Civil Procedure Commons^™

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 …

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 …

The Forum-Defendant Rule, The Mischief Rule, And Snap Removal, Howard M. Wasserman

William & Mary Law Review Online

Samuel Bray’s The Mischief Rule reconceptualizes and revitalizes that venerable canon of statutory interpretation. Bray’s new approach to the mischief rule offers a textual solution to an ongoing civil procedure puzzle—forum defendants and “snap removal.” The forum-defendant rule provides that a diversity case is not removable from state to federal court when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Snap removal occurs whena defendant removes before the forum defendant has been properly served, “snapping” the case into federal court. Three courts of appeals and a majority of district courts have endorsed this practice, concluding …

The Haves Of Procedure, Ion Meyn

William & Mary Law Review

In litigation, “haves” and “have-nots” battle over what procedures should govern. Yet, much greater hostilities have been avoided—a war between the “haves” themselves. “Criminal haves” (prosecutors) and “civil haves” (institutional players) litigate in separate territories and under different sets of rules. This is good, for them, because they have incompatible objectives. This Article contends that protecting the “haves” from each other has profoundly influenced the development of procedure in the United States.

The “haves” reap significant benefits in being insulated from each other as they seek rules responsive to their unique preferences. A “criminal have” seeks easy access to the …

Removal Without Approval? Corporate Litigative Authority To Consent To Federal Removal Where Adverse Parties Are Co-Equal Shareholder Co-Directors, James M. Mcclure

William & Mary Business Law Review

The Case of Swart v. Pawar involved a novel question of law: can a president of a corporation claim authority on behalf of that corporation to consent to federal removal in a suit against a co-equal shareholder co-director even though that president lacks board approval or explicit authority from the business’s bylaws or charter? To address this question, the parties in Swart analogized removal to suit initiation and defense. Since the federal courts hearing the case did not assess the validity of these analogical arguments or a president’s removal authority generally, this Note evaluates the analogies as well as several …

Deconstructing Juryless Fact-Finding In Civil Cases, Shaakirrah R. Sanders

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In many states, legislatures have mandated juryless fact-finding in common law–based civil cases by imposing compensatory damage caps that effectively lessen the jury’s traditional and historic role as injury valuator. The primary purpose of most caps was to reign in “excessive” civil jury verdicts, which allegedly caused “skyrocketing” medical malpractice insurance premiums and litigation costs. But no legislatively imposed cap is triggered by a preliminary finding of excessiveness. Trial judges have no authority to determine whether application of a cap is just or fair to the (often) severely injured plaintiff. Despite a shared interpretive methodology with regards to the nature …

Spencer: Chief Justice John Roberts And The Loss Of Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Specificity Or Dismissal: The Improper Extension Of Rule 9(B) To Negligent Misrepresentation As A Deprivation Of Plaintiffs’ Procedural Due Process Rights, Julie A. Cook

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Waiving The Duty To Mitigate In Commercial Leases, Jacqueline Sandler

William & Mary Business Law Review

This Note examines a largely unexplored consequence of jurisdictions adopting a default duty to mitigate for commercial leases: whether a contract provision waiving the duty should be enforced. Only a few courts across the country have addressed the waiver issue in a commercial setting. At least two different appeals courts have enforced a waiver clause and claim that public policy supports their decision. In contrast, a federal court has stated the opposite—that public policy demands waiver provisions be void. Another state has outright voided all waiver clauses by statute. Courts that have enforced waivers have asserted that commercial parties have …

Responding To The Loss Of An En Banc Quorum (Update: Prawfsblawg Gets Results!?), Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Deferring To Agency Amicus Briefs That Present New Guidance, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Waiting For Davis V. United States -- Or Not Waiting, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Did The Supreme Court Recently Exercise A Power That Had Lain Dormant For Decades?, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

At&T'S Long Game On Unconscionability, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

At&T V. Concepcion And Adherence To Minority Views, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

A Moral Rights Theory Of Private Law, Andrew S. Gold

William & Mary Law Review

Private law—the law of torts, contracts, and property—is at an interpretive impasse. The two leading conceptual theories of private law—corrective justice and civil recourse theories—both suffer from significant weaknesses. Given these concerns, private law may even seem incoherent. The problem is not insurmountable, however. This Article offers a new way to understand private law. I will argue that private law is best understood as a means for individuals to exercise their moral enforcement rights.

Moral enforcement rights exist when an individual may legitimately use coercion to force another individual to comply with his or her moral duties. Not all interpersonal …

Plausibility Pleading Employment Discrimination, Charles A. Sullivan

William & Mary Law Review

The Supreme Court’s unanimous 2002 decision in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., which took a very permissive approach to pleading discrimination claims, may or may not remain good law after Ashcroft v. Iqbal. As is well known, Iqbal took a restrictive approach to pleading generally under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and its application to employment discrimination cases could pose serious problems for plaintiffs attempting to get into federal court. In addition, there is certainly a tension between Swierkiewicz and Iqbal. This is in part because the former is a strong reaffirmation of notice pleading as it has traditionally been …

Erie’S Suppressed Premise, Michael S. Green

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Trivia From The Supreme Court Order List, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Restrictive Ethos In Civil Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Those of us who study civil procedure are familiar with the notion that federal civil procedure under the 1938 Rules was generally characterized by a "liberal ethos," meaning that it was originally designed to promote open access to the courts and to facilitate a resolution of disputes on the merits. Most of us are also aware of the fact that the reality of procedure is not always access-promoting or fixated on merits- based resolutions as a priority. Indeed, I would say that a "restrictive ethos" prevails in procedure today, with many rules being developed, interpreted, and applied in a manner …

Comparative Convergences In Pleading Standards, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

Comparative civil procedure has had little influence in American jurisprudence and commentary, in part because of American procedure's deep and widespread exceptionalism. But this may be changing, at least in certain areas. The American notice pleading standard, for example, which has long been considered exceptional, shows signs of trending toward the fact pleading models of foreign countries. Congressional experimentation with heightened pleading in statutes such as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements in Iqbal v. Ashcroft and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly suggest that American pleading jurisprudence is moving away from its traditionally exceptionalist corner …

Understanding Pleading Doctrine, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Where does pleading doctrine, at the federal level, stand today? The Supreme Court's revision of general pleading standards in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly has not left courts and litigants with a clear or precise understanding of what it takes to state a claim that can survive a motion to dismiss. Claimants are required to show "plausible entitlement to relief" by offering enough facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Translating those admonitions into predictable and consistent guidelines has proven illusory. This Article proposes a descriptive theory that explains the fundaments of contemporary pleading doctrine in …

The Challenge Of Comparative Civil Procedure, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

This Essay reviews Civil Litigation in Comparative Context (West 2007), by Oscar G. Chase, Helen Hershkoff, Linda Silberman, Yasuhei Taniguchi, Vincenzo Varano, and Adrian Zuckerman. It also identifies some areas of exceptionalist American civil procedure that recently have been converging towards global norms and argues that those convergences, if they continue, could render comparative studies particularly meaningful.

Pleading Standards After Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

On May 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and gutted the venerable language from Conley v. Gibson that every civil procedure professor and student can recite almost by heart: that “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitled him to relief.” This Essay explains how Bell Atlantic did so and discusses some of its implications for pleading claims in the future.

The Forum Defendant Rule In Arkansas, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

Section 1441(b) of the removal statute prohibits removal of a diversity case if a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the case was originally filed. The bar to removal is known as the Forum Defendant Rule. Is removal in violation of the Forum Defendant Rule a jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional defect? The characterization matters because a jurisdictional defect can be raised at any time, while a nonjurisdictional defect must be raised within a specific period of time or is waived. The Supreme Court has not resolved the characterization, but a number of circuit courts, including the Eighth Circuit, …

The Dubious Origins And Dangers Of Clawback And Quick-Peek Agreements: An Argument Against Their Codification In The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Laura Catherine Daniel

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Forcing The Issue: Activist Veterinarian Seeks Rights For Arrestees As Well As Animals, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Utilizing Statistics And Bellwether Trials In Mass Torts: What Do The Constitution And Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Permit?, R. Joseph Barton

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Traditional judicial mechanisms that preserve litigants' rights to due process and a jury trial challenge courts to provide litigants their day in court in an efficient and timely manner. This challenge is made exponentially harder where the litigation concerns tortious conduct affecting a large number of persons and giving rise to latent injury. In response to the recent increase in mass tort filings, courts have sought an alternative means of adjudication-the extrapolation of a statistically average, representative plaintiff to other plaintiffs. This Note examines the problems associated with mass tort actions and how two circuit courts of appeals have implemented …

Arbitration And Reform In Private Securities Litigation: Dealing With The Meritorious As Well As The Frivolous, Steven A. Ramirez

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presumed Frivolous: Application Of Stringent Pleading Requirements In Civil Rights Litigation, Douglas A. Blaze

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.