Civil Procedure Commons^™

The "Inherent Powers" Of Multidistrict Litigation Courts, Lynn A. Baker

Pepperdine Law Review

Mass tort multidistrict litigations (MDLs) involving thousands of claims present the judge with unique management issues. The MDL statute, in its scant two pages enacted in 1968, offers no guidance for the proper handling of these issues, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure speak to these issues only very generally through Rules 16 and 42. Thus, MDL judges have often invoked their “inherent powers” as authority when they take certain actions with significant implications for the parties and their attorneys. Not surprisingly, several of these actions and their underlying justifications have been controversial: (a) appointing lead attorneys; (b) ordering …

A Survey Of The Literature On Federal Appellate Practice And Procedure, Thomas E. Baker

FIU Law Review

This is a survey of the literature related to appellate practice and procedure before the United States Courts of Appeals for the benefit of lawyers and judges and scholars. It is reproduced with permission from THOMAS E. BAKER, A PRIMER ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS (Fed. Jud. Ctr. 3d ed. 2023) available at: https://www.fjc.gov/content/379899/primer-jurisdiction-us-courts-appeals-third-edition). This origin explains the scattered references in the entries to “this Primer.”

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 …

Solving The Procedural Puzzles Of The Texas Heartbeat Act And Its Imitators: The Potential For Defensive Litigation, Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, Howard M. Wasserman

SMU Law Review

The Texas Heartbeat Act (SB8) prohibits abortions following detection of a fetal heartbeat, a constitutionally invalid ban under current Supreme Court precedent. But the law adopts a unique enforcement scheme—it prohibits enforcement by government officials in favor of private civil actions brought by “any person,” regardless of injury. Texas sought to burden reproductive-health providers and rights advocates with costly litigation and potentially crippling liability.

In a series of articles, we explore how SB8’s exclusive reliance on private enforcement creates procedural and jurisdictional hurdles to challenging the law’s constitutional validity and obtaining judicial review. This piece explores defensive litigation, in which …

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 …

Absurd Overlap: Snap Removal And The Rule Of Unanimity, Travis Temple

William & Mary Law Review

Snap removal employs “a literalist approach” to the statute governing the procedural mechanism for removing cases from state court to federal court. In a typical removal scenario, defendants sued in state court would have the option to be heard in federal court instead, given that certain conditions are satisfied. [S]nap removal essentially allows the defendants to forego a condition that would bar removal if they can file before the plaintiff formally notifies them of the lawsuit. This practice of removing a case before being served with formal process—essentially an act of gamesmanship of the civil procedure system—has gained appellate support …

Manufacturing Sovereign State Mootness, Daniel Bruce

William & Mary Law Review

The idea that public defendants should receive any special treatment in the mootness context has been subject to intense criticism among commentators. Most notably, in the lead-up to the New York Rifle decision, Joseph Davis and Nicholas Reaves—two prominent First Amendment litigators from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—urged the Supreme Court to take the opportunity to correct the lower courts’ practice of blessing government abuse of the voluntary cessation doctrine. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never adopted a presumption in favor of government defendants such as the one applied by the Seventh Circuit in Killeen, and it failed to …

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 …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents and Special Thanks.

One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article concerns an aspect of Article III standing that has played a role in many of the highest-profile controversies of recent years, including litigation over the Affordable Care Act, immigration policy, and climate change. Although the federal courts constantly emphasize the importance of ensuring that only proper plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court and other federal courts have developed a significant exception to the usual requirement of standing. This exception holds that a court entertaining a multiple-plaintiff case may dispense with inquiring into the standing of each plaintiff as long as the court finds that one …

The Federal Courts’ Rulemaking Buffer, Jordan M. Singer

William & Mary Law Review

Procedural rulemaking is often thought of as a second-order task for the federal court system, relevant to the courts’ work but not essential to their function. In reality, rulemaking plays an integral role in the court system’s operation by actively insulating the courts from environmental pressure. This Article explains how power over procedural rulemaking protects the federal courts from environmental uncertainty and describes the court system’s efforts to maintain the effectiveness of the rulemaking buffer in response to historical and contemporary challenges.

Business And Commercial Litigation In Federal Courts (4th Ed.) Edited By Robert L. Haig, James M. Wicks

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Four years ago, I reviewed Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts (3d ed.), concluding then that notwithstanding the dwindling “brick-and-mortar,” traditional law libraries, this multi-volume treatise is a worthy tool in the arsenal of the business litigator. Well, now nineteen years after its inception, the treatise, Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts (4th ed.) (“BCL”), is in its Fourth Edition, having added twenty-five new chapters leading to three more volumes. Is it still worth the shelf space? Unquestionably, this landmark treatise remains an essential guide for commercial litigators and in-house counsel alike. The addition of the new …

The Erie Doctrine: A Flowchart, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

This Article concerns an aspect of Article III standing that has played a role in many of the highest-profile controversies of recent years, including litigation over the Affordable Care Act, immigration policy, and climate change. Although the federal courts constantly emphasize the importance of ensuring that only proper plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court and other federal courts have developed a significant exception to the usual requirement of standing. This exception holds that a court entertaining a multiple-plaintiff case may dispense with inquiring into the standing of each plaintiff as long as the court finds that one …

Postjudgment Cost Shifting: Electronic Discovery And 28 U.S.C § 1920(4), Samantha J. Kwartler

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that the circuit courts should adopt a loose narrow interpretation of § 1920(4), like the Federal Circuit did in CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., and tax only a limited number of the electronic discovery services rendered in document production. Part I of this Note examines § 1920(4)’s statutory history and its application in federal court. Part II discusses the varying approaches taken by each side of the circuit split. Finally, Part III argues for implementation of a loose narrow interpretation because it more appropriately comports with other provisions of the Federal Rules …

"Just A Bit Outside!": Proportionality In Federal Discovery And The Institutional Capacity Of The Federal Courts, Bernadette Bollas Genetin

Akron Law Faculty Publications

This Article focuses on pending amendments to Rule 26(b)(1), the scope-of-discovery provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Proposed Rule 26(b)(1) would authorize parties to obtain discovery of “any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense” if that information is also “proportional to the needs of the case,” based on enumerated proportionality factors – “the importance of the issues at state in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the …

"Just A Bit Outside!": Proportionality In Federal Discovery And The Institutional Capacity Of The Federal Courts, Bernadette Bollas Genetin

Bernadette Bollas Genetin

This Article focuses on pending amendments to Rule 26(b)(1), the scope-of-discovery provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Proposed Rule 26(b)(1) would authorize parties to obtain discovery of “any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense” if that information is also “proportional to the needs of the case,” based on enumerated proportionality factors – “the importance of the issues at state in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the …

Cleaning Up Jurisdiction: Divining Congressional Intent Of Clean Air Act Section 307(B), Kevin O. Leske

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

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.

Judicial Influence And The United States Federal District Courts: A Case Study, Justin R. Hickerson

Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects

No abstract provided.

The Lock-In Effect Of Preliminary Injunctions, Kevin J. Lynch

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Judges suffer from the same cognitive biases that afflict the rest of us. Judges use shortcuts to help them deal with the uncertainty and time pressure inherent in the judicial process. Judges should be aware of the conditions when those shortcuts lead to systemic biases in decision-making, and adjust legal standards in order to reduce or avoid such bias altogether.

One important bias that has been identified by economists and psychologists is the lock-in effect. The lock-in effect causes a decision-maker who must revisit an earlier decision to be locked-in to the earlier decision. The effect is particularly pronounced where …

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 …

Thinking, Big And Small, Stephen B. Burbank

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

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.

Hypothetical Jurisdiction And Interjurisdictional Preclusion: A "Comity" Of Errors, Ely Todd Chayet

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Staying Discovery Stays Justice: Analyzing Motions To Stay Discovery When A Motion To Dismiss Is Pending, Kevin J. Lynch

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Due to the important costs and benefits of discovery, decisions that affect the scope, timing, or availability of discovery are enormously consequential. For civil litigation in federal court, district and magistrate judges make many decisions about discovery that affect the cases before them. They decide the length and number of depositions that may be taken, compel or protect against the production of large numbers of documents and electronic data searches, serve as gatekeepers for expert witness testimony, and even decide whether the parties may take discovery at all until any motions to dismiss have been resolved. This Article focuses squarely …

Structuring Jurisdictional Rules And Standards, Scott Dodson, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Scott Dodson

Pre-Service Removal In The Forum Defendant's Arsenal, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

This article is the first academic defense of pre-service removal in diversity cases by forum-state defendants under the “properly joined and served” language of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Pre-service removal has proliferated nationally in recent years. Appellate courts, however, have been silent on the issue for two reasons: First, orders that remand a case to state court are statutorily non-reviewable on appeal. Second, cases retained in federal court and litigated to final judgment are highly unlikely, for reasons of judicial economy, to be voided for de novo readjudication in state court. After tracing the development of the removal statute and …