Adafruit filed what's called a declaratory judgment action against Flux (Defy Gravity).
Adafruit was asking the judge to say that they didn't violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when they were researching an article and accessed some confidential documents that were inadvertently exposed.
Adafruit also asked for a judgement that they didn't defame Flux.
Flux responded on August 31, in which they signed a binding release saying they'd never file CFAA claims against Adafruit for the activities described in the complaint.
Flux then asked the court to dismiss the second part where Adafruit sought a judgment that they did not defame Flux. The basis is that the court no longer has jurisdiction over the federal claim, so it should go to state court.
Flux doesn't really address that the parties are from different states, and thus the court may still be diversity jurisdiction through which the court can maintain jurisdiction over the case.
snitty•49m ago
Adafruit was asking the judge to say that they didn't violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when they were researching an article and accessed some confidential documents that were inadvertently exposed.
Adafruit also asked for a judgement that they didn't defame Flux.
Flux responded on August 31, in which they signed a binding release saying they'd never file CFAA claims against Adafruit for the activities described in the complaint.
Flux then asked the court to dismiss the second part where Adafruit sought a judgment that they did not defame Flux. The basis is that the court no longer has jurisdiction over the federal claim, so it should go to state court.
Flux doesn't really address that the parties are from different states, and thus the court may still be diversity jurisdiction through which the court can maintain jurisdiction over the case.