Continuing our walkthrough of the Bragg vs Linden Lab filings, we get to the last of the 7 November filings, now in the Federal Court (the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

This filing is supported by two more, later in the month (tune in tomorrow for those), and is Bragg's motion to remand the case back to the state court where the complaint was filed.
Alright, well, remand in this case means to send back. Bragg doesn't want this case in a federal court. We finally have the name of a Judge, though. The district court judge receiving these documents at present is Judge Eduardo Robreno.

Bragg points out that Linden Lab didn't provide specific justification for their claim of damages in excess of $75,000 (which would put the matter out of the jurisdiction of the state court, in support of Linden Lab's motion), and further states that in his own complaint (of 46 pages and 239 paragraphs) Bragg never actually got around to mentioning what his damages were.

That said, we take a confusing tack. Bragg claims the burden of proof of removal to a federal court is on Linden Lab, and then says that the information that Linden Lab are reasonably basing their judgement on is higher than his actual loss, which he kept secret in his complaint.

Of course a motion to remand is generally to be viewed favorably by a court if there are any grounds to be doubtful as to the cause for removal. Bragg is working hard to raise those doubts. He claims his actual loss is four to five thousand US dollars (though he claims up to eight thousand were taken) - but you know already that that's not all he's asking for, and he never specifies how much he's asking for.

He also omits to mention that whether his actions were allowable or not, he caused Linden Lab material damages, and that the injunctions he requests as remedies in his complaint would cause Linden Lab yet more material damage - possibly incalculable material damage, not to mention his request for as-yet-unspecified compensation for lost potential business.

Bragg studiously avoids mentioning the damages requested in his complaint, focusing only on a comparatively small sum that he is out of pocket, glossing over punitive damages, remedies, and all of that. This looks a great deal like being selectively truthful, which suggests very strongly that Bragg really wants this case kept away from the federal court if at all possible, and that Bragg is highly reluctant to state the amount of his claim.

The only thing Bragg has to do to win this remand motion is to commit to a figure for damages. So far in this motion, Bragg has done everything else.

Here is the document in PDF form. Tomorrow we'll look at the brief and affidavit supporting it, which were filed later (on the 20th of November, 2006). Then Linden Lab gets to respond.