Law Commons^™

Jurisdiction At Work: Specific Personal Jurisdiction In Flsa Collective Actions After Bristol-Myers Squibb, Anaid Reyes Kipp

Georgia State University Law Review

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (BMS), eighty-six California residents and five hundred ninety-two nonresidents from thirty-three different states, who had originally filed eight separate complaints, used ordinary party joinder rules to file a mass tort action in California state court, alleging that Bristol-Myers Squibb’s blood-thinning drug made them sick. The Supreme Court held in 2017 that the California state court did not have specific personal jurisdiction over the national pharmaceutical company because its contacts with California were insufficient in relation to the claims by nonresident plaintiffs. Although BMS was a mass action filed in state court, its …

Presuit Civil Protective Orders On Discovery, Jeffrey A. Parness

Georgia State University Law Review

There are few civil procedure laws broadly authorizing trial courts in the United States to consider presuit requests seeking protection from discovery sanctions or spoliation claims in later civil actions. There should be more laws on presuit protective orders addressing information maintenance, preservation, and production.

New presuit protective order laws are most apt where there have been demands by potential adversaries involving alleged information preservation duties under civil discovery laws or under substantive spoliation laws; where the recipients have strong reasons to secure early judicial clarifications; and where the availability and use of presuit protective orders will serve both private …

Reluctance Or Apathy? Examining Georgia’S Continued Adherence To A Strict Mutuality Issue Preclusion Doctrine, Boris W. Gautier

Georgia State University Law Review

The common law doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, prevents parties from relitigating an issue in subsequent lawsuits if a prior judgment already conclusively decided the issue. Issue preclusion traditionally required strict mutuality of parties; the first and second lawsuits had to involve the exact same litigants. Although the majority of jurisdictions now allow nonmutual issue preclusion, Georgia continues to enforce “identity of parties” as a necessary element of issue preclusion. Despite recently reaffirming this requirement, the Georgia Supreme Court has not thoroughly analyzed the merits of the rule.

This Note examines the evolution of issue preclusion …

Georgia’S Approach To Proportionality And Sanctions For The Spoliation Of Electronically Stored Information, Matthew Daigle

Georgia State University Law Review

The rapid evolution and implementation of technology in society has resulted in the increasing use of data as evidence in court. While the scope of discovery is limited by, among other things, the burden imposed on the producing party, the sheer magnitude of electronic evidence compared to its physical counterpart necessitates a different framework for evaluating such a burden. Without limiting factors, the discoverability of electronically stored information (ESI) exposes producing parties to liability disproportionate to the value of a case. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have evolved to address the discovery of ESI, the Georgia Civil Practice …

Drummond Financial Serivces, Llc Et Al., Order On Summary Judgment Motions, John J. Goger

Georgia Business Court Opinions

No abstract provided.

Equitrade International, Inc. Et Al., Final Order Granting Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment And Closing Case, John J. Goger

Georgia Business Court Opinions

No abstract provided.

John Souza Et Al., Order On Defendants' Motions For Summary Judgment, Elizabeth E. Long

Georgia Business Court Opinions

No abstract provided.

Samaca, Llc, Amended Order On Defendants' Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses And Plaintiff Samaca, Llc's Cross Motion To Compel Arbitration Of Defendants' Motion For Legal Expenses, Alice D. Bonner

Georgia Business Court Opinions

No abstract provided.

Frances B. Bunzl Et Al., Order On Plaintiffs' Motion For Determination Of Admlssibility Of Documents, John J. Goger

Georgia Business Court Opinions

No abstract provided.

Gush. Small Et Al., Order On Defendant Lankford's Motion To Compel Discovery And Plaintiffs' Motion For Protective Order, John J. Goger

Georgia Business Court Opinions

No abstract provided.

Samaca, Llc, Order On Defendants' Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses And Plaintiff Samaca, Llc's Cross Motion To Compel Arbitration Of Defendant's Motion For Legal Expenses, Alice D. Bonner

Georgia Business Court Opinions

No abstract provided.

Nancy Johnson Et Al., Order On Discovery Dispute, Kelly Lee Ellerbee

Georgia Business Court Opinions

No abstract provided.

Drummond Financial Services, Llc, Order On Pending Motions And Discovery Disputes, John J. Goger

Georgia Business Court Opinions

No abstract provided.

Morris Hardwick Schneider, Llc Order Striking Defendant Divot Holdings, Llc's Answer, Kelly Lee Ellerbee

Georgia Business Court Opinions

No abstract provided.

Cambridge Swinerton, Llc, Order Denying Defendant New Alenco Windows, Ltd.'S Motion To Transfer Venue, Alice D. Bonner

Georgia Business Court Opinions

No abstract provided.

Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed

Georgia State University Law Review

Enhanced damages in patent law are a type of punitive damage that can be awarded in the case of “egregious misconduct” during the course of patent infringement. Authorization for enhanced damages comes from 35 U.S.C. § 284, which allows the district court to increase total damages up to three times the amount of actual damages found by the jury. It is well understood that, since enhanced damages are punitive in nature, enhancement should only be considered for cases of “wanton” or “deliberate” infringement. However, determining what constitutes this “egregious” misconduct has vastly transformed over time to include a negligence standard, …

Dueling Grants: Reimagining Cafa’S Jurisdictional Provisions, Tanya Pierce

Georgia State University Law Review

More than a decade after Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), courts continue to disagree as to its application and meaning in a variety of situations, many of which have wide-ranging effects. This article considers a fundamental issue that arises after a certification decision is reached: whether a court’s subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA depends on a class being certified. Specifically, the article considers what happens when a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction derives solely from CAFA’s minimal diversity jurisdiction provision and a request for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23) …

Forty-Eight States Are Probably Not Wrong: An Argument For Modernizing Georgia’S Legal Malpractice Statute Of Limitations, Ben Rosichan

Georgia State University Law Review

The legal profession is largely self-regulated, and each state has a bar association charged with creating and enforcing basic standards of professionalism and competence for attorneys. Unfortunately, attorneys do not always adhere to these standards. In Georgia, the State Bar can address attorney misconduct through remedial measures up to and including disbarment. The State Bar cannot, however, compensate wronged clients through monetary damages.Thus, some wronged clients must resort to a lawsuit for legal malpractice where a financial recovery is necessary to make the client whole again.

The statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims should not be so restrictive that …

Georgia Anti Slapp Research Guide, Rachael Reed

Law Library Student-Authored Works

No abstract provided.

Division Of Labor: The Modernization Of The Supreme Court Of Georgia And Concomitant Workload Reduction Measures In The Court Of Appeals, Kyle G.A. Wallace, Andrew J. Tuck, Max Marks

Georgia State University Law Review

This article addresses two distinct yet interrelated topics: the arcane and unnecessarily complex jurisdictional division between the Georgia Supreme Court and Georgia Court of Appeals, and the excessive caseload at the Georgia Court of Appeals.

In Part I.A., this article discusses Georgia’s appellate system—its history, the jurisdictional division that arose, the confusion the current jurisdictional framework creates, and the limitations and burdens it places on Georgia’s highest court. In Part I.B., the article discusses the current caseload at the Court of Appeals and the burden any jurisdictional reforms would have on the Court of Appeals. In Part II, the article …

The Federal Rules At 75: Dispute Resolution, Private Enforcement Or Decisions According To Law?, James R. Maxeiner

Georgia State University Law Review

This essay is a critical response to the 2013 commemorations of the75th anniversary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were introduced in 1938 to provide procedure to decide cases on their merits. The Rules were designed to replace decisions under the “sporting theory of justice”with decisions according to law.

By 1976, at midlife, it was clear that they were not achieving their goal. America’s proceduralists split into two sides about what to do. One side promotes rules that control and conclude litigation: e.g.,plausibility pleading, case management, limited discovery, cost indemnity for discovery, and summary …

Historical Antecedents Of Challenges Facing The Georgia Appellate Courts, Michael B. Terry

Georgia State University Law Review

The Georgia appellate courts face challenges common to many courts in these days of reduced governmental resources. At the same time, the Georgia appellate courts face unusual challenges that can be traced to their historical antecedents and one unique constitutional provision: the “Two-Term Rule.” Just as “[t]he law embodies the story of a nation’s development through many centuries,” the current rules and practices of both the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Court of Appeals of Georgia embody the story of the development of those courts since their founding.

Several aspects of the history of the courts directly impact the …

Georgia's New Evidence Code - An Overview, Paul S. Milich

Georgia State University Law Review

On May 3, 2011, Governor Nathan Deal signed into law House Bill 24 (HB 24) bringing a new set of evidence rules to the State of Georgia.

The new rules went into effect on January 1, 2013. The author of this article was the Reporter for the State Bar Evidence Study Committee when new rules were first proposed back in the mid-1980s, and again throughout the recent, successful effort to reform the rules.

Part I of this article will give a brief history of the twenty-six-year effort to bring new evidence rules to Georgia. Part II will provide a structural …

Escape From The Battle Of The Forms: Keep It Simple, Stupid, Corneill A. Stephens

Faculty Publications By Year

This Article reviews the history of the "battle of the forms" issue arising when contracting parties submit conflicting terms to each other in attempting to form a contract and how courts have resolved issues arising from this, both under the original Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2 and the Revised Article 2. The author reviews the economic circumstances that gave rise to the current use of standard form contracts, such as lower transaction costs and the ability of a company to control the terms and the discretion of its personnel. He discusses how battle of the forms issues were resolved …

Class Actions Under The Age Discrimination In Employment Act: The Question Is Why Not?, Anne S. Emanuel

Faculty Publications By Year

No abstract provided.