Moore v. Forward Air LLC et al
| Amari Moore |
| FAF LLC, John Doe and FAF Inc |
| 3:2025cv00083 |
| January 13, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Ed Kinkeade |
| Torts/Pers Inj: Other Personal Injury |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 10, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 31
ELECTRONIC Order Administratively Closing Case.The parties notified the Court that this case has settled. Doc. Nos. 28 & 30. The parties shall file the necessary dismissal papers by April 25, 2025. All deadlines are hereby VACATED. There appears to be no further reason at this time to maintain the file as open for statistical purposes. The Clerk is, therefore, instructed to submit a JS-6 form to the Administrative Office, thereby removing this case from the statistical records. Nothing in this Order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this case, and should further proceedings become necessary or desirable, any party or the Court may initiate such further proceedings in the same manner as if this Order had not been entered. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/10/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 30 NOTICE of SETTLEMENT filed by Amari Moore (Cazarez, Miguel) |
|
Filing 29
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the Notice of Settlement (Doc. No. 28) in which "[t]he parties announce" that they have reached a settlement in this matter. However, the Notice is signed only by counsel for Defendants, not by Plaintiff's counsel. So that the record is clear that she has indeed settled her claims, Plaintiff SHALL file written notification of her joinder in this Notice announcing settlement. Once said notification is received, the Court will vacate the outstanding deadlines and administratively close this matter. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/6/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 28 NOTICE of Settlement filed by FAF LLC (Thibodeaux, Lee) |
| Filing 27 Designation of Mediator by Amari Moore. (Cazarez, Miguel) |
|
Filing 26
ELECTRONIC ORDER:Before the Court is Defendant FAF LLC f/k/a FAF, Inc.'s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Third Amended Notice of Removal (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 25). The Court appreciates the parties' attempt to resolve this matter at such an early stage. Nevertheless, the Court must know whether it can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and the burden to establish federal jurisdiction falls to Defendant FAF as the removing party. St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). The Court entered the first of four jurisdictional deficiency orders on January 13, 2025, the same day this case was removed. See Doc. Nos. 6, 9, 17, & 23. Almost two months later, this Court's subject matter jurisdiction is no clearer than it was then. A further point of frustration for the Court is that the information necessary to clarify the citizenship of Defendant Forward Air LLC f/k/a Forward Air, Inc. is (in all likelihood) within Defendant FAF's control.Based on Defendant FAF's representation that the parties "are very close to settling this matter", the Court will, one last time, extend Defendant FAF's deadline. The Motion is hereby GRANTED.This case will be REMANDED without further notice no later than March 21, 2025, if Defendant FAF has not unequivocally established this Court's subject matter jurisdiction before then or if the parties have not filed a notice of settlement by said deadline. Gasch v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2007) ("The removal statute is therefore to be strictly construed, and any doubt about the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand."); see 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). To be very clear, the Court will NOT extend this deadline again. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/28/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 25 MOTION to Extend Time to File Third Amended Notice of Removal filed by FAF LLC (Thibodeaux, Lee) |
|
Filing 24
ELECTRONIC Order Unfiling.The Court UNFILES Defendant FAF LLC f/k/a FAF, Inc.'s First Amended Certificate of Interested Persons (Doc. No. 22). This document fails to include local counsel's signature. The Court warned Defendant FAF on February 7, 2025, that any documents filed thereafter that did not include local counsel's signature would be immediately unfiled. Doc. No. 18.Further, and no less frustrating, the Court has TWICE directed Defendant FAF that Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires disclosure of each party's CITIZENSHIP (not RESIDENCY) in all diversity matters, and this disclosure must include the names and citizenship of each individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party. Doc. Nos. 6 & 9; see Doc. No. 11 (directing Plaintiff to include the same). Here, Defendant FAF alleges its residency, not citizenship, and fails name its members and to identify their citizenship.If Defendant FAF successfully establishes the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, see Doc. No. 23, it shall within 3 days file an amended certificate of interested persons that includes the citizenship disclosure statement in full compliance with Rule 7.1(a)(2). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/20/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 23
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Defendant FAF LLC f/k/a FAF, Inc.'s Second Amended Notice of Removal (the "NOR") (Doc. No. 20). As previously stated, the Court has "an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). This recent NOR still does not clearly establish the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a).Because jurisdiction must exist at the time of removal, the Court must know the citizenship of every named party to the action at that time, even though the parties have since dismissed two of the named Defendants--Forward Air LLC f/k/a Forward Air, Inc. and Forward Air Corporation (together, the "Forward Air Defendants"). In this NOR, Defendant FAF identifies the following members of Forward Air LLC: (1) Forward Air Corporation, which is a Tennessee corporation whose principal place of business is in Tennessee; and (2) future member Clue Opco, LLC which is identified as "a Delaware LLC". Doc. No. 7 at 3 (emphasis added). This allegation is deficient in at least two respects. First, there is no clarification or explanation of what "future member" means, specifically whether Clue Opco, LLC was a member at the time this suit was filed and also when it was removed to federal court. Ashford v. Aeroframe Servs., L.L.C., 907 F.3d 385, 386-87 (5th 2018). Second, Defendant FAF fails to allege Clue Opco, LLC's citizenship because its members and their citizenship are not identified. MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2019). "When jurisdiction depends on citizenship, citizenship must be 'distinctly and affirmatively alleged.'" Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988). As the party seeking the federal forum, Defendant FAF must establish this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). Thus far, the Court cannot conclude that complete diversity exists and, therefore, that the undersigned has jurisdiction over this matter. The Court will REMAND this case no later than February 27, 2025 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if it has not been unequivocally established before then. Gasch v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2007) ("The removal statute is therefore to be strictly construed, and any doubt about the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand."); see 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/20/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 22 *** UNFILED PER 24 ORDER.*** CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by FAF LLC. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Thibodeaux, Lee) Modified text on 2/20/2025 (agc). |
| Filing 21 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Amari Moore. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Cazarez, Miguel) |
| Filing 20 AMENDED DOCUMENT by FAF LLC, Forward Air Corporation, Forward Air LLC. Second Amended Notice of Removal. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s), #2 Exhibit(s), #3 Exhibit(s), #4 Exhibit(s), #5 Exhibit(s)) (Thibodeaux, Lee) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Lee D Thibodeaux on behalf of FAF LLC, Forward Air Corporation, Forward Air LLC. (Filer confirms contact info in ECF is current.) (Thibodeaux, Lee) |
|
Filing 18
ELECTRONIC ORDER: On January 13, 2025, the Court ordered Defendant FAF (along with the Forward Air Defendants who have since been dismissed) to file the entry of appearance of local counsel by February 3, 2025, and warned that the failure to do so might result in the imposition of sanctions. Doc. No. 2. To-date, local counsel has not made an appearance for Defendant FAF and the court-ordered deadline passed.Accordingly, Defendant FAF SHALL file the entry of appearance of local counsel who satisfies the requirements of Local Civil Rule 83.10(a) by February 12, 2025. Failure to do so SHALL result in an order directing Defendant FAF to show cause why it and its counsel should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with the orders of this Court. Further Defendant FAF is on notice that the undersigned requires local counsel to also sign all documents filed in this case. Any filings after the entry of this Order that do not also include local counsel's signature will be immediately unfiled regardless of any related deadline. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/7/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 17
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. No. 16). In dismissing Defendant Forward Air LLC f/k/a Forward Air, Inc. and Defendant Forward Air Corporation (together, the "Forward Air Defendants"), the parties state that "the proper Defendant is FAF LLC f/k/a FAF, Inc." Doc. No. 16 at 1.The Court reminds Defendant FAF that it must still file an amended notice of removal that properly alleges the State citizenship of EACH named party in Plaintiff's state court petition AT THE TIME OF REMOVAL. See Doc. Nos. 6 & 9. "[R]emoval under 1441(b)(2) is permissible only if complete diversity exists among all named parties: Each plaintiff must be diverse from each defendant, i.e., there must be what is known as 'complete diversity.'" In re Levy, 52 F.4th 244, 246 (5th Cir. 2022). Whether there is complete diversity of the parties' citizenship is judged from the time of removal. Ashford v. Aeroframe Servs., L.L.C., 907 F.3d 385, 386-87 (5th 2018) ("Consistent with general principles for determining federal jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship must exist both at the time of filing in state court and at the time of removal to federal court.") (cleaned up).Accordingly, in amending the Notice of Removal, Defendant FAF must ensure that it properly alleges its own State citizenship as well as that of both Forward Air Defendants. If Defendant FAF fails to amend or fails to do so sufficiently by February 17, 2025, the Court will remand this case without further notice. 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (in action removed from state court, federal court must remand case any time before final judgment if court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction); see Gasch v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2007) ("The removal statute is therefore to be strictly construed, and any doubt about the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand."). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/7/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 16 Joint STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL by FAF LLC. (Thibodeaux, Lee) |
|
Filing 15
SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 5/4/2026 09:00 AM before Judge Ed Kinkeade. Deadline for mediation is on or before 6/13/2025. Joint Report on mediation due by 6/20/2025. Joinder of Parties due by 4/7/2025. Amended Pleadings due by 4/7/2025. Discovery due by 10/31/2025. Motions due by 12/1/2025. Pretrial Order due by 4/13/2026. Pretrial Materials due by 4/13/2026. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/31/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 14 Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Forward Air LLC, Forward Air Corporation, FAF LLC. (Thibodeaux, Lee) |
| Filing 13 Second AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Amari Moore. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Cazarez, Miguel) Modified text on 1/31/2025 (knb). |
| Filing 12 First AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Amari Moore. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Cazarez, Miguel) Modified text on 1/31/2025 (knb). |
|
Filing 11
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Certificate of Interested Persons (Doc. No. 10). In two separate orders, the Court specifically explained the additional disclosure statement required by Rule 7.1(a)(2) in each party's certificate of interested parties in cases before the Court under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Doc. Nos. 6 & 9 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2)). Although the Court addressed Rule 7.1(a)(2) in the context of the Removing Defendants' certificate of interested parties, the Court made it entirely clear that each party must disclose their State citizenship in their respective certificate of interested parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2). Had Plaintiff read these orders, she would have known this. But her recently filed Certificate of Interested Persons does not include this statement. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file an amended certificate that includes the required statement of her State citizenship (not residency) by January 31, 2025. Each party should read all orders entered by this Court carefully for numerous reasons, including to prevent the Court from expending time and resources in duplicating its work unnecessarily. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/29/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 10 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Amari Moore. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Cazarez, Miguel) |
|
Filing 9
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court hereby EXTENDS Defendants' deadline to file an amended notice of removal that properly alleges each Defendant's State citizenship in accordance with the applicable law. See Doc. No. 6. Defendants shall file said document no later than February 17, 2025.Within 3 days of filing their amended notice of removal, Defendants shall file their certificate of interested parties which names and identifies the citizenship of each individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/17/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 8 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Forward Air LLC, Forward Air Corporation, FAF LLC. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Thibodeaux, Lee) |
| Filing 7 FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Forward Air LLC, Forward Air Corporation, FAF LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit(s) Exhibit D) (Thibodeaux, Lee) Modified text on 1/17/2025 (knb). |
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court has "an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). Defendants Forward Air LLC f/k/a Forward Air, Inc., Forward Air Corporation, and FAF LLC f/k/a FAF, Inc. (the "Removing Defendants") removed this case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Doc. No. 1 at 2-3. Accordingly, the parties' citizenship must be completely diverse in that one of the plaintiffs cannot share the same state citizenship as one of the defendants, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See Corfield v. Dallas Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2003). Further, "[w]hen jurisdiction depends on citizenship, citizenship must be 'distinctly and affirmatively alleged.'" Getty Oil Corp., a Div. of Texaco v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988). For the following reasons, the Removing Defendants did not properly allege their own citizenship and, therefore, did not satisfy their burden on removal. (The Court notes that the Removing Defendants interchange "citizen" or "domicile" with "resident" in the section entitled "Basis for Removal". Doc. No. 1 at 2-3. For diversity purposes, the Court is unconcerned with any party's residency. See 1332(a).) For diversity purposes, Defendant Forward Air Corporation (the "Corporate Defendant") is a citizen "of any State by which it has been incorporated and the State where it has its principal place of business." 28 U.S.C. 1332(c); see J.A. Olson Co. v. City of Winnona, 818 F.2d 401, 404 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92 (2010) (corporation's principal place of business is its "nerve center, "meaning "the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities."). The Removing Defendants allege only that the Corporate Defendant "is domiciled in the State of Tennessee, specifically, 1915 Snapps Ferry Road, Building N, Greeneville, Tennessee 37745." Doc. No. 1 at 2.Turning to Defendants Forward Air LLC f/k/a Forward Air, Inc. and FAF LLC f/k/a FAF, Inc. (the "LLC Defendants"), the citizenship of a limited liability company ("LLC") for diversity purposes is determined by the citizenship of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990); accord SXSW, L.L.C. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 83 F.4th 405, 407 (5th Cir. 2023). These allegations must include the identity of each member through every layer and each member's citizenship. MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2019). For Defendant Forward Air, LLC, the Removing Defendants allege only that it is "domiciled in the State of Tennessee" at a specific address. Doc. No. 1 at 2. The Removing Defendants do allege that "the sole member of [Defendant] FAF, LLC is [Defendant] Forward Air Corporation which is domiciled in Tennessee and is not a resident of the State of Texas." Doc. No. 1 at 3. Again, the Removing Defendants do not identify the Corporate Defendant's State of incorporation and the State of its principal place of business as required to establish its citizenship; therefore, the citizenship of Defendant FAF, LLC has not been properly alleged. And the Removing Defendants completely fail to identify any member of Defendant Forward Air, LLC f/k/a Forward Air, Inc., so its citizenship cannot be known on this record. Further, the Removing Defendants' allegations that each "is not a citizen of the State of Texas" is not a distinct and affirmative allegation of citizenship for diversity purposes. See Getty Oil, 841 F.2d at 1259. Also, it is irrelevant that the Removing Defendants claim Defendant Forward Air, LLC and Defendant Forward Air Corporation are "improperly named Defendants". Doc. No. 1 at 3. The parties named in this action at the time of removal must be completely diverse.Because they failed to "distinctly and affirmatively" allege their own citizenship, the Removing Defendants did not meet their burden, as the parties seeking the federal forum, to establish federal jurisdiction. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). The Removing Defendants may amend their Notice of Removal in accordance with this Order by January 17, 2025. If the Removing Defendants fail to amend or fail to do so sufficiently, the Court will remand this case without further notice. 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (in action removed from state court, federal court must remand case any time before final judgment if court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction); see Gasch v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2007) ("The removal statute is therefore to be strictly construed, and any doubt about the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand.").The Removing Defendants SHALL also ensure the complete state court record has been filed with the amended notice of removal. The Court notes that the removal record includes the affidavit of service only as to Defendant Forward Air, LLC f/k/a Forward Air, Inc., Doc. No. 1-6, but the Removing Defendants allege in their Notice of Removal that they were all served prior to removal. Doc. No. 1 at 1-2; see also Doc. No. 1-8 (Original Answer filed in state court was filed on behalf of all the Removing Defendants).Finally, the Removing Defendants did not file the certificate of interested persons required by this Court's Local Civil Rule 81.1 on removal. L. Civ. R. 81.1(a)(4)(D); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1. Assuming they sufficiently establish the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, the Removing Defendants shall file the required document within 3 days of filing their amended notice of removal. Because the Removing Defendants invoke the Court's subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires that each party's disclosure statement "name--and identify the citizenship of--every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2) (emphasis added). The Removing Defendants shall ensure that their certificate of interested persons includes the required disclosure statement of EACH of their respective State citizenships. As a reminder for the LLC Defendants, this requires the disclosure of the identities and citizenship of each of their members. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/13/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 5 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Toliver). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (knb) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER REQUIRING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND REPORT FOR CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING ORDER. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/13/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER: This Order governs requests to file materials in this case under seal. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/13/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 2
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Local Civil Rule 83.10(a) requires the appearance of local counsel where the attorney of record for a party does not reside or maintain their principal office in this district. By February 3, 2025, Defendants, shall file the entry of appearance of local counsel satisfying the requirements of Local Civil Rule 83.10(a). Failure to do so may result in sanctions being imposed for failure to comply with an order of the Court. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/13/2025) (chmb)
|
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL WITH JURY DEMAND filed by FAF LLC f/k/a FAF, Inc., Forward Air Corporation, Forward Air LLC f/k/a Forward Air, Inc.. (Filing fee $405; receipt number ATXNDC-15182443) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Index of Documents, #2 Cover Sheet Civil Coversheet, #3 Exhibit(s) Original Petition, #4 Exhibit(s) Jury Demand Notice, #5 Exhibit(s) Citations, #6 Exhibit(s) Affidavit of Service, #7 Exhibit(s) Parties, Attorneys and Court, #8 Exhibit(s) Answer, #9 Exhibit(s) Email Re docket sheet) (Thibodeaux, Lee) (Attachment 2 replaced to flatten on 1/13/2025) (knb). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
