Law Commons^™

Determining The Proper Pleading Standard Under The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Of 1995 After In Re Silicon Graphics , Erin Brady

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rescuing Expedited Discovery From The Commodity Futures Trading Commission & Returning It To Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(D)(1): Using A Doctrine's Forgotten History To Achieve Legitimacy, Jesse N. Panoff, Esq.

Golden Gate University Law Review

For over a decade, judicial decisions have “authorized” the CFTC to conduct expedited discovery irrespective of 26(d)(1)’s structure and text. Instead, courts typically allow discovery because either: (i) “good cause” exists, or (ii) for no articulated reason at all. Consider that the so-called Good-Cause Test merely proclaims, “[g]ood cause exists for the plaintiff [CFTC] to conduct expedited discovery . . . .” Hence, judicial decisions have developed the doctrine in ways that are attenuated from 26(d)(1). The overall result is if the Commission asks for accelerated discovery, then courts will grant such relief. This is somewhat unsurprising because the very …

How Equity Conquered Common Law: The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure In Historical Perspective, Stephen Subrin

Stephen N. Subrin

Part I of this Article first looks at the major components of common law and equity procedure, and then examines the domination of an equity mentality in the Federal Rules. Part II explores the American procedural experience before the twentieth century, and demonstrates how David Dudley Field and his 1848 New York Code were tied to a common law procedural outlook. Part III concentrates on Roscoe Pound (who initiated the twentieth century procedural reform effort), Thomas Shelton (who led the American Bar Association Enabling Act Movement), and Charles Clark (the major draftsman of the Federal Rules). Through understanding these men …

Fishing Expeditions Allowed: The Historical Background Of The 1938 Federal Discovery Rules, Stephen Subrin

Stephen N. Subrin

Prior to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Federal Rules"), discovery in civil cases in federal court was severly limited. The Federal Rules discovery provisions dramatically increased the potential for discovery. Authorized by the Rules Enabling Act of 1934 ("Enabling Act"), the Federal Rules became law in 1938. The Enabling Act was preceded by a twenty-three year battle, spearheaded primarily by a committee of the American Bar Association. During the Enabling Act debate, discovery was largely ignored. Attitudes about discovery changed significantly between 1932 and 1946. This paper addresses the questions of how and why the change occurred, what reservations …

De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan

Michigan Law Review

Playing off the strict requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction, plaintiffs can structure their suits to prevent removal to federal court. A common way to preclude removability is to join a nondiverse party. Although plaintiffs have a great deal of flexibility, they may include only those parties that have a stake in the lawsuit. Put another way, a court will not permit a plaintiff to join a party to a lawsuit when that party is being joined solely to prevent removal. The most useful tool federal courts employ to prevent this form of jurisdictional manipulation is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure …

Mcintyre In Context: A Very Personal Perspective, Arthur R. Miller

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Discovery Stays, Gideon Mark

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In federal civil litigation, unless a discretionary stay is granted, discovery often proceeds while motions to dismiss are pending. Plaintiffs with non-meritorious cases can compel defendants to spend massively on electronic discovery before courts ever rule on such motions. Defendants who are unable or unwilling to incur the huge up-front expense of electronic discovery may be forced to settle non-meritorious claims. To address multiple electronic discovery issues, Congress amended the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2006 and the Federal Rules of Evidence in 2008. However, the amendments failed to significantly reduce costs and failed to address the critical issue …

Plausibility Beyond The Complaint, Joseph A. Seiner

William & Mary Law Review

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court announced a new plausibility standard for a plaintiff’s allegations. The decisions may have even broader implications, however, as many federal district courts have already applied this pleading standard to a defendant’s affirmative defenses. This Article makes sense of Twombly and Iqbal in the context of the affirmative defense.

This Article addresses the two possible readings of Twombly and Iqbal: first, that the decisions are limited to a plaintiff’s civil complaint, and second, that a defendant must also comply with the Supreme Court’s plausibility standard by pleading enough …

Judges! Stop Deferring To Class-Action Lawyers, Brian Wolfman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

I represent a national non-profit consumer rights organization, as an amicus, in a federal appeal challenging a district court’s approval of a class-action settlement of claims under the federal Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA). My client maintains that the district court erred in finding that the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” which is the standard for class-action settlement approval under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, we argue that the district court committed a reversible legal error when it deferred to the class-action lawyers’ recommendation to approve the settlement because, in those lawyers’ view, it was fair, …

Cooperation-What Is It And Why Do It?, David J. Waxse

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Litigation is a method of resolving disputes that is too costly and time consuming for most parties involved. As a Federal Magistrate Judge involved in case management on a day-to-day basis, I often see evidence of this. I also participated in the 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation held at Duke Law School and sponsored by the Federal Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. The conference explored “the current costs of civil litigation in Federal Court, particularly discovery, and discuss[ed] possible solutions.” As part of the conference, the Federal Judicial Center presented4its research findings on its study …

Using Contract Terms To Get Ahead Of Prospective Ediscovery Costs And Burdens In Commercial Litigation, Jay Brudz, Jonathan M. Redgrave

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

During the course of the twentieth century, American and international businesses reacted to the increasing costs and uncertainties of the American civil legal system by trying to create certainty through contractual provisions wherever possible. In particular, businesses developed contractual provisions that set forth procedural boundaries to potential disputes for the purpose of providing greater certainty as to where the dispute would be heard, who would hear it, and what laws would apply. For example, choice of venue and choice of law provisions became commonplace. In addition, clauses dictating the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures were also widely adopted. Substantively, …

Technologies-That-Must-Not-Be-Named: Understanding And Implementing Advanced Search Technologies In E-Discovery, Jacob Tingen

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were created to promote the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Unfortunately, in the world of e-discovery, case determinations are often anything but speedy and inexpensive. The manual review process is notoriously one of the most expensive parts of litigation. Beyond expense, the time and effort required to carry out large-scale manual review places an immense burden on parties, nearly destroying the possibility of assessing the merits of early settlement before expensive review has already been carried out.

An Updated Quantitative Study Of Iqbal's Impact On 12(B)(6) Motions, Patricia Hatamayar Moore

University of Richmond Law Review

The effect of Ashcroft v. Iqbal on pleadingstandardsandbehavior is a source of significant legal debate. This article serves as a follow-up to Professor Moore's 2010 empirical study on Iqbal's effect on courts' rulings on motions to dismiss complaints for failure to state a claim under Rule12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Professor Moore's previous study found a statistically significant increase in the likelihood that a court grants a 12(b)(6) motion with leave to amend following Iqbal. In this article, Professor Moore updates and increases the pool of cases in her database. The updated data reveals several empirical trends. …

Forum Non Conveniens On Appeal: The Case For Interlocutory Review, Cassandra Burke Robertson

Faculty Publications

Court-access doctrine in transnational litigation is plagued by uncertainty. Without a national court-access policy, federal courts often reach inconsistent forum non conveniens decisions even on very similar facts. This inconsistency is compounded by the district court’s largely unreviewable discretion in making those forum-access decisions, which precludes effective resolution of these conflicts through the appellate process. As a result, the law underlying the forum non conveniens doctrine remains unsettled, creating systemic inefficiency both in litigation procedure and in regulatory policy.

This article, prepared for the symposium “Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Civil Procedure,” argues that expanding appellate review …

The Federal Rules Of Civil Settlement, J. Maria Glover

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were originally based upon a straightforward model of adjudication: Resolve the merits of cases at trial and use pretrial procedures to facilitate accurate trial outcomes. Though appealing in principle, this model has little relevance today. As is now well known, the endpoint around which the Federal Rules were structured — trial — virtually never occurs. Today, the vast majority of civil cases terminate in settlement. This Article is the first to argue that the current litigation process needs a new regime of civil procedure for the world of settlement

This Article begins by providing …

Ripple Effects: The Unintended Change To Jurisdictional Pleading Standards After Iqbal, James E. Von Der Heydt

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note describes a little-observed ripple effect of the new pleading standard announced in Iqbal, the antiterrorism case whose holding swept broadly and changed the ground rules for considering allegations in so-called 12(b)(6) motions for all civil cases. This Note examines the interplay between the Twombly/Iqbal doctrine and federal courts’ practical approach to subject-matter jurisdiction. Part II describes the background jurisprudence on subject-matter jurisdiction, including the sharp line the Supreme Court has consistently re-drawn between claims lacking merit and those lacking jurisdictional basis, from Bell v. Hood through Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. The consistent theme of this jurisprudence …

King Arthur Confronts Twiqy Pleading, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

Rule 25 of the 1912 Equity Rules stated that "it shall be sufficient that a bill in equity shall contain ... a short and simple statement of the ultimate facts upon which the plaintiff asks relief, omitting any mere statement of evidence." Not mere conclusions, not evidence, but "ultimate facts." And, at that, not facts "constituting the cause of action." The bare words of Rule 25 could mean something quite different to a twenty-first-century audience than they meant to a twentieth-century audience. But they may serve as a foil to the challenge framed by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic …

Twombly’S Seismic Disturbances, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

The Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), has had a seismic impact on federal civil litigation. We all thought the notice pleading concept introduced un­der the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure had substantially eased the plaintiff's burden at the pleading stage. The Supreme Court in Twombly said "yes, but," and emphasized that notice pleading was never intended to dispense entirely with the need to plead facts demonstrating a right to relief. In short, facts matter: Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a statement of circumstances, events, and …