Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
A New Generation Of Class Action Cy Pres Remedies: Lessons From Washington State, Cecily C. Shiel
A New Generation Of Class Action Cy Pres Remedies: Lessons From Washington State, Cecily C. Shiel
Washington Law Review
The use of cy pres as a mechanism to distribute residual funds in class actions has become increasingly common and the subject of much controversy. In the class action context, cy pres is an equitable remedy used by courts to appropriate class action settlement funds remaining after all identified class parties have been compensated to the funds’ “next best use,” usually to a charity. The controversy has stemmed primarily from a lack of clear judicially enforced standards on how and when to use cy pres. In light of recent controversy, both the Federal Rules Committee, and potentially the Supreme Court, …
Revisiting Claim And Issue Preclusion In Washington, Kathleen M. Mcginnis
Revisiting Claim And Issue Preclusion In Washington, Kathleen M. Mcginnis
Washington Law Review
When it comes to the law of claim and issue preclusion, Washington courts and practitioners encounter rules and precedent that tend to be unnecessarily complicated, overly broad, and even—in some instances—simply wrong. Three decades ago, Professor Philip Trautman urged Washington courts to clarify and modernize the doctrine. A fresh look at the topic suggests that while courts have been receptive to the professor’s advice, the goal of a clear and usable body of preclusion law will require more work. Specifically, Washington courts should address three problems. First, they should simplify the test for claim preclusion, eliminating redundant and confusing elements …
Removal Jurisdiction Over Mass Actions, Mallory A. Gitt
Removal Jurisdiction Over Mass Actions, Mallory A. Gitt
Washington Law Review
The mass action provision in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 provides a federal forum for certain state court litigation that resembles class actions but otherwise could not be removed. The provision is triggered when state court plaintiffs propose a joint trial of common legal or factual issues. But defining what constitutes that triggering event has proved difficult for federal courts. They have not used a uniform framework to determine when they have subject matter jurisdiction over the purported mass action, and have lacked a common interpretation of the statutory language to begin the inquiry. That lack of coherence …