Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (3)
- Class actions (2)
- American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant (1)
- Clients (1)
- Complaints (1)
-
- Deference (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Electronic discovery (1)
- Federal Arbitration Act (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Federal diversity jurisdiction (1)
- Fraudulent joinder doctrine (1)
- Joinder (1)
- Judicial deference (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Lawyers (1)
- Mandatory arbitration (1)
- Mandatory stays (1)
- Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (1)
- Public policy (1)
- Removal (1)
- Settlements (1)
- State courts (1)
- Trials (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan
De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan
Michigan Law Review
Playing off the strict requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction, plaintiffs can structure their suits to prevent removal to federal court. A common way to preclude removability is to join a nondiverse party. Although plaintiffs have a great deal of flexibility, they may include only those parties that have a stake in the lawsuit. Put another way, a court will not permit a plaintiff to join a party to a lawsuit when that party is being joined solely to prevent removal. The most useful tool federal courts employ to prevent this form of jurisdictional manipulation is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure …
Federal Discovery Stays, Gideon Mark
Federal Discovery Stays, Gideon Mark
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
In federal civil litigation, unless a discretionary stay is granted, discovery often proceeds while motions to dismiss are pending. Plaintiffs with non-meritorious cases can compel defendants to spend massively on electronic discovery before courts ever rule on such motions. Defendants who are unable or unwilling to incur the huge up-front expense of electronic discovery may be forced to settle non-meritorious claims. To address multiple electronic discovery issues, Congress amended the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2006 and the Federal Rules of Evidence in 2008. However, the amendments failed to significantly reduce costs and failed to address the critical issue …
Why American Express V. Italian Colors Does Not Matter And Coordinated Pursuit Of Aggregate Claims May Be A Viable Option After Concepcion, Gregory C. Cook
Why American Express V. Italian Colors Does Not Matter And Coordinated Pursuit Of Aggregate Claims May Be A Viable Option After Concepcion, Gregory C. Cook
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat
This Comment suggests that the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant will not change the class action landscape. While the plaintiff bar contends that certain public policy goals will be lost as a result of American Express and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, this Comment argues that, in the correct circumstances, coordinated individual arbitrations can address at least some of these public policy goals and plaintiff counsel should focus on such coordination efforts (including, for instance, ethically recruiting actually-injured plaintiffs, the use of common plaintiff counsel, the use of common experts, and …
Judges! Stop Deferring To Class-Action Lawyers, Brian Wolfman
Judges! Stop Deferring To Class-Action Lawyers, Brian Wolfman
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat
I represent a national non-profit consumer rights organization, as an amicus, in a federal appeal challenging a district court’s approval of a class-action settlement of claims under the federal Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA). My client maintains that the district court erred in finding that the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” which is the standard for class-action settlement approval under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, we argue that the district court committed a reversible legal error when it deferred to the class-action lawyers’ recommendation to approve the settlement because, in those lawyers’ view, it was fair, …