Skip to Content
In an article published on 5/28 by the American Bar Association, Segal McCambridge Shareholder Jeffrey Marchese explores how courts determine the “real party in interest” in diversity jurisdiction disputes—an issue that took center stage in recent litigation over ghost gun manufacturing.
The case involved Texas-based companies sued by the State of California for selling milling machines that allow consumers to produce untraceable ghost guns. The defendants attempted to remove the case to federal court, arguing that a nonprofit group—not the state—was the true plaintiff. But the court disagreed, holding that California had a direct and substantial interest in enforcing its gun safety and consumer protection laws, making it the real party in interest and defeating diversity jurisdiction.
Jeffrey explains that the court drew upon Ninth Circuit precedent to assess whether the state had a specific, concrete stake in the litigation. He notes that the ruling provides important guidance for litigators evaluating removal strategies and jurisdictional challenges—especially when state entities or public interest groups are involved.
“The plaintiff is the master of his or her complaint and has quite a bit of latitude on how to style it and where to file,” the article concludes.
Read the full article by clicking here (subscriber-based)
