Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Redeeming Erie: A Response To Suzanna Sherry , Donald Earl Childress Iii
Redeeming Erie: A Response To Suzanna Sherry , Donald Earl Childress Iii
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Welcome To The Jungle: Rethinking The Amount In Controversy In A Petition To Vacate An Arbitration Award Under The Federal Arbitration Act, Christopher L. Frost
Welcome To The Jungle: Rethinking The Amount In Controversy In A Petition To Vacate An Arbitration Award Under The Federal Arbitration Act, Christopher L. Frost
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Exxon Mobil Corp. V. Allapattah Services, Inc.: The Wrath Of Zahn. The Supreme Court's Requiem For "Sympathetic Textualism", Gunnar Gundersen
Exxon Mobil Corp. V. Allapattah Services, Inc.: The Wrath Of Zahn. The Supreme Court's Requiem For "Sympathetic Textualism", Gunnar Gundersen
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Allegedly “Biased,” “Intimidating,” And “Incompetent” State Court Judges And The Questionable Removal Of State Law Class Actions To Purportedly “Impartial” And “Competent” Federal Courts—A Historical Perspective And An Empirical Analysis Of Class Action Dispositions In Federal And State Courts, 1925-2011, Willy E. Rice
Faculty Articles
Judges as well as members of plaintiffs’ and defense bars agree: a class action is a superior, efficient, and inexpensive procedural tool to litigate disputes that present similar questions of fact and law. To be sure, corporations and insurers have a long history of filing successful class actions against each other in state courts. Yet those corporate entities convinced Congress to embrace an uncommon view: continuing to allow allegedly “hostile” and “biased” state judges and juries to hear and decide everyday consumers’ “purely substantive state law class actions” is unfair and inefficient. Responding to the plea, Congress enacted the Class …
Clarification Needed: Fixing The Jurisdiction And Venue Clarification Act, William Baude
Clarification Needed: Fixing The Jurisdiction And Venue Clarification Act, William Baude
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
One hates to seem ungrateful. Judges and scholars frequently call for Congress to fix problems in the law of jurisdiction and procedure, and Congress doesn't usually intervene. In that light, the Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act ("JVCA"),[1] signed into law on December 7, 2011, ought to be a welcome improvement. And hopefully, on balance, it will be. But in at least one area that it attempts to clarify, the JVCA leaves much to be desired. Professor Arthur Hellman has called the JVCA "the most far-reaching package of revisions to the Judicial Code since the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990."[2] The …
Waltzing Through A Loophole: How Parens Patriae Suits Allow Circumvention Of The Class Action Fairness Act, Jacob Durling
Waltzing Through A Loophole: How Parens Patriae Suits Allow Circumvention Of The Class Action Fairness Act, Jacob Durling
University of Colorado Law Review
This Note explores the applicability of the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) mass action removal provision to parens patriae suits. CAFA amended the federal rules governing aggregate litigation, replacing the complete diversity requirement with a minimal diversity requirement. CAFA's applicability to parens patriae suits, a type of representative lawsuit brought by a state alleging injuries to its citizens, was first addressed in Louisiana ex rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Insurance Co. In Caldwell, the Fifth Circuit held that a parens patriae suit was mislabeled because the real parties in interest-the parties whose interests constitute the basis of the parens patriae standing-represented …
Creating Diversity Jurisdiction In Removal Actions Through The Improper Use Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 21: Procedural Blackjack Or Judicial Bust, Anthony Andricks
Creating Diversity Jurisdiction In Removal Actions Through The Improper Use Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 21: Procedural Blackjack Or Judicial Bust, Anthony Andricks
Cleveland State Law Review
Recently, federal district courts have held that Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 21 bestows upon them the power to sever nondiverse parties or claims to create diversity jurisdiction without first finding that a party or claim is improperly joined. Severance may mean that a plaintiff who brings a state court action against multiple parties, one or more of which is not diverse, runs the risk of a federal court severing the action in a removal analysis, even where the plaintiff has committed no improper joinder of parties. Severance may leave a plaintiff with the need to conduct simultaneous suits--one in …