## Facts

- Pete Rose, an Ohio citizen and field manager of the Cincinnati Reds, faced allegations of wagering on Major League Baseball games, including Reds games.
- The Commissioner’s office initiated an investigation and appointed special counsel to conduct an inquiry and produce a written report provided to Rose and his counsel.
- A disciplinary hearing before the Commissioner was scheduled.
- Rose alleged he would be denied a fair and impartial hearing because the Commissioner was biased, and he sought to enjoin the hearing.
- Rose sued in Ohio state court against the Commissioner (a New York citizen), Major League Baseball (an unincorporated association with an Ohio member club), and the Cincinnati Reds (an Ohio partnership).
- The state court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the disciplinary hearing.
- The Commissioner removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds; Rose moved to remand, arguing incomplete diversity and waiver of removal based on the Commissioner’s state-court activity.

## Issues

1. Whether Major League Baseball and the Cincinnati Reds were real parties in interest whose citizenship must be considered for diversity jurisdiction, or merely nominal parties whose citizenship may be disregarded.
2. Whether complete diversity existed after identifying the real parties to the controversy.
3. Whether removal was procedurally proper and whether the Commissioner waived removal by participating in state-court proceedings before removing.

## Decision

- The court denied Rose’s motion to remand and retained federal jurisdiction.
- The court held Major League Baseball and the Cincinnati Reds were nominal parties because they had no real legal interest or control over the dispute’s subject matter.
- Disregarding the nominal parties, the court found complete diversity between Rose (Ohio) and the Commissioner (New York) under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The court held removal was proper and not waived; the Commissioner’s state-court participation did not show a clear and unequivocal intent to litigate exclusively in state court.
- The ruling addressed only removal and diversity jurisdiction, not the merits of the gambling allegations or any disciplinary outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Diversity jurisdiction depends on the citizenship of the real parties to the controversy; nominal or formal parties are disregarded.
- A nominal party is one who, in a legal sense, lacks an interest in the suit’s outcome or lacks actual interest or control over the subject matter.
- Courts determine real parties by examining the principal purpose of the suit and the true controversy between adverse parties.
- Member clubs or related entities may be treated as nominal where the challenged conduct and procedural control rest solely with an independently acting decisionmaker.
- Waiver of removal requires conduct showing a clear and unequivocal intent to remain in state court; participation in preliminary state proceedings, without more, does not necessarily bar removal.

## Conclusion

The court upheld federal diversity jurisdiction by treating Major League Baseball and the Cincinnati Reds as nominal parties and focusing on the actual controversy between Rose and the Commissioner, and it further held that the Commissioner did not waive removal through pre-removal participation in state-court proceedings.


Rose v. Giamatti, 721 F. Supp. 906 (S.D. Ohio 1989)