'This is forum shopping': Newsmax effort to avoid Judge Cannon falls flat as Wisconsin court sends antitrust lawsuit against Fox News back to Florida

A federal judge in Wisconsin erupted at Newsmax on Thursday for trying to avoid litigation in the Southern District of Florida.

In a seven-page order, U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, a Barack Obama appointee, determined the right-wing cable network had engaged in "forum shopping" after a high-profile court switch.

The underlying case — a monopoly challenge against Fox News over access to the "right-leaning pay TV" cable news space — was originally filed in the Sunshine State federal system in early September 2025.

The case was subsequently assigned to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon. The infamous appointee of President Donald Trump quickly dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice for being an "impermissible shotgun pleading" and gave Newsmax the opportunity to refile.

And refile it did — in the Badger State.

Within an hour of alerting Cannon the company was dropping the lawsuit against Fox News, Newsmax filed a slightly longer — but strikingly similar — complaint in the Western District of Wisconsin.

Days later, Fox News and its parent company filed a motion to transfer venue, accusing Newsmax of "such blatant forum shopping."

Now, the court has agreed with the defendants.

Conley notes that the plaintiff "voluntarily dismissed" the Florida lawsuit "and refiled a nearly identical complaint in this district."

The court stresses the new version of the lawsuit "differs in three primary ways" that have to do with incorporation language, replacing Florida law with Wisconsin law, and adding violations under the federal Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Wisconsin Antitrust Act.

"Although obvious, plaintiff offers no explanation why it dismissed the Florida case," Conley says. "Much less obvious is why it refiled here."

To hear the judge tell it, there are no relevant ties to Wisconsin — at least none that make it a better place to sue than Florida.

From the ruling, at length:

Here, not only does Wisconsin lack any particular connection to plaintiff's antitrust claims, Newsmax is a Florida company, with its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida; and Fox News is a New York based company, where most of its alleged conduct presumably took place. Further, while plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it and defendant broadcast content in Wisconsin pursuant to national and local carriage agreements, the same is true in Florida and every other state. Finally, although plaintiff's complaint asserts antitrust claims under Wisconsin law, plaintiff merely recast its Florida state law claims under Wisconsin's analogous statutes.

The plaintiff, in an attempt to beat back the change of venue motion, argued, in Conley's words, that the original "case was pending for less than 48 hours" and that Cannon's "dismissal was merely a technical, not a merits-based decision (and thus, not adverse)."

The court strongly disagreed on those points.

First, he said, the timeline of events in the two different cases suggested perhaps a similarly indefensible state of affairs.

"The length of time a case was pending is not dispositive of 'forum shopping,'" the court muses. "To the contrary, that a case was only pending a short period of time before dismissal can be strong evidence of forum or 'judge shopping,' in which parties try to avoid an assigned judge by voluntarily dismissing one case and refiling in a different court."

Conley goes on to directly dispute the second point.

"Here, the Florida court dismissed plaintiff's complaint, which is an adverse ruling," the judge says. "Then, instead of correcting the defect, plaintiff dismissed its case and refiled with no explanation for choosing this venue. Thus, without casting any great aspersions, this is forum shopping."

The judge adds that while Newsmax has the right to voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit, the specific rule of civil procedure formalizing that right "does not in the least permit attorneys to abuse the judicial process." In turn, Conley says, such a dismissal does not "insulate plaintiffs" from a venue transfer motion.

"Because plaintiff has failed to provide any explanation why this case should be tried in Wisconsin or why it dismissed the Florida action to refile here after receiving an adverse order, the court is left with the conclusion that plaintiff engaged in forum (or at least judge) shopping," the court found.

The call, however, was not monumentally in favor of transfer, Conley said. But, on the whole, Florida just makes more sense.

Again, the order, at length:

For example, the parties have not argued whether this case could be resolved more quickly in one district or another; either district can handle an antitrust case; and the broad venue provision of the Clayton Act gives the parties' nationwide choice for filing. However, while both districts have an interest in the outcome of the suit, the Southern District of Florida has a higher interest given plaintiff's incorporation in Florida. In the end, with no good reason for filing suit in this district, plaintiff's connection to Florida and its apparent forum shopping tip the scales in favor of transfer.

…

To be clear, the dismissal of suit is not the problem. Had plaintiff chosen a district where obviously strong connections existed (say, New York) or even a distinguishing connection (say in a primary TV market), the result would be different.

Ultimately, the court transferred the lawsuit back to Florida — where Cannon may or may not resume control. Whoever next takes up the dispute will immediately be faced with a motion to dismiss.

A spokesperson for Fox News told Law&Crime that "the decision speaks for itself."

Law&Crime also reached out to attorneys representing Newsmax in the lawsuit but no response was immediately forthcoming at the time of publication.