Civil Lawsuits

[Taxing Matters]

I was a pro se and did not file them separately, but rather all in one single lawsuit. Cause and applicable law is diversity action.

Diversity is not a cause of action. It is a basis for jurisdiction to file a civil lawsuit in U.S. District court when the case does not involve either an issue federal law and the federal government is not a party to the case. The foreign government agencies & defendants would generally not be subject to the jurisdiction of any federal court, except that foreign person who have some connection/contacts with the U.S. might be subject to being sued in the U.S. As the plaintiff in what I assume was a lawsuit in federal district court (since you mention diversity) it is your burden to show both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. The foreign agencies and defendants being dismissed for want of jurisdiction wouldn't necessarily result in the dismissal of the entire case. Was the landlord foreign, too (i.e. was your entire complaint about something that occurred outside the U.S.)? If the answer is no, then why was the case against the landlord dismissed? Lack of diversity?

While an employer could find out about your federal lawsuit by searching PACER, which is the system used by federal district courts and appellate courts to keep track of case information and which is available to the public, most employers wouldn't bother to do that unless some kind of special background check were needed.

[Chiral]

Diversity is not a cause of action. It is a basis for jurisdiction to file a civil lawsuit in U.S. District court when the case does not involve either an issue federal law and the federal government is not a party to the case. The foreign government agencies & defendants would generally not be subject to the jurisdiction of any federal court, except that foreign person who have some connection/contacts with the U.S. might be subject to being sued in the U.S. As the plaintiff in what I assume was a lawsuit in federal district court (since you mention diversity) it is your burden to show both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. The foreign agencies and defendants being dismissed for want of jurisdiction wouldn't necessarily result in the dismissal of the entire case. Was the landlord foreign, too (i.e. was your entire complaint about something that occurred outside the U.S.)? If the answer is no, then why was the case against the landlord dismissed? Lack of diversity?

While an employer could find out about your federal lawsuit by searching PACER, which is the system used by federal district courts and appellate courts to keep track of case information and which is available to the public, most employers wouldn't bother to do that unless some kind of special background check were needed.

"Was the landlord foreign, too (i.e. was your entire complaint about something that occurred outside the U.S.)?"

Yes

I don't understand what this question means. What does "when a name is asked to be put down" mean? Asked by whom? Put down where? Even if limited to the employment context, a "background check" may take any number of forms. Obviously, if one has a relatively unique name, a middle name might not be needed. However, a middle name might be needed for someone with a common name.




You mean you were the plaintiff. Out of curiosity, what was the connection between the "foreign defendants" and "national agencies" and your landlord and employer (which I assume are actually a former landlord and employer)?




If a prospective employer finds out about the case, it might conclude it doesn't want to hire you. If a current employer finds out about it, it might choose to fire you. Obviously, no one here can predict how any given employer might react since you provided no facts about the case. I will say, however, that most employers aren't going to search for civil litigation involving an employee or prospective employee.

What sites?

" What sites? "

Leagle.com and docketbird.com, which published the 2-page ruling ( content i am concerned about) on the internet and which is searchable by my full name.

I have spent hundreds of dollars and I'm afraid i might reach thousands to suppress these sites.

[Mark47n]

"Was the landlord foreign, too (i.e. was your entire complaint about something that occurred outside the U.S.)?"

Yes




" What sites? "

Leagle.com and docketbird.com, which published the 2-page ruling ( content i am concerned about) on the internet and which is searchable by my full name.

I have spent hundreds of dollars and I'm afraid i might reach thousands to suppress these sites.

Why do you think that publicly available information about you can be legally subject to suppression? Why do you think you have the right to muzzle these sites? In other words, I can't think of any legitimate reason that the administrators of these sites should remove any information at all as the information is already public domain.

[Chiral]

Why do you think that publicly available information about you can be legally subject to suppression? Why do you think you have the right to muzzle these sites? In other words, I can't think of any legitimate reason that the administrators of these sites should remove any information at all as the information is already public domain.

Suppression is hiding them away like on page 9 of the search engine.

[Mark47n]

Again, why should they? What makes you so special?

Most search engines are based on algorithms so hiding specific results away becomes less likely, especially since there is no compelling reason to. Were I the person you had to speak to about this I would probably decline your request. Many people are unhappy with having their records out in the ether and they are far more damning than a failed lawsuit and I would deny them as well. The information is public domain, I would simply be providing an easier means of sifting through it.

So, despite the above, No employer is going to search this out. Why would they bother? Are you trying to get a security clearance or something? By worrying about this all your doing is displaying an attitude of self-importance. You're just not that interesting. Very few are outside the Most Interesting Man in the World and his Dos Equis.

[Taxing Matters]

"Was the landlord foreign, too (i.e. was your entire complaint about something that occurred outside the U.S.)?"

Yes

Well, that would explain the dismissal of the entire case. Your complaint about something that foreign persons did to you while you were living in a foreign country would have to be resolved in the courts of that other country. There would be no jurisdiction over the foreign defendants.

I can't see any U.S. employer caring about some lawsuit that you filed against some foreign landlord and foreign government even if it did find out about it. What would that possibly have to do with your qualifications for the job?

[Chiral]

Well, that would explain the dismissal of the entire case. Your complaint about something that foreign persons did to you while you were living in a foreign country would have to be resolved in the courts of that other country. There would be no jurisdiction over the foreign defendants.

I can't see any U.S. employer caring about some lawsuit that you filed against some foreign landlord and foreign government even if it did find out about it. What would that possibly have to do with your qualifications for the job?

Its the ' wrongful termination ', which is another defendant among the others mentioned (landlord, foreign government) that has me thinking. The reason being is that future employers might get spooked or something to that nature. At that time I was also thinking different judge have different views on the matter and so i filed it in three different district courts in my state. And indeed, judges had different opinion. Does this constitutes as three filings even though its the same case and thereby bringing things closer to quote on quote " litigious"? Its the same case just different district courts.

[Taxing Matters]

Its the ' wrongful termination ', which is another defendant among the others mentioned (landlord, foreign government) that has me thinking. The reason being is that future employers might get spooked or something to that nature. At that time I was also thinking different judge have different views on the matter and so i filed it in three different district courts in my state. And indeed, judges had different opinion. Does this constitutes as three filings even though its the same case and thereby bringing things closer to quote on quote " litigious"? Its the same case just different district courts.

Other countries have different labor laws than we do. So suing a foreign employer for wrongful termination wouldn't really mean much here, though of course it's hard to know what any employer will think of it. Filing the same claim in more than one district court is improper. You were basically forum shopping. An employer might see that as three separate cases — and in any event you filed the case three times, which would be a warning to any employer who did find out that you might cause the employer trouble. Having to respond to filings in 3 different courts for the same thing would be aggravating. You're lucky that you didn't draw sanctions from the courts for that.

[Chiral]

Other countries have different labor laws than we do. So suing a foreign employer for wrongful termination wouldn't really mean much here, though of course it's hard to know what any employer will think of it. Filing the same claim in more than one district court is improper. You were basically forum shopping. An employer might see that as three separate cases — and in any event you filed the case three times, which would be a warning to any employer who did find out that you might cause the employer trouble. Having to respond to filings in 3 different courts for the same thing would be aggravating. You're lucky that you didn't draw sanctions from the courts for that.

"...which would be a warning to any employer who did find out that you might cause the employer trouble."

This and the other reasons already mentioned are why this civil case can be problematic.

[pg1067]

" What sites? "

Leagle.com and docketbird.com, which published the 2-page ruling ( content i am concerned about) on the internet and which is searchable by my full name.

I have spent hundreds of dollars and I'm afraid i might reach thousands to suppress these sites.

I don't know how it is you think you can "suppress" sites like these as it relates to searches others might conduct, but I think this topic has been beaten to death.