Law Commons^™

Helfstein V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 91 (Dec. 3, 2015), Heather Caliguire

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that the six-month deadline to set aside a voluntary dismissal or settlement agreement found within NRCP 60(b) could not be extended, despite an allegation of fraud.

Joinder Of Unrelated Infringers As Defendants In Patent Litigation Under The Jurisprudence Of The United States District Court For Eastern District Of Texas—A Critical Review, Ping-Hsun Chen

Ping-Hsun Chen

On September 16, 2011, the American patent system started a new era because of the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). 35 U.S.C. § 299 was enacted to limit district court’s power to permit joinder of unrelated infringers as defendants in a single lawsuit. Before that, district courts apply Rule 20 of the Federal Civil Procedure. The Eastern District of Texas had permitted joinder only because the same patent was infringed. By introducing § 299, Congress intended to abrogate such approach. Later, the Federal Circuit in In re EMC limited the practice of Rule 20 and required a …

Joinder Of Unrelated Infringers As Defendants In Patent Litigation Under The Jurisprudence Of The United States District Court For Eastern District Of Texas—A Critical Review, Ping-Hsun Chen

Ping-Hsun Chen

On September 16, 2011, the American patent system started a new era because of the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). 35 U.S.C. § 299 was enacted to limit district court’s power to permit joinder of unrelated infringers as defendants in a single lawsuit. Before that, district courts apply Rule 20 of the Federal Civil Procedure. The Eastern District of Texas had permitted joinder only because the same patent was infringed. By introducing § 299, Congress intended to abrogate such approach. Later, the Federal Circuit in In re EMC limited the practice of Rule 20 and required a …

7 Things You Need To Know About: The American Court System, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

These presentation slides cover the 7 most important things you need to know about the American Court System. They cover: personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, removal, change of venue, and the steps in bringing a lawsuit.

D.R. Horton, Inc. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 86 (October 29, 2015), Brandonn Grossman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Nevada Supreme Court considered a Petitioner home builder’s petition for writ relief and appeal of a district court order granting Respondent HOA’s ex parte motion for a stay and enlargement of time for service pursuant to NRS 40.647(2)(b). Ruling on Petitioner’s two writ petitions, the Court held the district court’s grant of a stay was not in error and the NRCP 41(e) five-year limitation period was tolled under the Boren exception to NRCP 41(e). Accordingly, the Court denied both writ petitions.

Joanna T. V. Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Sep 24, 2015), Audra Powell

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court considered whether NRCP 4(i)’s 120 day requirement for service of a summons applied to cases filed under NRS § 432B, for protection of children from neglect and abuse. The court held that the 120 day requirement does not apply to cases filed under 432B and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the juvenile court to dismiss an abuse-and-neglect petition on that premise.

Dismissing Provenance: The Use Of Procedural Defenses To Bar Claims In Nazi-Looted Art And Securitized Mortgage Litigation, Christian J. Bromley

Christian J Bromley

The litigation surrounding an estimated 650,000 works looted by the Nazis in the Second World War and the millions of securitized mortgages foreclosed in the wake of the Great Recession converge on a fundamental legal principle: who really holds rightful title? Seemingly worlds apart, these separate yet remarkably similar forms of property challenge the American judiciary to allocate property rights between adversaries steadfast in their contention of rightful ownership. The legal fulcrum in this allocation often rests not on the equity or righteousness of either parties’ claim—whether museum versus heir or bank versus former homeowner—but instead on procedural defenses that …

Sanders V. Sears-Page, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 50, Scott Lundy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court erred in deciding not to strike an empaneled juror whose background implied bias, but who promised he could remain impartial. Moreover, the Court held the district court erred in allowing challenges for cause while the juror was present, and by allowing newly discovered evidence to be entered into evidence on the final day of trial.

Enforcing Judgments Across State And National Boundaries: Inbound Foreign Judgments And Outbound Texas Judgments, James P. George

James P. George

Litigation between parties in different states has been common since the success of the railroads and telegraph in the late nineteenth century. International litigation--suits involving parties from different countries--is now routine. In spite of that routine, lawyers continue to face enforcement obstacles when suing a defendant from another state or country. Similarly, defendants perceive unfairness from judgments rendered far away. Those enforcement obstacles and instances of unfairness have been lessened by uniform enforcement statutes and a few treaties, but the rules remain elusive.

This Article provides a cursory outline for most foreign-judgment enforcement issues that Texas attorneys will face. It …

Conflict Of Laws, James P. George, Susan T. Phillips

Susan T. Phillips

States' and nations' laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This Article reviews Texas conflict cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey-period from November 1, 2011 through October 31, 2013. The Article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts; intrastate issues, such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue; and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together …

Some Aspects Of Joinder Of Causes, Edward Q. Carr

Edward R. Carr

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Nutton V. Sunset Station, Inc., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (June 11, 2015), Joseph Meissner

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined the proper relationship between NRCP 15(a) and NRCP 16(b), and explored whether a proposed amendment under NRCP 15(a) can be deemed “futile” because it is unsupported by, or contradicts, factual evidence produced during discovery.

Motion And Brief Of Civil Procedure Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Alexander A. Reinert

Amicus Briefs

Amici curiae are scholars with expertise in civil procedure who have an interest in the proper interpretation of federal pleading standards following Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Amici file this brief because the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case cannot be squared with proper pleading doctrine and goes far beyond any reasonable interpretation of this Court’s holdings in Twombly and Iqbal. Certiorari is warranted to correct the Ninth Circuit’s application of these cases and to clarify the rampant confusion …

An Appeal To Common Sense: Why "Unappealable" District Court Decisions Should Be Subject To Appellate Review, Matthew D. Heins

Northwestern University Law Review

28 U.S.C. § 1291 vests jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal to hear “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” Various circuit courts have, however, determined that they may only hear appeals of final “judicial” decisions, and that they do not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of United States district courts if those decisions are “administrative.” Circuit courts have been loath to explicitly define the dividing line between the two classes of case, and have frequently invoked the potential availability of mandamus review as a means of placating …

The Dynamic Allocation Of Burden Doctrine As A Mitigation Of The Undesirable Effects Of Iqbal’S Pleading Standard, Nicolás J. Frías Ossandón

Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

No abstract provided.

We Do Not Recognise Anything 'Private': Public Interest And Private Law Under The Socialist Legal Tradition And Beyond, Rafal Manko

Dr. Rafał Mańko

In line with Lenin’s famous quote that Bolsheviks “do not recognise anything private” and that private law must be permeated with public interest, the private (civil) law of the USSR and other countries of the Soviet bloc, including Poland underwent reform aimed at furthering the public interest at the expense of the private one. Specific legal institutions were introduced for this purpose, in the form of legal innovations, loosely, if at all, based on pre-existing Western models. In the Polish case, such legal institutions were usually legal transfers, imported from the Soviet Union. When the socio-economic and political system changed …

Realm Of The Coin: Bitcoin And Civil Procedure, Max I. Raskin

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Bitcoin is a private currency issued and governed by a global network of computers. Thus far, the majority of legal cases involving bitcoin have been criminal prosecutions or disputes between bitcoin companies. If bitcoin or some iteration continues to grow, courts will need to craft rules of civil jurisdiction. This paper is the first attempt to apply existing rules of civil procedure to bitcoin. Bitcoins ought be treated as tangible property for the purposes of jurisdiction. Although they have an incorporeal form, as a practical matter, courts are able to site bitcoins to a single location and thus should do …

Teaching Legal Frameworks, David Herring

Faculty Book Display Case

This book chapter describes the process of developing legal frameworks. Legal frameworks are a critical element in basic legal analysis. They set out the questions courts ask when addressing a particular issue. Law students need to learn the applicable framework before proceeding with any type of rigorous legal analysis. This chapter also discusses an approach to teaching law students the skill of constructing legal frameworks, providing three concrete examples in the areas of Civil Procedure and Constitutional Law.

Supplemental Standing For Severability, Erik R. Zimmerman

Northwestern University Law Review

The Supreme Court has recently insisted that plaintiffs must have standing for every claim that they raise. But this claim-specific approach to standing is at odds with established practice in several contexts, including rulings on the severability of statutes. Courts often permit plaintiffs to claim that statutory provisions should be invalidated pursuant to severability doctrine, without requiring that they have standing for those claims. This Article argues that existing practice for severability is a form of “supplemental standing.” Supplemental standing is analogous to supplemental jurisdiction. It allows a plaintiff with standing for one claim to raise related claims, even if …

Atlantic Marine And The Future Of Party Preference, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

In Atlantic Marine, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a prelitigation forum-selection agreement does not make an otherwise proper venue improper. Prominent civil procedure scholars have questioned the wisdom and accuracy of this holding. This paper is derived from my presentation at the symposium on Atlantic Marine held at UC Hastings College of the Law on September 19, 2014. In this paper, I defend Atlantic Marine as essentially correct based on what I have elsewhere called the principle of party subordinance. I go further, however, to argue that the principle underlying Atlantic Marine could affect the widespread private market for …

Pleading And The Litigation Marketplace, Scott Dodson

Scott Dodson

In this essay derived from a lecture delivered at the University of Genoa in 2013, I situate the New Pleading regime of Twombly and Iqbal in the American litigation marketplace. Courts and parties are undoubtedly affected by New Pleading. But, as rational actors, they also are responsive to it. Their responsive behaviors both mitigate the expected effects of New Pleading and cause unintended effects. Assessing New Pleading requires understanding and consideration of these market forces and reactive implications.

Procedural Triage, Matthew Lawrence

Matthew B. Lawrence