Law Commons^™

The New Comity Abstention, John Harland Giammatteo

Journal Articles

In the past ten years, lower federal courts have quietly but regularly abstained from hearing federal claims challenging state court procedures, citing concerns of comity and federalism. Federal courts have dismissed a broad range of substantive challenges tasked to them by Congress, including under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and various constitutional provisions, involving state court eviction proceedings, foster care determinations, bail and criminal justice policies, COVID-era safety practices, and other instances where state courts determine state policy.

This paper is the first to argue that these decisions constitute a new abstention doctrine, unmoored from …

Self-Intervention, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

You cannot intervene in your own case, duh! Yet the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on just this issue: Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) allow state legislative leaders, seeking to represent the state’s sovereign interest, intervene when the attorney general is already representing the state’s sovereign interest. In this article, I contend that the text, history, and practice of Rule 24(a)(2) prohibits such “self-intervention.” I then explore how the fictive approach to state immunity established in Ex parte Young causes this confusion, while concluding that the doctrine, properly understood, focuses on real, not nominal, parties-in-interest. Next, I …

Introduction To A Festschrift Honoring Professor Rhonda Wasserman, Deborah L. Brake

Articles

Rhonda Wasserman joined the faculty of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1986, after graduating from Yale Law School and practicing law in New York City for three years. She has been a powerhouse on the Pitt Law faculty for three and a half decades. In that time, she served in many roles, including Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and, outside the law school, Reporter to the Local Rules Committee of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. She has been recognized with numerous titles and honors, such as John E. Murray Faculty Scholar, …

Recent Developments In Mandatory Arbitration Warfare: Winners And Losers (So Far) In Mass Arbitration, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Mass arbitration has sent shock waves through the civil justice system and unnerved the defense bar. To see how quickly and dramatically this phenomenon has entered both the civil justice landscape and the public discourse, one need look no further than the January 2023 filings of hundreds of individual arbitration demands by former Twitter employees against Elon Musk, along with threats to file hundreds more—threats that were announced, no doubt intentionally, on Twitter itself. Plaintiffs are increasingly more aware of mass arbitration as a tool in their arsenal, and defendants are, perhaps for the first time in decades of mandatory …

Neoliberal Civil Procedure, Luke Norris

Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that the current era of U.S. civil procedure is defined by its neoliberalism. The Supreme Court has over the past few decades reinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in ways that have made it more difficult for citizens to bring and maintain civil claims. The major decisions of this new era—in areas as diverse as summary judgment, pleading, class actions, and arbitration—exhibit neoliberal hallmarks. They display neoliberalism’s tendency to naturalize existing market arrangements, its focus on efficiency and obscuring questions of power, its reduction of citizens to consumers, and its attempt to analyze government through the …

28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction In The Roberts Court: A Rights-Inclusive Approach, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this symposium piece, I argue that the Roberts Court, whether intentionally or not, is crafting a 28 U.S.C. § 1331 doctrine that is more solicitous of congressional control than the Supreme Court’s past body of jurisdictional law. Further, I contend that this movement toward greater congressional control is a positive step for the court. In making this argument, I review the foundations of the famous Holmes test for taking § 1331 jurisdiction and the legal positivist roots for that view. I discuss the six key Roberts Court cases that demonstrate a movement away from a simple Holmes test and …

Rule 4(K), Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, And The Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Lessons From Attempted Reform, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

On multiple occasions, I have advocated for a revision to Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would disconnect personal jurisdiction in federal courts from the jurisdictional limits of their respective host states—to no avail. In this Essay, I will review—one final time—my argument for nationwide personal jurisdiction in the federal courts, recount my (failed) attempt to persuade the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to embrace my view, and reflect on what lessons may be drawn from the experience regarding the civil rulemaking process. My aim is to prompt discussion around potential rulemaking reforms and to equip …

Racial Capitalism In The Civil Courts, Tonya L. Brito, Kathryn A. Sabbeth, Jessica Steinberg, Lauren Sudeall

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Essay explores how civil courts function as sites of racial capitalism. The racial capitalism conceptual framework posits that capitalism requires racial inequality and relies on racialized systems of expropriation to produce capital. While often associated with traditional economic systems, racial capitalism applies equally to nonmarket settings, including civil courts.

The lens of racial capitalism enriches access to justice scholarship by explaining how and why state civil courts subordinate racialized groups and individuals. Civil cases are often framed as voluntary disputes among private parties, yet many racially and economically marginalized litigants enter the civil legal system involuntarily, and the state …

The Paradox Of Exclusive State-Court Jurisdiction Over Federal Claims, Thomas B. Bennett

Faculty Publications

Standing doctrine is supposed to ensure the separation of powers and an adversary process of adjudication. But recently, it has begun serving a new and unintended purpose: transferring federal claims from federal to state court. Paradoxically, current standing doctrine assigns a growing class of federal claims - despite Congressional intent to the contrary - to the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts. Even then, only in some states, and only to the extent authorized by state law.

This paradox arises at the intersection of three distinct areas of doctrine:

(1) a newly sharpened requirement of concrete injury under Article III that …

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Standing To Sue In Land Use Litigation, Daniel R. Mandelker

Scholarship@WashULaw

Third party standing to sue is essential in land use litigation. Questionable land use decisions will not be taken to court unless a third party can sue, but third party standing is limited. Standing law is fragmented, obstinate, excessively restrictive, and split between judicial and statutory requirements. Reform is necessary so that third parties can have access to court to protect public values. This Article explains why third party standing should be expanded, and it includes a conceptual model that can guide reform. It discusses conflicting third party standing rules in the Supreme Court, including the dominant restrictive rule that …

Mcnamee V. Eighth Judicial District Court, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (Oct. 17, 2019), Alfa Alemayehu

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court overruled Barto v. Weishaar, partly granted the petitioner’s writ of mandamus, and held that if a suggestion of death is properly served, the 90-day deadline to file a motion to substitute is triggered regardless of which party files it and whether it identifies the deceased party’s successor or representative.

The Venue Shuffle: Forum Selection Clauses & Erisa, Christine P. Bartholomew, James A. Wooten

Journal Articles

Forum selection clauses are ubiquitous. Historically, the judiciary was hostile to contracts limiting a plaintiff’s venue options. The tide has since turned. Today, lower courts routinely enforce such clauses. This Article challenges this reflexive response in the special context of ERISA cases. It mines ERISA’s statutory text, rich legislative history, and historical context to supply an in-depth exploration of ERISA’s unique policy goal of providing employees “ready access to the Federal courts.” The Article then explains how forum selection clauses undermine this goal and thus should be invalid under controlling Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Wage Theft In Lawless Courts, Llezlie Green

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Low-wage workers experience wage theft — that is, employers’ failure to pay earned wages — at alarmingly high rates. Indeed, the number of wage and hour cases filed in federal and state courts and administrative agencies steadily increases every year. While much of the scholarly assessment of wage and hour litigation focuses on large collective and class actions involving hundreds or thousands of workers and millions of dollars in lost wages, the experiences of individual workers with small claims have received little attention. Furthermore, scholarly consideration of the justice gap in lower courts, more generally, has often focused on debt …

Why Police Should Protect Complainant Autonomy, Randall K. Johnson

Faculty Works

This Essay does its work in, at least, three ways. First, it encourages better use of scarce public sector resources by calling for reform of the police complaint intake process. Next, this Essay identifies the causes of police complaint inefficiencies by critically-assessing how intake is done by the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Lastly, it provides guidance about how to achieve CPD intake reform by better protecting complainant autonomy. Complainant autonomy, at least in this Essay, is defined as a real party in interest’s (i.e. an injured citizen’s) right to control how its allegations are framed by a nominal plaintiff (i.e. …

#Sowhitemale: Federal Civil Rulemaking, Brooke D. Coleman

NULR Online

116 out of 136. That is the number of white men who have served on the eighty-two-year-old committee responsible for creating and maintaining the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The tiny number of non-white, non-male committee members is disproportionate, even in the context of the white-male-dominated legal profession. If the rules were simply a technical set of instructions made by a neutral set of experts, then perhaps these numbers might not be as disturbing. But that is not the case. The Civil Rules embody normative judgments about the values that have primacy in our civil justice system, and the rule-makers—while …

When Can The Patent Office Intervene In Its Own Cases?, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

The rise of administrative patent validity review since the America Invents Act has rested on an enormous expansion of Patent Office authority. A relatively little-known aspect of that authority is the agency's statutory ability to intervene in Federal Circuit appeals from adversarial proceedings in its own Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Patent Office has exercised this intervenor authority frequently and with specific apparent policy objectives, including where one of the adverse parties did not participate in the appeal. Moreover, until recently, there has been no constitutional inquiry into the Article III standing that the Patent Office must establish in …

Southworth V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Mar. 29, 2018), Lucy Crow

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court determined that Justice Court Rule of Civil Procedure 98 requiring appeals in small claims court to be filed within five days was jurisdictional and mandatory. The district court cannot use its discretion to expand the time to appeal.

Castillo V. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Feb. 1, 2018), Jocelyn Murphy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) in a class action suit parties may not aggregate putative class member claims to reach the statutorily required jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; (2) NRS § 104.9625(3)(b) permits an individual to combine the amount of sought statutory damages with the proposed deficiency amount in consumer transactions to obtain the jurisdictional amount for subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) district courts possess original jurisdiction over all claims for injunctive relief, even those that fail to meet the jurisdictional amount.

Delegating Procedure, Matthew A. Shapiro

Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship

The rise of arbitration has been one of the most significant developments in civil justice. Many scholars have criticized arbitration for, among other things, "privatizing" or "delegating" the state's dispute resolution powers and allowing private parties to abuse those powers with virtual impunity. An implicit assumption underlying this critique is that civil procedure, in contrast to arbitration, does not delegate significant state power to private parties. This Article challenges that assumption and argues that we can address many of the concerns about arbitration by drawing on civil procedure's solutions to its own delegation problem. From summonses to subpoenas to settlements, …

Opting Out Of Discovery, Jay Tidmarsh

Journal Articles

This Article proposes a system in which both parties are provided an opportunity to opt out of discovery. A party who opts out is immunized from dispositive motions, including a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or a motion for summary judgment. If neither party opts out of discovery, the parties waive jury-trial rights, thus giving judges the ability to use stronger case-management powers to focus the issues and narrow discovery. If one party opts out of discovery but an opponent does not, the cost of discovery shifts to the opponent. This Article justifies this proposal in …

Breaking Bad Briefs, Heidi K. Brown

Articles & Chapters

This article focuses on the practical effects of bad briefing on our legal process and suggests a holistic remedy: a system-wide commitment to striving to instill in law students and lawyers a respect for legal writing as, not only a fundamental competency of our chosen profession, but a talent that requires initial training, focused study, repeated practice, and conscious evolution throughout the arc of one’s legal education and career. Effective brief-writing is not as simple as a quick cut-and-paste job, a template download, or a stream-of-consciousness exercise, even for lawyers who repeatedly practice one type of case. Part I of …

Erie Step Zero, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Courts and commentators have assumed that the Erie doctrine, while originating in diversity cases, applies in all cases whatever the basis for federal jurisdiction. Thus, when a federal court asserts jurisdiction over pendent state law claims through the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in a federal question case, courts regularly apply the Erie doctrine to resolve conflict between federal and state law. This Article shows why this common wisdom is wrong.

To understand why, it is necessary to return to Erie’s goals, elaborated over time by the U.S. Supreme Court. Erie and its progeny are steeped in diversity-driven policy concerns: concerns …

Justiciability, Access To Justice And The Development Of Constitutional Law In Canada, Lorne Sossin, Gerard J. Kennedy

Articles & Book Chapters

Concentrating on Canadian experience, specifically litigation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the ‘Charter’), this article seeks to reconcile the access to justice benefits of summary procedures with the government litigant’s duty to act in the public interest (or as a ‘model litigant’) and uphold the rule of law. Though acknowledging the benefits that can result from the use of summary procedures to end litigation, the authors observe that compliance with strict requirements in procedural law are frequently dispensed with in the Charter context. In fact, summary procedures can have a devastating effect on the development of Charter …

Comin' Through The Rye: A Requiem For The Tennessee Summary Judgment Standard, Judy Cornett

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Spencer: Chief Justice John Roberts And The Loss Of Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

De Facto Class Actions: Plaintiff-And Defendant-Oriented Injunctions In Voting Rights, Election Law, And Other Constitutional Cases, Michael T. Morley

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Cross-Cutting Conflicts: Developments In The Use Of Norwich Orders In Internet Defamation Cases, Robert Currie

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The anonymity afforded to those wishing to post commentary on the internet has given rise to a number of procedural issues in Canadian case law. This paper focuses on one such issue: the need for prospective plaintiffs in defamation actions to "unmask" anonymous commentators in order to be able to bring proceedings against them. It tracks the increasing use of the "Norwich order," A.K.A an order for pre-action discovery, as a means of accomplishing this objective, by examining the leading case of Warman v. Fournier and analyzing how this issue has played out in litigation to date. It also considers …

Comin' Through The Rye: A Requiem For The Tennessee Summary Judgment Standard, Matthew Lyon, Judy Cornett, T. Panter

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

What must a defendant do to be granted summary judgment inTennessee? This question has given rise to a long, hotly contestedbattle over the proper role of summary judgment and, ultimately,who should bear the burden of producing evidence and when. Theevolution of Tennessee’s summary judgment standard—from theadoption of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure in 1971 to theTennessee Supreme Court’s most recent interpretation of Rule 56 in2015—is a story of competing visions of the benefits and burdensassociated with civil litigation. How much time should an aggrievedparty have to marshal evidence in support of its claim? How muchtime and money should an …

Helfstein V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 91 (Dec. 3, 2015), Heather Caliguire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that the six-month deadline to set aside a voluntary dismissal or settlement agreement found within NRCP 60(b) could not be extended, despite an allegation of fraud.