Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Civil Procedure; Rule 83(a)(1); 12(b)(6) (1)
- Civil procedure; service of process; removal; federal rules of civil procedure (1)
- Class actions; representative litigation; state-border argument (1)
- Criminal Procedure; Civil Procedure; Appellate Procedure; Prisoner Litigation; Prison Mailbox Rule; Mailbox Rule; Access to Justice (1)
- Law; Civil Procedure: Rule 23; Class Actions (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
The Prison Mailbox Rule: Can Represented Incarcerated Litigants Benefit?, Nico Corti
The Prison Mailbox Rule: Can Represented Incarcerated Litigants Benefit?, Nico Corti
Fordham Law Review
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court created the “Prison Mailbox Rule,” which assesses the timeliness of incarcerated litigants’ filings based on the day they hand them to prison authorities. The rule reduces the structural barriers to filing while imprisoned. Although Houston v. Lack highlighted the unique challenges that pro se incarcerated litigants face, the Prison Mailbox Rule’s subsequent federal codifications did not limit its benefits to pro se litigants, despite purportedly “reflecting” the Houston decision. Federal circuit courts of appeal today are split on whether represented people in prison can benefit from the Prison Mailbox Rule, leaving both litigants and …
Second Service: 28 U.S.C. § 1448 And State Court Service Of Process After Removal, Leigh Forsyth
Second Service: 28 U.S.C. § 1448 And State Court Service Of Process After Removal, Leigh Forsyth
Fordham Law Review
28 U.S.C. § 1448 governs the requirements of process after removal, providing that when defendants are not completely or perfectly served prior to removal, plaintiffs may complete such process or service, or new process may be issued in the same manner as in cases originally filed in the district court. There remains an open question as to whether state court service issued prior to removal, but served after removal, retains its efficacy in federal court under § 1448. This open question has led to divergent interpretations among district courts, with differing consequences. As of this Note’s publication, at least twenty-seven …
The Anomalous Issue Class, Veniamin Privalov
The Anomalous Issue Class, Veniamin Privalov
Fordham Law Review Online
The modern class action is a litigation superstar. The device’s potential for opening the courthouse doors to “small people,” holding big business accountable, and enacting sweeping reform is second to none. In recent years, however, the star has waned. Judicial hostility has made it harder for plaintiffs to certify a class while making it easier for defendants to avoid class actionsentirely. Certifying a mass tort class has become nearly impossible. Plaintiff lawyers’ creative attempts to work around these roadblocks have been shut down one after another by the Supreme Court. It is in this scorched mass litigation landscape that commentators …
Court Mandated Technology-Assisted Review In E-Discovery: Changes In Proportionality, Cost-Shifting, And Spoliation, Graham Streich
Court Mandated Technology-Assisted Review In E-Discovery: Changes In Proportionality, Cost-Shifting, And Spoliation, Graham Streich
Fordham Law Review Online
Burgeoning advanced technology-assisted review (TAR) methods challenge justifications for requesting parties’ burdens and litigant cooperation in e-discovery. Increasingly accurate and accessible TAR introduces novel issues in e-discovery, including determining the proportionality of discovery requests and managing information in spoliation cases. This Essay recommends reconsidering the judiciary’s role in e-discovery in light of new technology and argues that courts, particularly lower courts, need expert technical guidance to adequately address the issues e-discovery presents.
Recording Virtual Justice: Cameras In The Digital Courtroom, Matthew Bultman
Recording Virtual Justice: Cameras In The Digital Courtroom, Matthew Bultman
Fordham Law Review Online
With in-person hearings limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, many courts pivoted to proceedings held over the telephone or on virtual platforms like Zoom. It appears these proceedings are here to stay, with various benefits having been realized from remote access to the courts. Remote hearings have, however, given rise to constitutional questions. This Essay focuses on one emerging issue: courts’ ability to prohibit the press and the public from recording or disseminating these proceedings. While the constitutionality of recording and broadcasting restrictions inside the real-world courtroom is established, little consideration was given to the extension of these rules to the …
The Federal Rules Of Pro Se Procedure, Andrew Hammond
The Federal Rules Of Pro Se Procedure, Andrew Hammond
Fordham Law Review
In recent years, more than a quarter of all federal civil cases were filed by people without legal representation. Yet, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure refer to pro se litigants only once, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not considered in over a decade the question of what process is due to unrepresented civil litigants. Many judicial opinions in these cases go unpublished, and many are never appealed. Instead, the task of developing rules for pro se parties has taken place inside our federal district courts, whose piecemeal and largely unnoticed local rulemaking governs thousands of such litigants each …
Class Action Boundaries, Daniel Wilf-Townsend
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 …
Reply Or Perish: The Federal Rule 83(A)(1) Problem With Local Rules Requiring Responses To 12(B)(6) Motions, Alexis Pawlowski
Reply Or Perish: The Federal Rule 83(A)(1) Problem With Local Rules Requiring Responses To 12(B)(6) Motions, Alexis Pawlowski
Fordham Law Review
The federal courts of appeals are divided over whether district courts have the legal authority to grant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss solely for lack of reply pursuant to local rules requiring responses to motions. Seven circuits hold that district courts must always consider the merits of an unopposed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. However, the First and D.C. Circuits allow district courts to dismiss Rule 12(b)(6) motions for lack of response pursuant to local rules in certain circumstances. The majority view is that the use of these local rules in the First and D.C. Circuits …