes. Rose’s complaint alleged that Giamatti was biased and could not provide a fair hearing. While Rose alleged no wrongdoing by the Reds, he claimed they had a contractual duty to ensure the Commissioner followed fair procedures. Defendant Giamatti removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Rose filed a motion to remand, arguing the presence of Ohio defendants (the Reds and MLB) destroyed the complete diversity required under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Giamatti countered that the Reds and MLB were nominal parties who were fraudulently joined solely to defeat federal jurisdiction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: For the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction upon removal, should the citizenship of non-diverse defendants be disregarded when the plaintiff has no viable cause of action against them and they are not real parties to the central controversy?
Yes. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the Cincinnati 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 cillu
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
For the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction upon removal, should the citizenship of non-diverse defendants be disregarded when the plaintiff has no viable cause of action against them and they are not real parties to the central controversy?
Conclusion
The case stands as a significant precedent for the doctrines of fraudulent 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
Legal Rule
A federal court must disregard nominal or formal parties and rest jurisdiction 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 ip
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on identifying the 'real parties to the 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 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 aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in re
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court denied Pete Rose’s motion to remand, finding federal diversity