Law Commons^™

Choice Of Law And Jurisdictional Policy In The Federal Courts, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

For seventy-five years, Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing has provided a one-line answer to choice-of-law questions in federal diversity cases: Erie requires the federal court to employ the same law that a court of the state would select. The simplicity of the proposition likely accounts for the unqualified breadth with which federal courts now apply it. Choice of law doctrine is difficult, consensus in hard cases is elusive, and the anxiety that Erie produces over the demands of federalism tends to stifle any reexamination of core assumptions. The attraction of a simple answer is obvious. But Klaxon cannot bear the …

Multiple Attempts At Class Certification, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

The phenomenon of multiple attempts at class certification -- when class counsel file the same putative class action in multiple successive courts and attempt to secure an order of certification despite previous denials of the same request -- has always presented a vexing analytical puzzle. When the Supreme Court rejected one proposed solution to that problem in Smith v. Bayer, it left unresolved some of the broader questions of preclusion doctrine, federal common law, and the constraints of due process with which any satisfying approach will have to grapple.

This essay was solicited as a reply to a recent …

Kryptonite For Cafa?, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

This essay — for the Review of Litigation’s symposium issue on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and accompanying panel at the 2013 annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools — explores the tension between CAFA and the Erie doctrine. CAFA was designed to expand federal diversity jurisdiction over high-stakes state-law class actions and, thereby, allow federal judges to decide class certification pursuant to federal law. The Erie doctrine, by contrast, aims to discourage vertical forum shopping by requiring federal courts hearing state-law claims to follow state law. Put the two together, and the result could be that …

What Is The Erie Doctrine? (And What Does It Mean For The Contemporary Politics Of Judicial Federalism?), Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

As when Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was decided seventy years ago, federal courts today are seen as more favorable to corporate and business interests than many of their state-court brethren. The current situation is due in no small part to federal courts' comparatively pro-defendant approaches to summary judgment, class certification, and other procedural issues. The Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which tilts federal pleading standards in favor of defendants, will likely have similar federalism implications. This Article presents a straightforward argument that the Erie doctrine may require federal courts to follow state-law standards on summary judgment, …

'Less' Is 'More'? Textualism, Intentionalism, And A Better Solution To The Class Action Fairness Act's Appellate Deadline Riddle, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

In recent months, federal appellate judges have grappled with an interpretive puzzle that opens a new frontier in the long-running judicial and scholarly debate about statutory interpretation. The landmark but controversial Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) authorizes immediate appeals from certain jurisdictional decisions by district courts, provided that litigants appeal "not less than 7 days after entry of the order." Although the goal of this provision was to set a seven-day deadline for CAFA appeals, the statutory text does precisely the opposite -- it imposes a seven-day waiting period and sets no outer deadline. Federal appellate judges have …

Cafa's Impact On Class Action Lawyers Symposium: Fairness To Whom - Perspectives On The Class Action Fairness Act Of 2005, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

Procedural reforms alter litigation options directly, but they alter the litigation landscape in more ways than reformers anticipate. Three years ago, Congress dramatically expanded federal jurisdiction with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), a statute drafted with no love for class action plaintiffs' lawyers. Those lawyers have adapted to the statute, in part, by altering their forum-selection and claim-selection strategies. Analysis of these adaptations offers an emerging picture of the statute's impact on class actions and class action lawyers. CAFA's impact on the class action bar deserves particular attention because, although the statute speaks the language of subject …

Rewriting Shutts For Fun, Not To Profit, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

It has not been easy to reconcile contemporary class-action practice with traditional adversary procedure. For that matter, it is not easy to craft a unitary "class-action" procedure that serves well the many different purposes pursued by the many different species of class actions. The practice has flourished, but few would dare say it has really matured. Many problems remain.

Fighting To Keep Employment Discrimination Class Actions Alive: How Allison V. Citgo's Predomination Requirement Threatens To Undermine Title Vii Enforcement, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

The Civil Rights Act of 1991, which provides compensatory and punitive damages and attendant jury trials in cases alleging intentional discrimination, was designed to enhance enforcement and expand remedies. Its enactment, however, has triggered a schism among the circuit courts over what the proper standard is for determining whether monetary damages or injunctive relief predominates, a necessary inquiry for determining whether plaintiffs are entitled to class certification for Title VII claims under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Led by the Fifth Circuit, some federal appeals courts contend that monetary relief predominates unless it is “incidental,” and …