Law Commons^™

The Gravitational Force Of Federal Law, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Atlantic Marine And The Future Of Party Preference, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

In Atlantic Marine, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a prelitigation forum-selection agreement does not make an otherwise proper venue improper. Prominent civil procedure scholars have questioned the wisdom and accuracy of this holding. This paper is derived from my presentation at the symposium on Atlantic Marine held at UC Hastings College of the Law on September 19, 2014. In this paper, I defend Atlantic Marine as essentially correct based on what I have elsewhere called the principle of party subordinance. I go further, however, to argue that the principle underlying Atlantic Marine could affect the widespread private market for …

Pleading And The Litigation Marketplace, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

In this essay derived from a lecture delivered at the University of Genoa in 2013, I situate the New Pleading regime of Twombly and Iqbal in the American litigation marketplace. Courts and parties are undoubtedly affected by New Pleading. But, as rational actors, they also are responsive to it. Their responsive behaviors both mitigate the expected effects of New Pleading and cause unintended effects. Assessing New Pleading requires understanding and consideration of these market forces and reactive implications.

Literary Justice, Scott Dodson, Ami Dodson

Scott Dodson

This microsymposium essay empirically (and somewhat humorously) measures which current U.S. Supreme Court justice is the most literate, as determined by citations to great works of literary fiction. It further identifies the justices' favorite literary authors. Consistent with the mission of the Green Bag, the essay is meant to be lighthearted and entertaining, but it also recognizes the underlying importance of the intersection of legal opinion-writing and literary fiction.

Mapping Supreme Court Doctrine: Civil Pleading, Scott Dodson, Colin Starger

Scott Dodson

This essay, adapted from the video presentation available at http://vimeo.com/89845875, graphically depicts the genealogy and evolution of federal civil pleading standards in U.S. Supreme Court opinions over time. We show that the standard narrative—of a decline in pleading liberality from Conley to Twombly to Iqbal—is complicated by both progenitors and progeny. We therefore offer a fuller picture of the doctrine of Rule 8 pleading that ought to be of use to judges and practitioners in federal court. We also hope to introduce a new visual format for academic scholarship that capitalizes on the virtues of narration, graphics, mapping, online accessibility, …

Party Subordinance In Federal Litigation, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

American civil litigation in federal courts operates under a presumption of party dominance. Parties choose the lawsuit structure, factual predicates, and legal arguments, and the court accepts these choices. Further, parties enter ubiquitous ex ante agreements that purport to alter the law governing their dispute, along with a chorus of calls for even more party-driven customization of litigation. The assumption behind this model of party dominance is that parties substantially control both the law that will govern their dispute and the judges that oversee it. This Article challenges that assumption by offering a reoriented model of party subordinance. Under my …

Amicus Brief In Support Of Neither Party In Sebelius V. Auburn Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 11-1231, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

This amicus brief in support of neither party in the merits case of Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, No. 11-1231, urges the Supreme Court to decide the question presented (whether 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(3) permits equitable tolling) without resort to jurisdictional labels.

Rethinking Extraordinary Circumstances, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Scott Dodson

The Complexity Of Jurisdictional Clarity, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Hybridizing Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Amicus Brief, First American Financial Corp. V. Edwards, No. 10-708, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

No abstract provided.

O'Connell V. Chapman Univ., No. 10-810, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

No abstract provided.

New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Pleading in federal court has a new narrative. The old narrative was one of notice, with the goal of broad access to the civil justice system. New Pleading, after the landmark Supreme Court cases of Twombly and Iqbal, is focused on factual sufficiency, with the purpose of screening out meritless cases that otherwise might impose discovery costs on defendants. The problem with New Pleading is that factual sufficiency often is a poor proxy for meritlessness. Some plaintiffs lack sufficient factual knowledge of the elements of their claims not because the claims lack merit but because the information they need is …

In Search Of Removal Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

The ubiquitous and somewhat careless use of the term “jurisdictional” by courts has spawned confusion over what is and is not jurisdictional in a variety of contexts, including removal. The issue has critical implications for litigants. Yet it lacks scholarly coverage and is the subject of deep divisions in the lower courts. In this Article, I develop an initial framework for characterizing provisions of the removal statute as jurisdictional or procedural. I build upon the groundwork laid by prior precedent and modify it to account for the quasi-jurisdictional nature of removal and its impact on the federal-state balance of power. …

Mandatory Rules, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Whether a limitation is jurisdictional or not is an important but often obscure question. In an Article forthcoming in Northwestern University Law Review, I proposed a framework for courts to resolve the issue in a principled way, but I left open the next logical question: what does it mean if a rule is characterized as nonjurisdictional? Jurisdictional rules generally have a clearly defined set of traits: they are not subject to equitable exceptions, consent, waiver, or forfeiture; they can be raised at any time; and they can be raised by any party or the court sua sponte. This jurisdictional rigidity …

Appreciating Mandatory Rules: A Reply To Critics, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

This short essay, replying to the responses of Professors Burch and Dane and Mr. Poor, address their critiques of my original essay, "Jurisdictionality and Bowles v. Russell."

The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Last term, the Supreme Court decided Bowles v. Russell—perhaps the year’s most underrated case—which characterized the time to file a civil notice of appeal as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable excuses for noncompliance. In so holding, the Court overstated the supporting precedent, inflated the jurisdictional importance of statutes, and undermined an important recent movement to clarify when a rule is jurisdictional and when it is not. This did not have to be. The Court missed a golden opportunity to chart a middle course—holding the rule mandatory but nonjurisdictional—that would have been more consistent with precedent while resolving the …

Book Review: A History Of The Eighth Circuit, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

This is a book review of Jeffrey Brandon Morris's "Establishing Justice in Middle America: A History of the Eighth Circuit" (U. Minn. Press 2008).

Jurisdictionality And Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

When is a limitation “jurisdictional,” and when is it not? Litigators encounter these questions all the time in statutory coverage issues, in time limitations, and in a host of other preconditions. They are critical, for jurisdictional limitations are not subject to waiver or equitable exceptions, may be raised at any time, and obligate courts to monitor and raise them sua sponte. In Bowles v. Russell, the Court held that the statutory time limitation for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. This essay critiques Bowles, predicts some of the difficulties that it might cause, and offers a better approach.

The Forum Defendant Rule In Arkansas, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

This article analyzes the circuit split (between the Eighth Circuit and the other circuits) on the jurisdictionality of the forum defendant rule, the rule that prevents a resident defendant from removing a state case to federal court on diversity grounds.

Vectoral Federalism, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

In this Article, I offer a new framework for understanding federalism. “Vectoral federalism” engages directional metaphors—horizontal and vertical—to group various federalism doctrines together into two principal groups. Horizontal federalism concerns the battle between the federal and the state governments for the power to regulate individuals. Vertical federalism concerns the federal government’s power to regulate states and the states’ concomitant power to resist this regulation. Viewing federalism doctrines as having vertical or horizontal vectors (or both) identifies their common justifications and characteristics, which can assist in understanding and in applying the principles of federalism. The directional synthesis also illuminates and helps …

Dignity: The New Frontier Of State Sovereignty, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

Few constitutional doctrines have had as turbulent a history as state sovereign immunity, the right of a state to refuse to appear as a defendant in court. The Court has, until recently, avoided a full explanation of the reason for immunizing states from certain suits. But in the 2002 decision Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, the Court asserted that the preeminent purpose of state sovereign immunity is to accord States the dignity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities. This “dignity rationale” lacks substantial justification and is untethered to any limiting principles. Given that, …

The Metes And Bounds Of State Sovereign Immunity, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

What are the parameters of state sovereign immunity? The Court has made clear that certain provisions of Article I contain no authority for overriding state sovereign immunity, while at least one other provision, the Fourteenth Amendment, permits Congress to abrogate the states' sovereign immunity. How is this constitutional line drawn? It is temporally bound? In other words, are only certain Amendments enacted after the Eleventh Amendment free from absolute subservience to state sovereign immunity? Or, does it divide the original Constitution and its Amendments, meaning that state sovereign immunity permeates the original Constitution but does not infiltrate certain Amendments, even …

Habeas Review Of Perfunctory State Court Decisions On The Merits, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

This paper discusses the appropriate standard of review a federal habeas court should use to review a state court determination of federal law unaccompanied by a federally-based rationale. In other words, what standard of review does the federal court employ when the state court’s opinion is wholly composed of the phrases: “The claims are without merit. Denied.”? The Supreme Court has not explicitly resolved the issue, and various federal judges around the country have reached different opinions. This paper will demonstrate that a close scrutiny of the controlling habeas corpus statute, relevant case law, and policy considerations leads to the …