Law Commons^™

The Article Iii "Party" And The Originalist Case Against Corporate Diversity Jurisdiction, Mark Moller, Lawrence B. Solum

William & Mary Law Review

Federal courts control an outsize share of big-ticket corporate litigation. And that control rests, to a significant degree, on the Supreme Court’s extension of Article III’s Diversity of Citizenship Clause to corporations. Yet, critics have questioned the constitutionality of corporate diversity jurisdiction from the beginning.

In this Article and a previous one, we develop the first sustained critique of corporate diversity jurisdiction.

Our previous article demonstrated that corporations are not “citizens” given the original meaning of that word. But we noted this finding alone doesn’t sink general corporate diversity jurisdiction. The ranks of corporate shareholders include many undoubted “citizens.” And …

Home Court Advantage? An Empirical Analysis Of Local Bias In U.S. District Court Diversity Jurisdiction Cases, Kyle C. Kopko, Christopher J. Devine

West Virginia Law Review

In granting diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to the federal courts, there is an underlying assumption that federal courts will be less biased toward out-of-state litigants as compared with state courts. While this may be true, the assumption fails to consider an important empirical question: to what extent do federal courts favor home state litigants or disfavor out-of-state litigants when deciding diversity jurisdiction cases? Relying on the Integrated Database (IDB) compiled by the Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Offices of the U.S. Courts, we present an original, empirical analysis of diversity jurisdiction case outcomes in the U.S. districts courts from …

The Political Reality Of Diversity Jurisdiction, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Diversity jurisdiction survived concerted frontal assaults made from the mid- to late-twentieth century. It weathered criticism of academics and of some high-profile federal judges. Today, diversity jurisdiction represents a burgeoning percentage of the federal civil docket, and it is supported by an efficiency rationale that did not exist at the founding. Today, academics and judges seem relatively ambivalent toward, and some even accepting of, diversity jurisdiction. Today, we see efforts not to abolish diversity jurisdiction, but to rationalize the various threads of its doctrine.

These efforts should be informed by the lessons that should have been learned by those who …

The Elastics Of Snap Removal: An Empirical Case Study Of Textualism, Thomas O. Main, Jeffrey W. Stempel, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

This article reports the findings of an empirical study of textualism as applied by federal judges interpreting the statute that permits removal of diversity cases from state to federal court. The “snap removal” provision in the statute is particularly interesting because its application forces judges into one of two interpretive camps—which are fairly extreme versions of textualism and purposivism, respectively. We studied characteristics of cases and judges to find predictors of textualist outcomes. In this article we offer a narrative discussion of key variables and we detail the results of our logistic regression analysis. The most salient predictive variable was …

Jural Entities, Real Parties In Controversy, And Representative Litigants: A Unified Approach To The Diversity Jurisdiction Requirements For Business Organizations, Charles A. Szypszak

Maine Law Review

The rules that make the federal courts available for the resolution of controversies between citizens of different states have often been described as placing an undue burden on the federal system. Congress has for the most part turned a deaf ear to calls by jurists and commentators for reform or even abolition of federal diversity jurisdiction, leaving the courts to struggle with difficult issues about the proper contours of the jurisdictional requirements. One recurring difficult issue is the manner in which citizenship is to be attributed to the investors who compose various business organizations. The general rule has been that …

Jural Entities, Real Parties In Controversy, And Representative Litigants: A Unified Approach To The Diversity Jurisdiction Requirements For Business Organizations, Charles A. Szypszak

Maine Law Review

The rules that make the federal courts available for the resolution of controversies between citizens of different states have often been described as placing an undue burden on the federal system. Congress has for the most part turned a deaf ear to calls by jurists and commentators for reform or even abolition of federal diversity jurisdiction, leaving the courts to struggle with difficult issues about the proper contours of the jurisdictional requirements. One recurring difficult issue is the manner in which citizenship is to be attributed to the investors who compose various business organizations. The general rule has been that …

Hogan Vs. Gawker Ii: A Statutory Solution To Fraudulent Joinder, Michelle S. Simon

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article will first review the intersection of federal jurisdiction and litigation strategy by examining the requirements for diversity jurisdiction in federal court as well as the circumstances that must be present to allow a defendant to remove a case from state court to federal court. The Article will then review the history of the court-created doctrine of fraudulent joinder, and will examine the various tests currently in use by the lower federal courts. The Article will then address whether it makes more sense to create a statutory solution, and will examine and analyze the Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of …

Jurisdiction In The Trump Era, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

The Case For Restricting Diversity Jurisdiction: The Undeveloped Arguments, From The Race To The Bottom To The Substitution Effect, David Crump

Maine Law Review

Diversity jurisdiction is an idea whose time has come--and gone. In its present form, it serves its alleged purpose so inconsistently that its benefits are minimal, if they exist at all. And the costs that it imposes are significant. The traditional arguments for and against diversity are well known, but the traditional arguments against it actually understate its disadvantages. Therefore, the purpose of this Article is to construct the arguments against diversity that traditional scholarship has left underdeveloped. These include the proposition that today, in the twenty-first century, there are more reasons than ever to authorize diversity jurisdiction more selectively. …

Thoughts On The Vitality Of Erie, John B. Corr

John (Bernie) Corr

No abstract provided.

Thoughts On The Vitality Of Erie, John B. Corr

John (Bernie) Corr

No abstract provided.

Domicile Dismantled, Kerry Abrams, Kathryn Barber

Indiana Law Journal

Part I of this Article discusses the legal and factual background of Mas v. Perry. This narrative reveals how the case reflects both the changes in American society that were beginning to occur at that time and the struggle of the concept of domicile to keep pace with those changes. Part II traces the development of the fundamental shift in gender roles that began several years before Mas was decided. This section argues that the growing number of women attending college, embarking upon careers, and forming two-career marriages increased the difficulty of measuring domicile, while undermining the efficacy of a …

Exploring Federal Diversity Jurisdiction: Testimony In Front Of The House Of Representatives Committee On The Judiciary, Subcommittee On The Constitution And Civil Justice, Ronald Weich

All Faculty Scholarship

Good morning Chairman Franks, Ranking Member Cohen and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Ronald Weich and I am the dean of the University of Baltimore School of Law. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing entitled “Exploring Federal Diversity Jurisdiction.”

The subject of today’s hearing is technical, complex, little-understood by the general public, and yet fundamental to the administration of justice in this country. Federal diversity jurisdiction touches on profound questions of federalism, state sovereignty and the proper functioning of the federal courts.

Joint And Several Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson, Philip Pucillo

Scott Dodson

A First Look At The Proposed 'Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act Of 2015', Arthur D. Hellman

Testimony

Almost half a century ago, the American Law Institute observed, “The most marked abuse has been joinder of a party of the same citizenship as plaintiff in order to defeat removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Such tactics have led to much litigation, largely futile, on the question of fraudulent joinder.” Over the last half century, the volume of litigation on this question has only increased. In response, Congress is now actively considering legislation to address the problem of fraudulent joinder.

The bill is H.R. 3624, the “Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2015” (FJPA). The FJPA seeks to prevent …

Attorneys' Perspectives On Choice Of Forum In Diversity Cases, Victor E. Flango Ph.D.

Akron Law Review

This report will first outline the arguments relating to proposals to change diversity of citizenship jurisdiction from the perspective of how additional empirical evidence can advance the arguments, and then provide data on lawyers' perceptions of factors that are important in the decision to file in either state or federal court.

Foreign Sovereign Immunity - Rex V. Cia. Pervana De Vapores, S.A., Richard O. Ward

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

A Court By Any Other Name: Preserving The Right Of Diversity Removal From State Administrative Agencies That Emulate Courts, John D. Pizzo

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federalism, Diversity, Equality, And Article Iii Judges: Geography, Identity, And Bias, Sharon E. Rush

UF Law Faculty Publications

Each individual has a background, and that background shapes the individual’s views about life, creating an inevitable form of bias referred to as “experiential bias.” Experiential bias is shaped by many identity traits, including, among others, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion and even geography. The geographic identity of state judges and their potential unfair experiential bias is the common justification for federal court diversity jurisdiction. But experiential bias is inescapable, affecting everyone who's ever had an experience, and is generally not unfair, as demonstrated by most studies regarding the "fairness" justification for diversity jurisdiction. More recently, Justice O’Connor connected racial …

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

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

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

Federal Jurisdiction, Susan E. Foe

Golden Gate University Law Review

No abstract provided.

To Remove Or Not To Remove -- Lowery V. Alabama Power Co. And The Eleventh Circuit's Uncertainty Over The Preponderance Of The Evidence Standard, Melanie M. Fernandez

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Plaintiff's Motion To Remand Denied: Arguing For Pre-Service Removal Under The Plain Language Of The Forum-Defendant Rule, Matthew Curry

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note will examine all sides of the district court split and ultimately argue in favor of the plain language of the forum-defendant rule to permit pre-service removal.

Constitutional Expectations, Richard A. Primus

Articles

The inauguration of Barack Obama was marred by one of the smallest constitutional crises in American history. As we all remember, the President did not quite recite his oath as it appears in the Constitution. The error bothered enough people that the White House redid the ceremony a day later, taking care to get the constitutional text exactly right. Or that, at least, is what everyone thinks happened. What actually happened is more interesting. The second time through, the President again departed from the Constitution's text. But the second time, nobody minded. Or even noticed. In that unremarked feature of …