Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil Procedure (21)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (12)
- United States. Supreme Court (10)
- Pleadings (8)
- Jurisdiction (7)
-
- Federal Courts (5)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (4)
- Civil procedure (4)
- Judicial Process (4)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (3)
- Criminal Law (3)
- Federal courts (3)
- Federalism (3)
- Ashcroft v. Igbal (129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)) (2)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (550 U.S. 544 (2007)) (2)
- Civil Rights (2)
- Class action lawsuits (2)
- Conflict of Laws (2)
- Conley v. Gibson 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (2)
- Courts (2)
- Discovery (2)
- Discovery (Law) (2)
- Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (304 U.S. 64 (1938)) (2)
- Joinder of Parties (2)
- Litigation (2)
- Personal Jurisdiction (2)
- Rules Enabling Act of 1934 (2)
- State Courts (2)
- United States Constitution (2)
- Venues (Law) (2)
- Publication Year
Articles 1 - 30 of 54
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rule 4(K), Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction, And The Civil Rules Advisory Committee: Lessons From Attempted Reform, A. Benjamin Spencer
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 …
Professor Aaron-Andrew Bruhl: Reflections On The Fall 2020 Semester, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Professor Aaron-Andrew Bruhl: Reflections On The Fall 2020 Semester, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Law School Personal Reflections on COVID-19
No abstract provided.
Out Of The Quandary: Personal Jurisdiction Over Absent Class Member Claims Explained, A. Benjamin Spencer
Out Of The Quandary: Personal Jurisdiction Over Absent Class Member Claims Explained, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, litigants and lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether a federal court must be able to exercise personal jurisdiction with respect to each of the claims asserted by absent class members in a class action and, if so, what standard governs that jurisdictional determination. This issue is rapidly coming to a head and is poised for inevitable resolution by the Supreme Court in the near future; multiple circuit courts have heard appeals from district courts that have reached varying conclusions on …
The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Territorial Reach Of Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Federal courts exercise the sovereign authority of the United States when they assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. As components of the national sovereign, federal courts' maximum territorial reach is determined by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which permits jurisdiction over persons with sufficient minimum contacts with the United States and over property located therein. Why, then, are federal courts limited to the territorial reach of the states in which they sit when they exercise personal jurisdiction in most cases? There is no constitutional or statutory mandate that so constrains the federal judicial reach. Rather, it is by operation …
Substance, Procedure, And The Rules Enabling Act, A. Benjamin Spencer
Substance, Procedure, And The Rules Enabling Act, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court promulgates rules of procedure (based on the proposals of subordinate rulemaking committees) pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act. This statute empowers the Court to prescribe "general rules of practice and procedure," with the caveat that "[s]uch rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right." The Act is supposed to stand as a real constraint on what rules or alterations thereof the subordinate rulemaking bodies will consider or propose, as well as on how the Court will choose to interpret any given codified Federal Rule. However, the Act has not-to date-been employed to invalidate a promulgated …
Pleading Conditions Of The Mind Under Rule 9(B): Repairing The Damage Wrought By Iqbal, A. Benjamin Spencer
Pleading Conditions Of The Mind Under Rule 9(B): Repairing The Damage Wrought By Iqbal, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
In 2009, the Supreme Court decided Ashcroft v. Iqbal, in which it pronounced-among other things- that the second sentence of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure-which permits allegations of malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of the mind to be alleged "generally" -requires adherence to the plausibility pleading· standard it had devised for Rule 8(a)(2) in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. That is, to plead such allegations sufficiently, one must offer sufficient facts to render the condition-of-the-mind allegation plausible. This rewriting of the standard imposed by Rule 9(b)'s second sentence-which came only veritable moments after the Court …
The Erie Doctrine: A Flowchart, Michael S. Green
The Erie Doctrine: A Flowchart, Michael S. Green
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Faculty Publications
This Article concerns an aspect of Article III standing that has played a role in many of the highest-profile controversies of recent years, including litigation over the Affordable Care Act, immigration policy, and climate change. Although the federal courts constantly emphasize the importance of ensuring that only proper plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court and other federal courts have developed a significant exception to the usual requirement of standing. This exception holds that a court entertaining a multiple-plaintiff case may dispense with inquiring into the standing of each plaintiff as long as the court finds that one …
Spencer: Chief Justice John Roberts And The Loss Of Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer
Spencer: Chief Justice John Roberts And The Loss Of Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
The Forms Had A Function: Rule 84 And The Appendix Of Forms As Guardians Of The Liberal Ethos In Civil Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Forms Had A Function: Rule 84 And The Appendix Of Forms As Guardians Of The Liberal Ethos In Civil Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
The Appendix of Forms that, from the time of their adoption have accom - panied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are a seeming anachronism, more appropriate for a much simpler time that hardly characterizes modem day federal civil litigation. Perhaps the form for a negligence complaint is the most striking in this regard, offering only that at a certain time and place "the defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against the plaintiff," causing harm.2 Not only does such a complaint fail to typify the negligence claims one might find on any federal docket, but it also fails to reflect …
Rationalizing Cost Allocation In Civil Discovery, A. Benjamin Spencer
Rationalizing Cost Allocation In Civil Discovery, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
A movement is afoot to revise the longstanding presumption that in civil litigation the producing party bears the cost of production in response to discovery requests. An amendment to Rule 26( c )-which took effect in December 2015-makes explicit courts' authority to issue protective orders that shift discovery costs away from producing parties. But this authority is not new; what is new is what may be coming next-an undoing of the producer-pays presumption itself. Thus far, the sentiment to move in this direction has been slightly below the radar, advocated by probusiness interest groups and advocates before the Advisory Committee …
Allison Orr Larsen On Intensely Empirical Amicus Briefs And Amicus Opportunism At The Supreme Court, Allison Orr Larsen
Allison Orr Larsen On Intensely Empirical Amicus Briefs And Amicus Opportunism At The Supreme Court, Allison Orr Larsen
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Pleading And Access To Civil Justice: A Response To Twiqbal Apologists, A. Benjamin Spencer
Pleading And Access To Civil Justice: A Response To Twiqbal Apologists, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Professor Stephen Yeazell once wrote, ''A society based on the rule of law fails in one of its central premises if substantial parts of the population lack access to law enforcement institutions."" One apparent threat to access to justice in recent years has been the erosion of notice pleading in the federal courts in favor of a plausibility-pleading system that screens out potentially meritorious claims that fail to offer sufficient specificity and support at the pleading stage. But some have questioned whether this purported threat is more perceived than real. Indeed, this doctrinal shift has been defended in several ways …
The Twin Aims Of Erie, Michael S. Green
The Twin Aims Of Erie, Michael S. Green
Faculty Publications
We all remember the twin aims of the Erie rule from first-year civil procedure. A federal court sitting in diversity must use forum state law if it is necessary to avoid 'forum shopping" and the "inequitable administration of the laws." This Article offers a reading of the twin aims and a systematic analysis of their proper role in federal and state court. I argue that the twin aims apply in diversity cases not because they protect state interests, but because they serve the federal purposes standing behind the diversity statute. So understood, they are about separation of powers, not federalism. …
Class Actions, Heightened Commonality, And Declining Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer
Class Actions, Heightened Commonality, And Declining Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
A prerequisite to being certified as a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that there are "questions of law or fact common to the class. " Although this "commonality" requirement had heretofore been regarded as something that was easily satisfied, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes the Supreme Court gave the requirement new vitality by reading into it an obligation to identify among the class a common injury and common questions that are "central" to the dispute. Not only is such a reading of Rule 23 's commonality requirement unsupported by the text of …
Rethinking Extraordinary Circumstances, Scott Dodson
Rethinking Extraordinary Circumstances, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
This short essay for Northwestern University Law Review's Colloquy seeks to rationalize the "extraordinary circumstances" doctrine of Rue 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The usual rule is that a movant for Rule 60(b)(6) relief must show extraordinary circumstances for that relief. Under the Ackermann rule (so named after the Supreme Court decision that spawned it), courts have held that any extraordinary circumstances cannot have been caused by the movant's own litigation conduct. I argue that the Ackermann rule, at its broadest, would be unjust to those litigants most in need of Rule 60(b)(6) relief and would overserve …
The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Although the Constitution vests the "Judicial Power" of the United States in the Supreme Court and in any inferior courts that Congress establishes, both Congress and the Court have long propounded the traditional view that the inferior courts may be deprived cognizance of some of the cases and controversies that fall within that power. Is this view fully consonant with the history and text of Article III? One possible reading of those sources suggests that the Constitution vests the full Judicial Power of the United States in the inferior federal courts, directly extending to them jurisdiction over matters that Congress …
Responding To The Loss Of An En Banc Quorum (Update: Prawfsblawg Gets Results!?), Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
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
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
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
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
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
At&T V. Concepcion And Adherence To Minority Views, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
The Preservation Obligation: Regulating And Sanctioning Pre-Litigation Spoliation In Federal Court, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Preservation Obligation: Regulating And Sanctioning Pre-Litigation Spoliation In Federal Court, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
The issue of discovery misconduct, specifically as it pertains to the prelitigation duty to preserve and sanctions for spoliation, has garnered much attention in the wake of decisions by two prominent jurists whose voices carry great weight in this area. In Pension Committee of University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities LLC, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin-of the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC2 e-discovery casespenned a scholarly and thorough opinion setting forth her views regarding the triggering of the duty to preserve potentially relevant information pending litigation and the standards for determining the appropriate sanctions for various breaches …
Global Civil Procedure Trends In The Twenty-First Century, Scott Dodson
Global Civil Procedure Trends In The Twenty-First Century, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
Recent scholarship in comparative civil procedure has identified
“American exceptionalism” as a way to describe practices which set the
United States apart from most of the world, particularly the civil law world.
This Article focuses on two areas of “exceptionalism”: pleading standards
and the role of judges. Specifically, pleading requirements are considerably
less strict in the United States compared to other countries. Additionally,
U.S. judges are less active in conducting litigation than their counterparts
elsewhere, especially judges in the civil law tradition. This Article traces
some modern trends toward convergence between the United States and
the rest of the world. …
Erie’S Suppressed Premise, Michael S. Green
Erie’S Suppressed Premise, Michael S. Green
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Justice Souter And The Civil Rules, Scott Dodson
Justice Souter And The Civil Rules, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
Justice Souter’s recent retirement from the Court after nearly twenty years presents a unique opportunity to comment on his legacy. No doubt others will eulogize or castigate him for his membership in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey troika, but there is much more to the man and his jurisprudence. Indeed, the danger is that Justice Souter will be pigeonholed into one opinion, an opinion that he wrote early in his Supreme Court career, to the detriment of understanding the complex justice that he was. And what it finds is a justice deeply committed to the fair treatment of the litigants …
Iqbal And The Slide Toward Restrictive Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer
Iqbal And The Slide Toward Restrictive Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
Last term, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court affirmed its commitment to more stringent pleading standards in the ordinary federal civil case. Although the decision is not a watershed, since it merely underscores the substantial changes to pleading doctrine wrought in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, Iqbal is disconcerting for at least two reasons. First, the Court treated Iqbal 's factual allegations in a manner that further erodes the assumption-of-truth rule that has been the cornerstone of modern federal civil pleading practice. The result is an approach to pleading that is governed by a subjective, malleable standard that permits …
Federal Pleading And State Presuit Discovery, Scott Dodson
Federal Pleading And State Presuit Discovery, Scott Dodson
Faculty Publications
This Article explores the role that state presuit discovery could play in rectifying the information imbalance caused by Twombly and Iqbal - when a plaintiff in federal court requires information in the hands (or minds) of defendants or third parties in order to properly plead her claim, but such information is not discoverable unless the claim can survive a motion to dismiss. First, this Article provides an account of the development of federal pleading standards from before Twombly through their current post-Iqbal state. Second, this Article describes the effects of the post-Iqbal federal pleading standards and highlights the harsh results …
Trivia From The Supreme Court Order List, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Trivia From The Supreme Court Order List, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl
Popular Media
No abstract provided.