Judge tosses libel suit against Michele McPhee

If you're still curious, here's the show cause order (entered on the online docket). As you picked up on, the Court also asked the plaintiffs to show cause as to why Hamzat Umarov filed pleadings on behalf of other parties. It does not appear that any responsive filing was made besides that by McMahon on the issues directed at him.

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Based on the complaint filed by the Plaintiffs, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to a lack of diversity. Unless Plaintiffs establish the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over this action by a supplemental submission due no later than February 19, 2016, the Court will DISMISS this action for lack of jurisdiction. In the event Plaintiffs make a submission, Plaintiffs must also show cause as to the basis for Hamzat Umarov, a non-lawyer, to file pleadings on behalf of other parties, in this case the other plaintiffs. Finally, in any event, Attorney McMahon shall, by February 19, 2016, show cause (a) as to on what basis he signs pleadings when he is not attorney of record and (b) his good faith basis for asserting diversity jurisdiction in the "complaint drafted" by Attorney McMahon when the complaint itself alleges both that the plaintiffs and at least one defendant are residents of Massachusetts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. re1 Complaint filed by HAWA UMAROV, JUNES UMAROV, HEDA UMAROV, ADAM UMAROV, HAMZAT UMAROV, ( Show Cause Response due by 2/19/2016)(Simeone, Maria)

From the complaint, it seems that the attorney knew that there was not complete diversity of parties. Par. 11 of the complaint: "This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §1332, as the plaintiffs and some defendants are citizens of different states and countries, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs." As you stated, knowing that having a plaintiff and two defendants be MA citizens would destroy diversity is Civ Pro 101.

The court seemed satisfied with McMahon's response: "This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Order to Show Cause directed at Attorney McMahon is satisfied. The Court appreciates Attorney McMahon's concise and clear response."

Limited representation is not uncommon, even if this particular situation does seem a bit atypical. For example, attorneys often volunteer to assist unrepresented plaintiffs/defendants all the time in a limited fashion in pro bono matters (such as in housing or probate and family court).

While they should be able to refile in state court (statute of limitations is 3 yrs for defamation), this mistake at least cost them their $400 filing fee and wasted any effort they may have started for serving the internationals defendants (often a tedious process).