Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Problem With The “Non-Class” Class: An Urgent Call For Improved Gatekeepers In Merger Objection Litigation, Josh Molder

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Until recently, class actions dominated merger objection litigation. However, plaintiff’s lawyers have constructed a “non-class” class where an individual suit can benefit from the leverage of a certified class without ever meeting the stringent class certification requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. This new development has initiated a shift in merger objection litigation where plaintiffs are increasingly filing individual suits instead of class actions. However, this shift has left shareholders vulnerable to collusive settlements because plaintiff’s attorneys have significant control over these suits and a strong incentive to settle quickly for a substantial fee. Additionally, corporate defendants are …

Rationalizing Relatedness: Understanding Personal Jurisdiction's Relatedness Prong In The Wake Of Bristol-Myers Squibb And Ford Motor Co., Anthony Petrosino

Fordham Law Review

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court marked a watershed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. There, the Court came to a reasonable conclusion: Ford, a multinational conglomerate carrying on extensive business throughout the United States, was subject to personal jurisdiction in states where it maintained substantial contacts that were related to the injuries that prompted the suits. This was so, even though the business it conducted in those states was not the direct cause of the suit. While justifying that conclusion, however, the Court drastically altered the personal jurisdiction inquiry’s relatedness prong, which concerns whether …

Interpleader As A Vehicle For Challenging The Constitutionality Of Private Citizen Action Statutes, Delia Parker

Fordham Law Review

The rise of vigilante-esque statutes creates obstacles for litigants seeking to challenge a statute’s constitutionality. State legislatures in Texas and California enacted laws regulating constitutionally protected activity (abortion and firearm possession, respectively) through statutes enforced solely by private actors. The state legislatures cleverly crafted Texas S.B. 8, as well as other copycat statutes, as bounty hunter statutes to block litigants’ usual path to pre-enforcement adjudication—filing a claim against the state to enjoin its actors from enforcing the improper provisions.

The Texas and California state legislatures attempted to forbid constitutionally protected conduct by granting enforcement power to an infinite number of …

Class Action Boundaries, Daniel Wilf-Townsend

Fordham Law Review

In recent years, some judges have begun doubting—and at times denying— their jurisdiction in class actions whose membership crosses state lines. This doubt has followed from the U.S. Supreme Court’s significant tightening of personal jurisdiction doctrine, which has led many to argue that courts no longer have jurisdiction over the claims of unnamed class members unless those claims have some independent relationship with the forum state. Such an argument raises foundational questions about due process and federalism, and has significant implications for the size, location, and feasibility of many class actions. This Article argues that what it terms the “state-border …

What We Don't Know About Class Actions But Hope To Know Soon, Jonah B. Gelbach, Deborah R. Hensler

Fordham Law Review

Legislation that would alter class action practice in the federal courts has been pending in Congress. Nearly a decade’s worth of U.S. Supreme Court cases have restricted the scope and ease of use of the class action device. Class action critics argue that class litigation is a “racket” that fails to compensate plaintiffs and instead enriches plaintiffs’ lawyers at the expense of legitimate business practices. On the other hand, defenders of class actions decry the legislative and judicial forces aligned against them, warning that trends in class action law will eviscerate the practical rights held by consumers and workers. In …

Jurisdiction In The Trump Era, Scott Dodson

Fordham Law Review

The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States induced immediate speculation about how his tenure would affect various areas of the law. In civil-procedure circles, the intuition is that his status as a probusiness, antiregulation Republican seems likely to push procedural doctrine generally in pro-defendant directions. That intuition seems sound in the specific procedural subtopic of jurisdictional doctrine relating to forum selection. In this Essay, I document recent pre-Trump, pro-defendant trends in personal jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, and I detail how those trends impose significant burdens on plaintiffs. I then explain why the remainder of Trump’s presidency …

Asbestos Trust Transparency, Mark A. Behrens

Fordham Law Review

Originally and for many years, the primary defendants in asbestos cases were companies that mined asbestos or manufactured amphibole-containing thermal insulation. Hundreds of thousands of claims were filed against the major asbestos producers, such as Johns-Manville Corp., Owens Corning Corp., and W.R. Grace & Co. By the late 1990s, asbestos litigation had reached such proportions that the U.S. Supreme Court noted the “elephantine mass” of cases and referred to the litigation as a “crisis.” Mass filings pressured “most of the lead defendants and scores of other companies” into bankruptcy, including virtually all manufacturers of asbestos-containing thermal insulation. Following a 2000–2002 …

Civil Litigation Reform In The Trump Era: Threats And Opportunities Searching For Salvageable Ideas In Ficala, Howard M. Erichson

Fordham Law Review

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (FICALA) was introduced in Congress less than three weeks after Donald Trump took office as President. Supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and opposed by consumer advocates and civil rights groups, the bill passed the House of Representatives one month after its introduction on a party-line vote of 220 to 201, with 220 Republicans and zero Democrats voting in favor. FICALA stalled in the Senate and, as of this writing, does not appear to be moving toward passage in its current form. But reform ideas have a way of reappearing, …

The Looming Battle For Control Of Multidistrict Litigation In Historical Perspective, Andrew D. Bradt

Fordham Law Review

2018 marks fifty years since the passage of the Multidistrict Litigation Act. But instead of thoughts of a golden-anniversary celebration, an old Rodney Dangerfield one-liner comes to mind: “[M]y last birthday cake looked like a prairie fire.” Indeed, after a long period of relative obscurity, multidistrict litigation (MDL) has become a subject of major controversy—and not only among scholars of procedure. For a long time, both within and beyond the rarified world of procedure scholars, MDL was perceived as the more technical, less extreme cousin of the class action, which attracted most of the controversy. My goal in this Article …

Class Problem!: Why The Inconsistent Application Of Rule 23'S Class Certification Requirements During Overbreadth Analysis Is A Threat To Litigant Certainty, David I. Berman

Fordham Law Review

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is home to the class action device. It is well-documented that this rule significantly impacts our legal system. As a result, the need for its effective utilization has been apparent since its introduction. Despite this, federal courts have inconsistently applied the rule during their analyses of overbroad class definitions at the class certification stage. Consequently, parties involved in such litigation have been exposed to unnecessary costs and the potential for forum shopping. Nonetheless, this judicial inconsistency has gone largely unrecognized because it does not implicate the results of class certification. Hence, …

Why Civil And Criminal Procedure Are So Different: A Forgotten History, Ion Meyn

Fordham Law Review

Much has been written about the origins of civil procedure. Yet little is known about the origins of criminal procedure, even though it governs how millions of cases in federal and state courts are litigated each year. This Article’s examination of criminal procedure’s origin story questions the prevailing notion that civil and criminal procedure require different treatment. The Article’s starting point is the first draft of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure—confidential in 1941 and since forgotten. The draft reveals that reformers of criminal procedure turned to the new rules of civil procedure for guidance. The contents of this draft …

Deference To The Plaintiff In Forum Non Conveniens Cases, Brett Workman

Fordham Law Review

This Note analyzes several cases in an effort to understand why, based on each case’s unique circumstances, the plaintiff’s choice of forum received a particular level of deference. This Note then produces a synthesized list of factors that alter the level of deference a plaintiff’s choice of forum receives under forum non conveniens analysis. An understanding of these factors provides increased predictability as to when a plaintiff’s choice of forum might receive heightened deference under this common law doctrine.

Restoring Bankruptcy’S Fresh Start, Jonathan S. Hermann

Fordham Law Review

The discharge injunction, which allows former debtors to be free from any efforts to collect former debt, is a primary feature of bankruptcy law in the United States. When creditors have systemically violated debtors’ discharge injunctions, some debtors have attempted to challenge those creditors through a class action lawsuit in bankruptcy court. However, the pervasiveness of class-waiving arbitration clauses likely prevents those debtors from disputing discharge injunction violations outside of binding, individual arbitration. This Note first discusses areas of disagreement regarding how former debtors may enforce their discharge injunctions. Then, it examines the types of disputes that allow debtors to …

Affirming Firm Sanctions: The Authority To Sanction Law Firms Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Vincent J. Margiotta

Fordham Law Review

A circuit split exists as to whether 28 U.S.C. § 1927 allows for an award of sanctions against nonattorneys or nonrepresentatives. Five federal courts of appeals—the Second, Third, Eighth, Eleventh, and the District of Columbia Circuits—hold that, to further the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1927, courts have the authority to sanction a law firm for the conduct of its attorneys, in addition to the authority to sanction individual officers of the court. The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits disagree, concluding that the statute allows federal courts to sanction only individuals—“attorney[s] or other person[s] admitted to conduct cases in any …

Erie Step Zero, Alexander A. Reinert

Fordham Law Review

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: …

Busting Up The Pretrial Industry, Andrew S. Pollis

Fordham Law Review

While some argue that “[r]eturning to a trial model would be a significant step toward fulfilling the traditional expectations for the federal courts,” that step backward is unlikely to occur. But I agree that fixes are in order, and I offer two. First, we should consider requiring at least some parties to engage in early settlement evaluation—ideally before extensive discovery gets underway—by submitting cases to summary jury trials and imposing consequences on parties who choose to disregard the results. Second, we should allocate a greater percentage of judicial resources to discovery management through the routine appointment of special masters to …

Restraining Lawyers: From “Cases” To “Tasks”, Morris A. Ratner

Fordham Law Review

These regulatory and market mechanisms for restraining lawyers share a common thread but differ in their purposes, efficacy, and fairness. Despite these differences, the growing intensity of their focus, and their possible amplification of each other, suggest the possibility of the emergence of new professional norms that call on litigators to think more deeply and inclusively about value from the perspective of court and client when making litigation choices.

Closure Provisions In Mdl Settlements, D. Theodore Rave

Fordham Law Review

Closure has value in mass litigation. Defendants often insist on it as a condition of settlement, and plaintiffs who can deliver it may be able to command a premium. But in multidistrict litigation (MDL), which currently makes up over one-third of the federal docket, closure depends on individual claimants deciding to participate in a global settlement. Accordingly, MDL settlement designers often include terms designed to encourage claimants to opt in to the settlement and discourage them from continuing to litigate. Some of these terms have been criticized as unduly coercive and as benefiting the negotiating parties—the defendant and the lead …

Due Process Without Judicial Process?: Antiadversarialism In American Legal Culture, Norman W. Spaulding

Fordham Law Review

For decades now, American scholars of procedure and legal ethics have remarked upon the death of the jury trial. If jury trial is not in fact dead as an institution for the resolution of disputes, it is certainly “vanishing.” Even in complex litigation, courts tend to facilitate nonadjudicative resolutions—providing sites for aggregation, selection of counsel, fact gathering, and finality (via issue and claim preclusion)—rather than trial on the merits in any conventional sense of the term. In some high-stakes criminal cases and a fraction of civil cases, jury trial will surely continue well into the twenty-first century. Wall-to-wall media coverage …

Busting Up The Pretrial Industry, Andrew S. Pollis

Fordham Law Review

While some argue that “[r]eturning to a trial model would be a significant step toward fulfilling the traditional expectations for the federal courts,” that step backward is unlikely to occur. But I agree that fixes are in order, and I offer two. First, we should consider requiring at least some parties to engage in early settlement evaluation—ideally before extensive discovery gets underway—by submitting cases to summary jury trials and imposing consequences on parties who choose to disregard the results. Second, we should allocate a greater percentage of judicial resources to discovery management through the routine appointment of special masters to …

Restraining Lawyers: From “Cases” To “Tasks”, Morris A. Ratner

Fordham Law Review

These regulatory and market mechanisms for restraining lawyers share a common thread but differ in their purposes, efficacy, and fairness. Despite these differences, the growing intensity of their focus, and their possible amplification of each other, suggest the possibility of the emergence of new professional norms that call on litigators to think more deeply and inclusively about value from the perspective of court and client when making litigation choices.

Erie Step Zero, Alexander A. Reinert

Fordham Law Review

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: …

Closure Provisions In Mdl Settlements, D. Theodore Rave

Fordham Law Review

Closure has value in mass litigation. Defendants often insist on it as a condition of settlement, and plaintiffs who can deliver it may be able to command a premium. But in multidistrict litigation (MDL), which currently makes up over one-third of the federal docket, closure depends on individual claimants deciding to participate in a global settlement. Accordingly, MDL settlement designers often include terms designed to encourage claimants to opt in to the settlement and discourage them from continuing to litigate. Some of these terms have been criticized as unduly coercive and as benefiting the negotiating parties—the defendant and the lead …

Due Process Without Judicial Process?: Antiadversarialism In American Legal Culture, Norman W. Spaulding

Fordham Law Review

For decades now, American scholars of procedure and legal ethics have remarked upon the death of the jury trial. If jury trial is not in fact dead as an institution for the resolution of disputes, it is certainly “vanishing.” Even in complex litigation, courts tend to facilitate nonadjudicative resolutions—providing sites for aggregation, selection of counsel, fact gathering, and finality (via issue and claim preclusion)—rather than trial on the merits in any conventional sense of the term. In some high-stakes criminal cases and a fraction of civil cases, jury trial will surely continue well into the twenty-first century. Wall-to-wall media coverage …

Ad Hoc Procedure, Pamela K. Bookman, David L. Noll

Faculty Scholarship

Ad hoc procedure” seems like an oxymoron. A traditional model of the civil justice system depicts courts deciding cases using impartial procedures that are defined in advance of specific disputes. This model reflects a process-based account of the rule of law in which the process through which laws are made helps to ensure that lawmakers act in the public interest. Judgments produced using procedures promulgated in advance of specific disputes are legitimate because they are the product of fair rules of play designed in a manner that is the opposite of ad hoc.

Actual litigation frequently reveals the inadequacy of …

Typology Of Aggregate Settlements, A , Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

It is odd, considering how often lawyers engage in aggregate settlements, that no one seems able to explain what "aggregate settlement" means. It is one of the most important yet least defined terms in complex litigation. Lawyers and judges talk about aggregate settlements as though it were obvious what the term signifies and as though it describes a single thing. In fact, group settlements in multiparty litigation vary significantly. And they vary in ways that make it difficult to determine whether certain deals ought to be understood as collective settlements or simply as groups of individual settlements bundled together. This …

Coattail Class Actions: Reflections On Microsoft, Tobacco, And The Mixing Of Public And Private Lawyering In Mass Litigation , Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

Ask anyone who follows legal news to name the two biggest litigation news stories in the United States at the start of the twenty-first century, and they will answer without blinking: Microsoft and tobacco. The Microsoft litigation, they will tell you, claims a place in the pantheon of antitrust landmarks that includes Standard Oil, Alcoa, and AT&T. The tobacco litigation is the most massive in a string of mass torts including asbestos, Dalkon Shield, and breast implants; it is arguably the most important public health matter ever litigated. Microsoft and tobacco each fit so well and so interestingly in their …

Foreword Symposium: Multidistrict Litigation And Aggregation Alternatives: Foreword, Howard M. Erichson

Faculty Scholarship

On March 30, 2001, a somewhat surprising discussion took place among two judges, two plaintiffs' lawyers, a defense lawyer, and a legal scholar. The occasion was a Seton Hall Law Review symposium on federal multidistrict litigation ("MDL"). What made the discussion surprising was not what the participants said of their experiences with MDL, but rather the extent to which they discussed things other than MDL. Much of the discussion addressed state court litigation beyond the reach of MDL, and federal court aggregation techniques other than MDL. While the presenters left no doubt that MDL retains a central role in the …