Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Courts

Selected Works

Multidistrict Litigation and Nonclass Aggregate Litigation

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Judging Multidistrict Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch Dec 2014

Judging Multidistrict Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

High-stakes multidistrict litigations saddle the transferee judges who manage them with an odd juxtaposition of power and impotence. On one hand, judges appoint and compensate lead lawyers (who effectively replace parties’ chosen counsel) and promote settlement with scant appellate scrutiny or legislative oversight. But on the other, without the arsenal class certification once afforded, judges are relatively powerless to police the private settlements they encourage. Of course, this power shortage is of little concern since parties consent to settle. Or do they? Contrary to conventional wisdom, this Article introduces new empirical data revealing that judges appoint an overwhelming number of …

Go to article

Remanding Multidistrict Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch Dec 2013

Remanding Multidistrict Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Multidistrict litigation has frequently been described as a “black hole” because transfer is typically a one-way ticket. The numbers lend truth to this proposition. As of 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded only 3.425% of cases to their original districts. That number dwindled to 3.1% in 2012, and to a scant 2.9% in 2013. Retaining cases in hopes of forcing a global settlement can cause a constellation of complications. These concerns range from procedural justice issues over selecting a forum and correcting error, to substantive concerns about fidelity to state laws, to undermining democratic participation ideals fulfilled through …

Go to article

Disaggregating, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch Dec 2012

Disaggregating, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Commonality is a defining characteristic of mass-tort litigation. But mass-tort claimants typically do not share enough in common to warrant class certification. That is, commonality does not predominate. Yet, without class certification, judges cannot conclude these cases as a unit absent a private settlement. This paradox prompts two questions. First, what level of commonality justifies aggregating mass torts, shorn of Rule 23’s procedural protections? And, second, should the federal judicial system continue to centralize claims with nominal commonality when judges typically cannot resolve them collectively absent a private settlement? This Article’s title suggests one answer: if minimal commonality continues to …

Go to article

Adequately Representing Groups, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch Dec 2012

Adequately Representing Groups, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Adequate representation and preclusion depend on whether the courts treat a litigant as part of a group experiencing an aggregate harm or as a distinct person suffering individual injuries. And though a vast literature about adequate representation exists in the class-action context, it thins dramatically when contemplating other forms of group litigation, such as parens patriae actions and multidistrict litigation. As class actions have gradually fallen into disfavor and attorneys and commentators seek alternative means for resolving group harms, the relative clarity of Rule 23 wanes. How should courts evaluate adequate representation in parens patriae actions and in multidistrict litigation? …

Go to article

Procedural Justice In Nonclass Aggregation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch Dec 2008

Procedural Justice In Nonclass Aggregation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Nonclass aggregate litigation is risky for plaintiffs: it falls into the gray area between individual litigation and certified class actions. Although scholars have formulated procedural protections for both extremes, the unique danger and allure posed by nonclass aggregation has been undertheorized, leaving mass tort claimants with inadequate safeguards. When hallmark features of mass torts include attenuated attorney-client relationships, numerous litigants, and the demise of adversarial legalism, the attorney-client relationship itself becomes another bargaining chip in the exchange of rights. This Article takes the initial steps toward advancing a cohesive theory of procedural justice in nonclass aggregation by exposing the problem …

Go to article