Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
How Many Plaintiffs Are Enough? Venue In Title Vii Class Actions, Piper Hoffman
How Many Plaintiffs Are Enough? Venue In Title Vii Class Actions, Piper Hoffman
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Article critiques the recent rash of federal district court opinions holding that all named plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must satisfy the venue requirements in the court where they filed the action. Neither the text nor the history of Title VII requires this prevailing interpretation; to the contrary, requiring every named plaintiff to satisfy venue requirements in the same court undermines the legislative purpose behind both Title VII and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 by creating a new obstacle to employees seeking to enforce …
Did The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990 Actually Expire?, Carl Tobias
Did The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990 Actually Expire?, Carl Tobias
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) was intended to reduce the expense and delay associated with federal district court litigation by requiring courts to study and adopt new procedures. The CJRA's gains, however, may be erased by the uncertainty surrounding its sunset provision. Professor Tobias argues that Congress or the Judicial Conference should resolve the uncertainty by proclaiming that the CJRA has expired, thus forcing districts to abrogate procedures inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Summary Judgment Before The Completion Of Discovery: A Proposed Revision Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 56(F), John F. Lapham
Summary Judgment Before The Completion Of Discovery: A Proposed Revision Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 56(F), John F. Lapham
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Part I of this Note discusses the purpose of summary judgment in a regime of notice pleading. Part II examines how the federal courts have interpreted and applied rule 56(f). Part III suggests that rule 56(f) be modified to require a more significant factual showing before a court may grant a continuance for further discovery. In addition, Part III examines the policy considerations that support a more stringent rule. Finally, Part IV provides a hypothetical example illustrating the benefits of this proposal.