The prosecution against billionaire Elon Musk’s $1 million giveaways must return to a Philadelphia court, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled on Nov. 1.
Musk was supposed to appear before a judge in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 31 but the case switched jurisdictions after he filed a notice of removal in federal court.
John Summers, an attorney arguing for Krasner, said during a hearing in the Philadelphia court that Musk was acting cowardly and suggested he used a legal maneuver to avoid a case wherein the facts weren’t on his side.
Court of Common Pleas Judge Angelo Foglietta concluded the hearing, stating that he no longer had jurisdiction over the case because the case had been transferred to federal court—which Musk said on X was “American Justice [for the win].”
Summers then filed an emergency motion on Oct. 31 to remand the case.
In their notice of removal, Musk’s attorneys added that Krasner expressed concern about “independent expenditures to influence campaigns for federal office and the core political speech via petition gathering—both of which raise significant questions of federal law that are within the exclusive province of this Court.”
Musk’s attorneys also argued that removal was justified under a concept known as “diversity of citizenship” under federal law. A federal code—28 U.S. Code § 1332—states that district courts shall have original jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states if the “matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.”
Because neither Musk nor America PAC are citizens of Pennsylvania, Musk’s attorneys said, diversity citizenship applied. They added that Krasner was not acting on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because he brought a civil rather than criminal complaint against Musk and the political action committee known as America PAC.
Pappert said instead that diversity of citizenship didn’t apply because Krasner acted as an “alter ego” of the Commonwealth in bringing civil cases. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Pappert said, a state was not considered a citizen for the purposes of diversity of citizenship.
An attorney for Musk did not respond to a request for comment before publication time.
Krasner’s complaint alleged that the giveaway constituted an illegal lottery under Pennsylvania law and that Musk was targeting Pennsylvania to influence voters in the state. Specifically, it included two counts, with the first alleging Musk’s giveaway was a public nuisance and the second claiming that he and America PAC violated a state consumer protection law.
A lawyer for Musk argued that his client wasn’t a proper defendant in the case and that the prosecution should focus on America PAC instead of one of its donors. Summers responded in part by highlighting Musk’s role in announcing and promoting the contest.
“The 800-pound gorilla here is actually Elon Musk,” Summers told Foglietta.
