Law Commons^™

Playing Monopoly With The Neighborhood: Impact Of Series Limited Liability Companies On Nuisance Abatement Actions And Housing Code Enforcement, Lauren Williams

Cleveland State Law Review

The City of Cleveland has been one of the most active cities in combating the negative effects of the 2008 financial crisis, utilizing nuisance abatement actions in combination with municipal programs aimed at assisting homeowners and renters. However, the Ohio Revised Limited Liability Company Act ("ORLLCA"), passed in 2021, may reverse the progress made in cities like Cleveland by enabling real estate investors to conceal assets in several series under the same limited liability company, resulting in rising vacancy rates and unstable communities. This will negatively impact the effectiveness of nuisance abatement actions and traditional housing code enforcement in curbing …

Entombed Writs' Effective Renaissance: Surveying And Sealing Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 60(B)'S Interpretive Gaps, Amir Shachmurove

Cleveland State Law Review

For centuries, the hoary principle of finality and the Latin-denominated writs devised so as to mollify its obduracy cast fearsome shadows, unchallenged within the courts of the British Isles. In the United States, these expatiated doctrines stalked with equal aplomb from the time of Chief Justice John James Marshall to the advent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For nearly 150 years, therefore, federal procedural law recognized only the skimpiest opportunities for renewed introspection afforded by these increasingly anachronistic constructs, ones nonetheless imbued with more and more of antiquity’s nearly sacerdotal sheen with each passing year.

In time, as …

Frivolous Defenses, Thomas D. Russell

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article is about civil procedure, torts, insurance, litigation, and professional ethics. The Article is the opening article in a conversation with Stanford Law Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom, who has written about the plaintiffs’ bar and settlement mill attorneys. The empirical center of this piece examines 356 answers to 298 car crash personal injury cases in Colorado’s district courts. The Article situates these cases within dispute pyramid elements, including the total number of miles-traveled within Colorado and the volume of civil litigation. The Article then analyzes the defense attorneys’ departures from the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, especially Rule 8. …

The Shifting Sands Of Cost Shifting, Andrew M. Pardieck

Cleveland State Law Review

The cost-shifting analysis employed by the federal courts in ruling on discovery disputes is flawed. There is tremendous variability in how courts interpret the factors guiding the analysis. There is tremendous variability in the information courts rely on in deciding whether to preclude the discovery or shift its costs. The result is waste for the litigants, courts, and society as a whole. This Article argues that there is a better way: mandate cooperation before cost shifting. The courts should condition proportionality and cost-shifting rulings on cooperation. The cooperation should be substantive: require disclosure of objective information about the disputed discovery …

Legislative Reform Or Legalized Theft?: Why Civil Asset Forfeiture Must Be Outlawed In Ohio, Alex Haller

Cleveland State Law Review

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal method for law enforcement to deprive United States citizens of their personal property with little hope for its return. With varying degrees of legal protection at the state level, Ohio legislators must encourage national policy reform by outlawing civil asset forfeiture in Ohio. Ohio Revised Code Section 2981.05 should be amended to outlaw civil asset forfeiture by requiring a criminal conviction prior to allowing the seizure of an individual’s property. This Note proposes two plans of action that will restore Ohio resident’s property rights back to those originally afforded in the United States Constitution.

Social Data Discovery And Proportional Privacy, Agnieszka Mcpeak

Cleveland State Law Review

Social media platforms aggregate large amounts of personal information as "social data" that can be easily downloaded as a complete archive. Litigants in civil cases increasingly seek out broad access to social data during the discovery process, often with few limits on the scope of such discovery. But unfettered access to social data implicates unique privacy concerns—concerns that should help define the proper scope of discovery.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended in 2015, already contain the tools for crafting meaningful limits on intrusive social data discovery. In particular, the proportionality test under Rule 26 weighs the burdens …

The Award Of E-Discovery Costs To The Prevailing Party: An Analog Solution In A Digital World, Steven Baicker-Mckee

Cleveland State Law Review

Against this backdrop of the spiraling cost and burden of the discovery process, an issue is percolating through the lower and intermediate courts—the recoverability of e-discovery expenses as a component of the costs awarded to the successful party under Rule 54(d). Two divergent approaches have emerged in the judicial opinions and in the limited scholarship addressing the application of Rule 54(d) to e-discovery costs. The first contingent contends that Rule 54(d) is only intended to reimburse the prevailing party for a small subset of the total costs that the party has incurred. These jurists and scholars reason that Congressional intent …

Updating Ohio's Class Action Rules After More Than Forty Years, Geoffrey J. Ritts

Cleveland State Law Review

In 1970, the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure made their debut. The new set of rules included Civil Rule 23, governing procedure in class actions. Like most of the new Ohio civil rules, Rule 23 closely tracked its federal counterpart, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which itself was then relatively new, having been adopted in 1966. Since 1970, Ohio’s Rule 23 has sat untouched. In the meantime, the Ohio Supreme Court has amended other civil rules more than thirty times. During the more than forty years since Ohio Rule 23 was adopted, there have been significant changes in class-action …

Solving A Pleading Plague: Why Federal Courts Should Strike Insufficient Affirmative Defenses Under The Twombly-Iqbal Plausibility Standard, Nathan A. Leber

Cleveland State Law Review

The plausibility standard is the remedy to the rampant pleading of meritless affirmative defenses in federal courts. Set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, and later clarified in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the plausibility standard requires pleadings to contain sufficient factual allegations that give rise to a plausible claim for relief. In both Twombly and Iqbal, the Supreme Court used the plausibility approach to dismiss factually-deficient complaints. Applying the plausibility test to insufficient affirmative defenses produces the same result. The central proposition of this Note is that federal courts should analyze affirmative defenses under the Twombly-Iqbal plausibility standard. In order …

Using The Scientific Method In The Law: Examining State Interlocutory Appeals Procedures That Would Improve Uniformity, Efficiency, And Fairness In The Federal Appellate System, Hannah M. Smith

Cleveland State Law Review

[T}he current use of the federal interlocutory appeal process operates much like an appeal-less system. A pretrial motion is filed, the interlocutory order is given, and the petition for interlocutory review is usually denied. Thus, the case continues. It may continue into settlement negotiations or go to trial where the losing party files an appeal. That final appeal could find that the lower court erred, rendering that trial meritless. In reaching any of those stages, the adversely affected party more than likely devoted unnecessary time, resources, and finances in the case. Additionally, the parties are often unable to predict success …

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 …

Ripple Effects: The Unintended Change To Jurisdictional Pleading Standards After Iqbal, James E. Von Der Heydt

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note describes a little-observed ripple effect of the new pleading standard announced in Iqbal, the antiterrorism case whose holding swept broadly and changed the ground rules for considering allegations in so-called 12(b)(6) motions for all civil cases. This Note examines the interplay between the Twombly/Iqbal doctrine and federal courts’ practical approach to subject-matter jurisdiction. Part II describes the background jurisprudence on subject-matter jurisdiction, including the sharp line the Supreme Court has consistently re-drawn between claims lacking merit and those lacking jurisdictional basis, from Bell v. Hood through Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. The consistent theme of this jurisprudence …

The Emerging Federal Class Actions Brand , John C. Massaro

Cleveland State Law Review

Class actions raise a fundamental question about our judicial system. Is the purpose first and foremost to achieve a societally-desired level of law enforcement and deterrence, or is the primary goal to foster citizen participation in the resolution of private disputes? This Article provides the first extended analysis of this question in light of five recent Supreme Court decisions regarding class actions, the evolution of legislative initiatives in the area, and the docket activity in sixteen of the largest recent federal securities class actions. A single conclusion follows: we are witnessing the emergence of a new national “brand” of class …

Pleading In Ohio After Bell Atlantic V. Twombly And Ashcroft V. Iqbal: Why Ohio Shouldn't Notice A Change, Alana C. Jochum

Cleveland State Law Review

Ohio has only briefly addressed the entrance of Bell Atlantic onto the pleading stage, and, thus far, Ohio state courts have mostly retained the Conley standard for determining pleadings. However, multiple pleading standards are emerging, making the issue ripe for a determination by the Supreme Court of Ohio as to what the true pleading standard is for Ohio. This Note will explain why Ohio should preserve Conley, even if doing so diverges from the original intent of federal-state uniformity embodied by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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.

Voluntary Dismissal In Ohio: A Tale Of An Ancient Procedure In A Modern World, S. Ben Barnes

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note will demonstrate that a modified Federal Rule is the best rule for voluntary dismissal. First, this Note will survey the history of voluntary dismissal and the progression from the common law in England to the current Federal Rule. Second, this Note will discuss the abuses of the rule in Ohio and the need for change. Third, this Note will dissect the Ohio Rule and compare it alongside the Federal Rule. Fourth, this Note will examine possible alternatives. Finally, this Note will propose why a modification of the Federal Rule is the most practical answer to the abuses of …

Reconsidering The Scope And Consequences Of Appellate Review In The Certification Decision Of Dukes V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , Nicole Hitch

Cleveland State Law Review

This article will explore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their application in the granting or denial of certification in an employment discrimination class action. In doing so, this article will examine how the district court applied these rules in the Wal-Mart action, which resulted in the certification of the largest private class action suit in American history. Additionally, this article will consider the consequences of the Ninth Circuit's utilization of permissive and liberal standards and, alternatively, the consequences of incorporation of stricter standards from various other circuit courts and the possible result of denial of certification.

E-Mail: A Constitutional (And Economical) Method Of Transmitting Class Action Notice, Jennifer Mingus

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note argues that courts should find that notice by e-mail satisfies the standards of due process that the United States Supreme Court has developed for class action notice. First, this Note establishes that e-mail is a form of individual notice, as required by Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin. Second, this Note shows that e-mail notice is "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action" and "reasonably certain to inform those affected" as required by Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Third, this Note contends that due process is a …

An Application Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 26(A)(1) To Section 1983 Actions: Does Rule 26(A)(1) Violate The Rules Enabling Act, Shilpa Shah

Cleveland State Law Review

The purpose of this note is to generally explain the problems associated with Rule 26(a)(1), and to specifically examine whether it violates the Rules Enabling Act's prohibition on affecting substantive rights. To illustrate the problem with applying Rule 26(a)(1) to all cases, the note will examine mandatory disclosure as it applies to civil rights cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The note concludes that Rule 26(a)(1) infringes on substantive rights in violation of the Rules Enabling Act; however, instead of invalidating the mandatory disclosure rule entirely, federal courts should not apply Rule 26(a)(1) to cases brought under § 1983 …

A Mandatory Disclosure And Civil Justice Reform Proposal Based On The Civil Justice Reform Act Experiments, Eric F. Spade

Cleveland State Law Review

The objective of this note is to examine the CJRA experiments with mandatory disclosure and, based on that examination, to propose an alternative approach to the current trend of micromanaging case management through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This note begins by defining mandatory disclosure and providing a brief account of its origin. Next, the Civil Justice Reform Act is described, followed by an examination of the various CJRA mandatory disclosure experiments conducted by district courts nationwide. The main portion of this note endeavors to apply some of the lessons learned in the CJRA context to the flawed approach …

Special Proceedings In Ohio: What Is The Ohio Supreme Court Doing With The Final Judgment Rule, Donald I. Gitlin

Cleveland State Law Review

This note will analyze special proceedings in Ohio insofar as they relate to the appealability of interlocutory orders. Because of the complex and evolving nature of the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of special proceedings, this note's analysis must necessarily be largely descriptive of Ohio case law. In addition, this note will highlight differences between Ohio appellate practice and federal practice in order to acquaint the reader with the dramatically different results reached by the two systems. In addition, Part II of this note will examine what is meant by the phrase "substantial right," which appears in the second prong of …

Adverse Publicity As A Means Of Reducing Judicial Decision-Making Delay: Periodic Disclosure Of Pending Motions, Bench Trials And Cases Under The Civil Justice Reform Act, Charles Gardner Geyh

Cleveland State Law Review

The modest objective of this article is to analyze §476 in light of the purpose it was designed to serve, and to evaluate the performance of that section during the two years that it has been in operation. To do that, it is useful to begin by placing §476 in the larger context of ongoing efforts to address and remedy indefensible decision-making delays. Section II will, therefore, summarize the causes of decision-making delay, dividing them among the defensible and the indefensible, and then review existing mechanisms for alleviating indefensible delay. The point worth underscoring is that while defensible delays-particularly delays …

The 1988 Revision Of 28 U.S.C. 1391(C): Corporate Venue Is Now Equivalent To In Personam Jurisdiction Effects On Civil Actions For Patent Infringement, Thomas W. Adams

Cleveland State Law Review

Venue in federal cases is controlled by the general venue statute unless there exists an applicable special venue statute that attaches to the particular cause of action under consideration. This note is concerned with the section of the general venue statute applicable to corporate defendants and its interaction with the special venue statute for civil actions in patent infringement cases ("patent venue statute"). As a first step in the discussion of venue, it is necessary to go back in history over 200 years. This note reviews the history of venue, both generally and in cases of patent infringement, the historical …

The 1988 Revision Of 28 U.S.C. 1391(C): Corporate Venue Is Now Equivalent To In Personam Jurisdiction Effects On Civil Actions For Patent Infringement, Thomas W. Adams

Cleveland State Law Review

Venue in federal cases is controlled by the general venue statute unless there exists an applicable special venue statute that attaches to the particular cause of action under consideration. This note is concerned with the section of the general venue statute applicable to corporate defendants and its interaction with the special venue statute for civil actions in patent infringement cases ("patent venue statute"). As a first step in the discussion of venue, it is necessary to go back in history over 200 years. This note reviews the history of venue, both generally and in cases of patent infringement, the historical …

The Application And Misapplication Of Ohio Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(B), Diane S. Leung

Cleveland State Law Review

The rules of civil procedure, seemingly straightforward, can be misinterpreted due to attorney inattentiveness. One rule which has suffered and still is suffering from misinterpretation and misapplication is Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 54(B), judgment upon multiple claims or involving multiple parties, the subject of this note. The following discussion, an analysis of Rule 54(B), will attempt to accomplish several tasks. First, the note will briefly describe the history, nature, and purpose of the rule. Secondly, it will analyze the major aspects and requirements of Rule 54(B). The analysis will emphasize the facets of the rule which have often been …

Suing A State In Federal Court Under A Private Cause Of Action: An Eleventh Amendment Primer, Donald L. Boren

Cleveland State Law Review

A major obstacle facing an attorney, whose client is suing a state in federal court under a right created by a federal law, is the restraints placed on the federal court's jurisdiction by the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose of this article is to provide assistance through this wonderland of eleventh amendment jurisprudence. This article examines three major eleventh amendment issues, plus-and perhaps more importantly-methods of avoiding eleventh amendment litigation. Section I of the article examines the historical evidence on whether the amendment was intended to apply to cases in which a citizen of a state …

Addressing The Adversarial Dilemma Of Civil Discovery, Michael E. Wolfson

Cleveland State Law Review

There can be no question that the emergence of modern pretrial discovery has contributed enormously to making the conduct of a lawsuit a more fair, just, and efficient process. But discovery also offers a substantial potential for mischief. Since few civil cases today are actually resolved at trial, trouble in the pretrial phase of litigation signals potentially major problems in the legal system's role as the nation's primary dispute resolution mechanism. It is the purpose of this Article to examine the issue of discovery abuse in light of the fundamental adversarial dilemma of the discovery process and propose a new …

Stepping On Board The Rule 11 Bandwagon, Roger M. Baron

Cleveland State Law Review

Prior to the 1983 amendments to Rule 11, there was some concern as to whether or not the Federal Rules had adequate provisions to insure the truthfulness of allegations in pleadings and motions. With the 1983 incorporation of an objective standard of reasonableness, subjective good faith was eliminated as a defense. Whether anticipated or not, the federal courts have now become flooded with litigation concerning the new Rule 11. Certain differences do exist among the circuits; however the differences are relatively minor, relating primarily to each circuit's description of the conduct which violates the relevant standards and to the standard …

Moving To Dismiss A Civil Rico Action, David J. Howard

Cleveland State Law Review

The use and abuse of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") has troubled judges and lawyers for some time while providing fertile ground for commentators. The plethora of RICO cases is equaled only by the tremendous proliferation of commentary. This Article, while admittedly contributing to this proliferation, is excusable, however, because its purpose is to facilitate summary disposition of RICO claims by providing a practical guide to achieving early dismissal under Rules 12(b)(6) and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is impossible to set forth all grounds for dismissing every RICO complaint. The scope of …

The Federal Preemption Question - A Federal Question - An Analysis Of Federal Jurisdiction Over Supremacy Clause Issues, A. Mark Segreti Jr.

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article focuses on the issue of simplicity and predictability in analyzing federal question jurisdiction and recommends making federal court jurisdiction, in the area of federal preemption, consistent with logic. Federal question jurisdiction should be based on the source of the controlling substantive law. This approach is more logical, and therefore easier to understand. It is also more certain and therefore more predictable since it bases jurisdiction on the more realistic standard of governing law, rather than on speculation as to which party is the aggressor. This Article is not a recommendation to expand federal court jurisdiction; it is a …