Law 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 …

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. …

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 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 …

Machine Learning And The New Civil Procedure, Zoe Niesel

Faculty Articles

There is an increasing emphasis in the legal academy, the media, and the popular consciousness on how artificial intelligence and machine learning will change the foundations of legal practice. In concert with these discussions, a critical question needs to be explored-As computer programming learns to adjust itself without explicit human involvement, does machine learning impact the procedural practice of law? Civil procedure, while sensitive to technology, has been slow to adapt to change. As such, this Article will explore the impact that machine learning will have on procedural jurisprudence in two significant areas-service of process and personal jurisdiction.

The Article …

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 …

The Anti-Plaintiff Pending Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure And The Pro-Defendant Composition Of The Federal Rulemaking Committees, Patricia W. Moore

Faculty Articles

For decades, the Civil Rules Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) has garnered passage of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that have incrementally narrowed discovery in the service of the Advisory Committee's stated effort to combat the alleged "cost and delay" of civil litigation. More of the same are on their way to Congress now. In the classical David-and-Goliath lawsuit brought by an individual person against an institutional defendant, these pending amendments hurt David and help Goliath more than any previous round of amendments to the FRCP. The individual versus institution case, not coincidentally, is the most common …

The Civil Caseload Of The Federal District Courts, Patricia W. Moore

Faculty Articles

This Article responds to changes proposed by Congress and the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to restrict civil lawsuits by reforming procedure. It argues that while these changes are purported to be based on empirical studies, there is no reference to actual government statistics about whether the civil caseload has grown, whether the median disposition time has increased, or whether the most prevalent types of civil cases have changed. Based on statistics published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, this Article shows that the civil docket has actually stagnated, not exploded. It first looks at trends in …

The Efficiency Norm, Brooke Coleman

Faculty Articles

Efficient is not synonymous with inexpensive. Rather, it refers to an optimal tradeoff between cost and function; a system may simultaneously become both less expensive and less efficient, if the cost savings are offset by an even greater loss of productivity. Yet, this Article argues that if we conceive of the rules and doctrines governing civil procedure as a product, the Judiciary, Congress, and federal civil rulemakers have confused cheap with efficient. They have made this version of “efficiency” — what this Article calls the efficiency norm — the dominant norm of the civil litigation system. This Article argues that …

Civil-Izing Federalism, Brooke Coleman

Faculty Articles

When Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined the United States Supreme Court, most commentators predicted it would become more conservative. Indeed, many believed that the reinvigorated federalism revolution under Chief Justice Rehnquist would, if anything, become more robust under the new chief. To a large degree, those commentators were right; the Court has decided numerous hotly contested federalism cases along predictable ideological lines. But there are some important counterexamples in the Court’s federalism jurisprudence. In a list of cases about access to plaintiff-friendly state courts, the Justices seem to abandon their federalism principles. Instead, the liberal wing of the …

Abrogation Magic: The Rules Enabling Act Process, Civil Rule 84, And The Forms, Brooke Coleman

Faculty Articles

The Committee on the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure seeks to abrogate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 and its attendant Official Forms. Poof - after seventy-six years of service, the Committee will make Rule 84 and its forms disappear. This Essay argues, however, that like a magic trick, the abrogation sleight of hand is only a distraction from the truly problematic change the Committee is proposing. Abrogation of Rule 84 and the Official Forms violates the Rules Enabling Act process. The Forms are inextricably linked to the Rules; they cannot be eliminated or amended without making a change …

This Is Your Sword: Does Plaintiff Prior Conviction Evidence Affect Civil Trial Outcomes, Deirdre Bowen, Kathryn Stanchi

Faculty Articles

The conventional wisdom in law is that a prior conviction is one of the most powerful and damaging pieces of evidence that can be offered against a witness or party. In legal lore, prior convictions seriously undercut the credibility of the witness and can derail the outcome of a trial. This article suggests that may not always be true. This article details the results of an empirical study of juror decision-making that challenges the conventional wisdom about prior convictions. In our study, the prior conviction evidence did not have a direct impact on the outcome of the civil trial or …

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 …

The Vanishing Plaintiff, Brooke D. Coleman

Faculty Articles

What if restrictive procedural rules kept cases like Bakke v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., and Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse from making it past a motion to dismiss and on to the Supreme Court? A case like Bakke is well-known for its holding about the use of race in admissions policies. But imagine that Alan Bakke was never able to get his original trial court complaint past a motion to dismiss, through discovery, and on to a final, appealable judgment. While reasonable people can disagree about the merits of Bakke, it …

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 …

Lassiter V. Department Of Social Services: Why Is It Such A Lousy Case?, Brooke D. Coleman

Faculty Articles

Every year in Professor Brooke Coleman’s 1L Civil Procedure course, she introduces the subject with a collection of due process cases. The cases force students to confront the tension between procedural efficiency and fairness right out of the gate. It sets a fantastic tone for a course that is essentially all about managing that tension. One particular case, Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, really gets students’ attention. The debate about that case is inevitably a lively one. However, every year when Professor Coleman teaches it, she finds herself rejecting the case and its approach even more. In short, …

Summary Judgment: What We Think We Know Versus What We Ought To Know, Brooke D. Coleman

Faculty Articles

The twenty-fifth anniversary of the “trilogy” of summary judgment cases provides a perfect moment to reflect on what summary judgment means to our civil justice system. However, it goes without saying that summary judgment is not one of those procedural topics that has received little attention. Indeed, it is an area of procedure that has produced heated debates, plenty of press, and volumes of law review articles. So, this is not a little-studied area that only gets discussed on these landmark occasions. This leads to the following inquiry: What more can really be written about a topic that appears to …

What If?: A Study Of Seminal Cases As If Decided In A Twombly/Iqbal Regime, Brooke D. Coleman

Faculty Articles

What if, like in It’s a Wonderful Life, we were able to go back and see what life would be like without a particular legal rule? In other words, what if we could be the George Bailey of law for a day? It is through this “what if” lens that this essay tackles the already well-discussed cases of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. But, unlike the scholarship that has addressed these cases so far, this essay stakes out a completely different methodological approach. Rather than predicting what courts might do with Twombly and Iqbal going …

Disparately Seeking Jurors: Disparate Impact And The (Mis)Use Of Batson, Anna Roberts

Faculty Articles

This Article, "Disparately Seeking Jurors: Disparate Impact and the (Mis)use of Batson," uncovers a stark inequality within Equal Protection jurisprudence. On the 25th Anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky, which established a three-step test for assessing claims of purposeful discrimination in jury selection, I present the first comprehensive research on the application by the lower federal courts of Batson’s disparate impact analysis. The results are striking. Whereas the test was developed to prevent the discriminatory removal of African American jurors from the trials of African Americans, the courts now use disparate impact analysis only to …

(Re)Forming The Jury: Detection And Disinfection Of Implicit Juror Bias, Anna Roberts

Faculty Articles

This Article investigates whether one of the most intractable problems in trial procedure can be ameliorated through the use of one of the most striking discoveries in recent social science. The intractable problem is selecting a fair jury. Current doctrine fails to address the fact that jurors harbor not only explicit, or conscious, bias, but also implicit, or unconscious, bias. The discovery is the Implicit Association Test ("IAT"), an online test that aims to reveal implicit bias.

This Article conducts the first comparison of proposals that the IAT be used to address jury bias. They fall into two groups. The …

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 …

Recovering Access: Rethinking The Structure Of Federal Civil Rulemaking, Brooke Coleman

Faculty Articles

Access to the justice system, which is broadly defined in the article as the opportunity to resolve the merits of a legal claim, is declining. One source of this decline is the Civil Rules. This article examines how the institutional failings of the civil rulemaking process have allowed for the production of rules that diminish access. Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Civil Rules should facilitate the "just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution" of legal claims. While the Civil Rules Committee considers this timeworn mandate when drafting the rules, there is no agreement about how …

The Celotex Initial Burden Standard And An Opportunity To “Revivify” Rule 56, Brooke Coleman

Faculty Articles

This article provides a pragmatic review of the summary judgment process and offers a new methodological approach to critiquing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Using qualitative empirical methods to focus on the defendant's initial burden standard under the watershed case Celotex v. Catrett, the article calls on two new sets of data - a broad survey of published and unpublished district and appellate court opinions and a focused survey of district court cases from a single federal district court - to evaluate the critical responses to the case. The article finds that those who criticize the Celotex initial burden …

Summary Judgment In Florida: The Road Less Traveled, Leonard Pertnoy

Faculty Articles

This article will first explore the origins of summary judgment in the Florida courts. Next, the Holl v. Talcot standard (the "Holl standard") shall be discussed. The discussion then turns to arguments in favor of maintaining the Holl standard, including the great costs which arise by the application of the standard, and ultimately, a discussion debunking those arguments. Finally, partial summary judgment shall be discussed, introducing its potential to assist the practitioner in achieving, in part, progress towards a more predictable and useful summary judgment process.

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 …

Sexual Harassment Cases And The Law Of Evidence: A Proposed Rule, Catherine O'Neill

Faculty Articles

Federal Rule of Evidence 412 eliminates from the jury's consideration during a criminal rape trial evidence of the victim's past sexual experiences in all but a few narrowly drawn circumstances. In enacting Rule 412, Congress' primary purpose was to spare victims of rape the degrading and unwarranted intrusions into intimate details of their private lives that had formerly been common practice in the federal courts. Part I of this comment discusses the background, structure and rationale of Federal Rule of Evidence 412. Part II argues that the justifications for the enactment of Rule 412 in the context of rape also …

Acquiring In Personam Jurisdiction In Federal Question Cases: Procedural Frustration Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 4, Marilyn Berger

Faculty Articles

With the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, Congress finally attempted to provide a uniform standard for exercising personal jurisdiction in federal courts. Despite that attempt, there is currently no uniform method for acquiring personal jurisdiction in federal question cases. A contributing factor to the lack of uniformity is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. This article calls for a uniform personal jurisdiction standard in federal question cases. In so doing, it examines the three ways to acquire personal jurisdiction under Rule 4 and evaluates the adequacy of each method. Because some federal courts rely on …