Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Summary Judgment Revolution That Wasn't, Jonathan R. Nash, D. Daniel Sokol

Faculty Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court decided a trilogy of cases on summary judgment in 1986. Questions remain as to how much effect these cases have had on judicial decision-making in terms of wins and losses for plaintiffs. Shifts in wins, losses, and what cases get to decisions on the merits impact access to justice. We assemble novel datasets to examine this question empirically in three areas of law that are more likely to respond to shifts in the standard for summary judgment: antitrust, securities regulation, and civil rights. We find that the Supreme Court’s decisions had a statistically significant effect in …

From Contacts To Relatedness: Invigorating The Promise Of "Fair Play And Substantial Justice" In Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine, Richard Freer

Faculty Articles

Personal jurisdiction is integral to access to justice. Without a convenient court, plaintiffs’ efforts to vindicate claims (and society’s interest in private enforcement of law) may be thwarted. After considerable engagement in between 1977 and 1990, the Supreme Court did not decide a personal jurisdiction case between 1990 and 2011. This Symposium addresses what the Court has done regarding personal jurisdiction in the “new era” that started in 2011. That year brought a specific jurisdiction decision, J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, and a general jurisdiction decision, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown. The former broke no …

The Roberts Court And Class Litigation: Revolution, Evolution, And Work To Be Done, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Since 2005, when John Roberts was appointed Chief Justice, there have been startling changes to the world of class actions. Jurisdictionally, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 fundamentally reconfigured the allocation of class litigation between federal and state courts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the federal class action provision, has been amended three times in the Roberts years, once in a meaningful way. Our focus, however, is on what the Roberts Court has done in the class action world through its caselaw. On that score, we have a remarkable corpus. From Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. …

The Political Reality Of Diversity Jurisdiction, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Diversity jurisdiction survived concerted frontal assaults made from the mid- to late-twentieth century. It weathered criticism of academics and of some high-profile federal judges. Today, diversity jurisdiction represents a burgeoning percentage of the federal civil docket, and it is supported by an efficiency rationale that did not exist at the founding. Today, academics and judges seem relatively ambivalent toward, and some even accepting of, diversity jurisdiction. Today, we see efforts not to abolish diversity jurisdiction, but to rationalize the various threads of its doctrine.

These efforts should be informed by the lessons that should have been learned by those who …

Aligning Incentives And Cost Allocation In Discovery, Jonathan R. Nash, Joanna M. Shepherd

Faculty Articles

Recent proposals to revise Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 to incorporate cost allocation of discovery have sparked considerable controversy. Advocates for reform argue that replacing the long-standing “producer-pays” presumption with something more akin to a “requester-pays” rule would better align economic incentives and reduce litigants’ ability to wield discovery as an instrument to force settlement. Opponents argue that such a reform would limit access to justice by saddling requesters with an ex ante burden of funding the opposition’s discovery.

In this Article, we explain that either a rule requiring both parties to share the costs of discovery (“cost-sharing rule”) …

Copyright Trolling, An Empirical Study, Matthew Sag

Faculty Articles

This Article proceeds as follows: Part II locates MDJD suits within the broader context of the IP troll debate. It explains why attempts to define copyright trolls in terms of status—i.e., in terms of the plaintiff’s relationship to the underlying IP—are ultimately flawed and suggests a conduct-focused approach based on identifying systematic opportunism. Part II explains why MDJD lawsuits have all of the hallmarks of copyright trolling, and it explores the basic economics of MDJD litigation. It then presents empirical data documenting the astonishing rise of MDJD lawsuits over the past decade. Part III explores the role of statutory damages …

Courts Should Apply A Relatively More Stringent Pleading Threshold To Class Actions, Matthew B. Lawrence

Faculty Articles

Policymakers from Senator Edward Kennedy to Civil Rules Advisory Committee Reporter Edward Cooper have proposed that class actions be subject to a more stringent pleading threshold than individually-filed suits, yet the question has not been fully explored in legal scholarship. This Article addresses that gap. It shows that courts following the guidance of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly should apply a relatively more stringent pleading threshold to class actions, and a relatively less stringent threshold to individually-filed suits.

This contribution is set forth in two steps. First, this Article explains that, all else being equal, the anticipated systems’ costs and benefits …

Regulatory Litigation In The European Union: Does The U.S. Class Action Have A New Analogue?, S. I. Strong

Faculty Articles

The United States has long embraced the concept of regulatory litigation, whereby individual litigants, often termed “private attorneys general,” are allowed to enforce certain public laws as a matter of institutional design. Although several types of regulatory litigation exist, the U.S. class action is often considered the paradigmatic model for this type of private regulation.

For years, the United States appeared to be the sole proponent of both regulatory litigation and large-scale litigation. However, in February 2012, the European Union dramatically reversed its existing policies toward mass claims resolution when the European Parliament adopted a resolution proposing to create a …

The Irrepressible Influence Of Byrd, Richard D. Freer, Thomas Arthur

Faculty Articles

We set forth four interrelated theses in this article. First, Byrd is the only Supreme Court case since Erie itself to discuss all three of the core interests balanced, expressly or not, in every vertical choice of law case. Second, because Hanna's "twin aims" test ignores two of these three core interests, it cannot adequately serve as the standard for cases under the Rules of Decision Act ("RDA"). This fact is evidenced by the Court's eschewing the twin aims test in cases, like Gasperini, where state and federal interests must be accommodated. Third, as all three opinions in …

The Cauldron Boils: Supplemental Jurisdiction, Amount In Controversy, And Diversity Of Citizenship Class Actions, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Ultimately, it does not matter how or even whether the Supreme Court resolves the issue. The fact that we still do not know whether Zahn lives ­after thirteen years-demonstrates that legislation concerning the jurisdiction of the federal courts should not be the hurried product of a few drafters whose work is not circulated for broader discussion. Ours is a world in which any change to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure-no matter how minor-must be circulated and subjected to public comment and review. Yet the jurisdiction of the federal courts can be changed in relative secrecy and haste. Congress committed …

Close Enough For Government Work: What Happens When Congress Doesn't Do Its Job, Thomas C. Arthur, Richard Freer

Faculty Articles

There's the beef. The supplemental jurisdiction statute, particularly section 1367(b), is a nightmare of draftsmanship. The problems that flow from that fact are more than aesthetic. The sloppiness makes easy cases hard and sows confusion in areas where there should be, and so easily could have been, clarity. It creates that most wasteful type of litigation - fights over jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction rules ought to be clear and capable of near-mechanical application whenever possible. Such pre­cision was possible in the supplemental jurisdiction, if only someone had spent as much time writing the statute as the trio has spent writing …

Compounding Confusion And Hampering Diversity: Life After Finley And The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

It has been a tough couple of years for supplemental jurisdiction. In recent decades, the doctrine, which earlier had been called the "child of necessity and sire of confusion," had become somewhat less confusing. The Supreme Court created a flurry of concern over the future of the doctrine with a pair of restrictive decisions in the late 1970s, but showed no further interest; the lower courts generally interpreted those holdings narrowly. With exceptions in a couple of areas, the application of supple­mental jurisdiction in the various joinder situations became relatively clear and predictable, and the doctrine played a major role …

Grasping At Burnt Straws: The Disaster Of The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, Thomas C. Arthur, Richard Freer

Faculty Articles

Ah, the strawman model! Where would Professors Rowe, Burbank, and Mengler be without it? At a minimum, they would have a much shorter article. If Professor Freer in fact torched the entire farm, it is because there was so much dry straw lying around after the three drafters fin­ished tilting with the strawmen they created in their response to Professor Freer's article. The drafters spend more than half of their article arguing the irrelevant points that a statute was needed after Finley, that the stat­ute was consistent with recommendations of the Federal Courts Study Committee, and that Professor Freer …