Cards against Humanity sues SpaceX

[Staffan]

I'm not sure if this belongs here, because while it is gaming-adjacent it also runs pretty close to politics. I'll try to stay on the non-politics side of things.

Anyway, back in 2017, Cards Against Humanity (CAH) had a campaign against the planned "wall" between the USA and Mexico, and in order to make such a project harder crowdfunded a bit over $2M to buy some land along the border as well as retain a lawyer versed in eminent domain stuff. There was never any wall built in that area, so nothing much came of it. Until now.

Turns out someone else is building in that area: SpaceX. And in the tradition of megacorps coming into rural areas to build stuff, they've ruffled feathers among their neighbors and played fast and loose with various regulations. And, as it turns out, they've been using CAH's land for storing crap and in the process destroyed any vegetation there. CAH are not fans of this, nor of Musk in general, and have filed a suit for $15M (of course, as Legal Eagle reminds us: anyone can sue anyone for anything, but it's then up to the courts to decide what damages will actually be). They have a site about the suit here (warning: the site uses significantly more politically loaded language than what I've been using, and the language there is not grandma-friendly). I've also attached the initial filing to the post. I figured that with the nuTSR saga winding down, our resident legal scholars like @Snarf Zagyg might enjoy something else to discuss.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The simulation is glitching.

 

[Umbran]

In case folks need a reminder - the topic is fine to discuss, so long as you leave politics out of it. For our purposes, this is about a company allegedly trespassing upon, and making damaging use of, someone else's land.

 

[wicked cool]

Have a feeling that this will depend on who wins election. The party that wants the wall will use eminent domain and it’s a frivolous lawsuit. If the party that really doesn’t want the wall then it could depend on the states priorities

 

[jdrakeh]

Well, that didn't take long.

 

[Ryujin]

Trespass is trespass. It shouldn't matter how much money you have and you can be sure that Elon would be pushing his property rights, if the situation was reversed.

 

[Staffan]

Have a feeling that this will depend on who wins election. The party that wants the wall will use eminent domain and it’s a frivolous lawsuit. If the party that really doesn’t want the wall then it could depend on the states priorities

The wall is at the moment irrelevant. That's why they originally bought it in 2017, but the current issue is that SpaceX has allegedly been using CAH's land without permission. SpaceX isn't building a wall, but rather a "Spaceport" and supporting infrastructure.

It's basically as if your neighbor was renovating their house and unilaterally decided your lawn would be a good place to store their equipment and stuff (well, not exactly, since the land isn't inhabited, but same principle).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I figured that with the nuTSR saga winding down, our resident legal scholars like @Snarf Zagyg might enjoy something else to discuss.

I guess I'm like Beetlejuice, except it only takes one mention?

Okay, these are my brief thoughts as I run through this-

1. It's a complaint filed in state court in Texas. YEE-HAW! I had to deal with some Texas state civil procedure a short while ago, and it is ... well, different. So apologies if I miss some Texas-specific issues.

2. Filed in state court, although it appears that there is diversity jurisdiction. Curious to see if SpaceX tries to remove it to federal court.

3. Okay, so factually this is about a piece of land (owned by plaintiff, CAH) that someone else is using as their own without permission of the landowner (that would be SpaceX).

4. Cause of action for trespass? That seems like a slam dunk. I don't know about Texas law, but usually trespass doesn't require stuff like, um, intent. It's strict liability (subject to defenses).

5. Cause of action for nuisance? Interesting. Usually this is when an adjacent property owner's actions on their own property are interfering with your own use of your property. This goes to paragraph 18 (activities on other land), but slightly more interesting because AFAIK CAH isn't using their land currently.

6. Cause of action for unjust enrichment? Sure, this is just, "SpaceX is making money off of this, and we need to be compensated."

7. Tortious interference is the basic "This will disrupt the great relations we have with our supporters who gave us money to buy this land and keep it pristine."


There's not a lot to analyze here, other than trespass is a slam dunk and everything else is additive to that.


Don't mess with people's land.

 

[Ryujin]

I guess I'm like Beetlejuice, except it only takes one mention?

Okay, these are my brief thoughts as I run through this-

1. It's a complaint filed in state court in Texas. YEE-HAW! I had to deal with some Texas state civil procedure a short while ago, and it is ... well, different. So apologies if I miss some Texas-specific issues.

2. Filed in state court, although it appears that there is diversity jurisdiction. Curious to see if SpaceX tries to remove it to federal court.

3. Okay, so factually this is about a piece of land (owned by plaintiff, CAH) that someone else is using as their own without permission of the landowner (that would be SpaceX).

4. Cause of action for trespass? That seems like a slam dunk. I don't know about Texas law, but usually trespass doesn't require stuff like, um, intent. It's strict liability (subject to defenses).

5. Cause of action for nuisance? Interesting. Usually this is when an adjacent property owner's actions on their own property are interfering with your own use of your property. This goes to paragraph 18 (activities on other land), but slightly more interesting because AFAIK CAH isn't using their land currently.

6. Cause of action for unjust enrichment? Sure, this is just, "SpaceX is making money off of this, and we need to be compensated."

7. Tortious interference is the basic "This will disrupt the great relations we have with our supporters who gave us money to buy this land and keep it pristine."


There's not a lot to analyze here, other than trespass is a slam dunk and everything else is additive to that.


Don't mess with people's land.

Does Diversity really apply though? It seems that SpaceX is "officially" headquartered in Brownsville, Texas. They just do a lot of business out of California.

Leaving aside that Nuisance technically applies to activity on neighbouring properties, could CAH not state that their "use" of the property was that it remain in a relatively pristine, natural state?

 

[Umbran]

2. Filed in state court, although it appears that there is diversity jurisdiction. Curious to see if SpaceX tries to remove it to federal court.

I would imagine that, given that the company has recently moved its incorporation to Texas, he'd expect the State to be pretty favorable to Musk.