Law Commons^™

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 …

Allegedly “Biased,” “Intimidating,” And “Incompetent” State Court Judges And The Questionable Removal Of State Law Class Actions To Purportedly “Impartial” And “Competent” Federal Courts—A Historical Perspective And An Empirical Analysis Of Class Action Dispositions In Federal And State Courts, 1925-2011, Willy E. Rice

Faculty Articles

Judges as well as members of plaintiffs’ and defense bars agree: a class action is a superior, efficient, and inexpensive procedural tool to litigate disputes that present similar questions of fact and law. To be sure, corporations and insurers have a long history of filing successful class actions against each other in state courts. Yet those corporate entities convinced Congress to embrace an uncommon view: continuing to allow allegedly “hostile” and “biased” state judges and juries to hear and decide everyday consumers’ “purely substantive state law class actions” is unfair and inefficient. Responding to the plea, Congress enacted the Class …

The Cauldron Boils: Supplemental Jurisdiction, Amount In Controversy, And Diversity Of Citizenship Class Actions, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

Ultimately, it does not matter how or even whether the Supreme Court resolves the issue. The fact that we still do not know whether Zahn lives ­after thirteen years-demonstrates that legislation concerning the jurisdiction of the federal courts should not be the hurried product of a few drafters whose work is not circulated for broader discussion. Ours is a world in which any change to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure-no matter how minor-must be circulated and subjected to public comment and review. Yet the jurisdiction of the federal courts can be changed in relative secrecy and haste. Congress committed …

Rule 3, The Enabling Act, And Statutes Of Limitations, David A. Dittfurth

Faculty Articles

Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to be a model of simplicity and clarity. It describes the process for commencement of a civil action, and in defining “commencement” appears to provide guidance on how to begin an action which complies with a statute of limitations.

As a result of the decision in Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., that appearance is misleading regarding state statutes of limitations applicable in federal court actions brought on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. There, the Court made reference only to state statutes of limitations, and expressly avoided deciding the …