Law Commons^™

A Pleading Problem: Seventh Circuit Decision In Swanson V. Citibank Illustrates The Unstable State Of Federal Pleading Standards In The Post-Iqbal Era, Trisha Chokshi

Northern Illinois University Law Review

Historically, courts have been a place where individuals could obtain justice and relief for their grievances. Ordinary people have used courts to desegregate schools, protect the environment, punish corporate misconduct, and preserve fundamental liberties. Citizen access to federal courts, however, has become much more difficult in recent years in the wake of two Supreme Court decisions: Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly in 2001 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal in 2009, which raised the pleading standard a plaintiff must satisfy before her case can go to court. In civil litigation, a pleading serves as an individual’s key to the courthouse door. The …

On Removal Jurisdiction's Unanimous Consent Requirements, Adam R. Prescott

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Making Sense Of Twombly, Edward D. Cavanaugh

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Giving Notice: An Argument For Notification Of Putative Plaintiffs In Complex Litigation, Marjorie A. Silver

Marjorie A. Silver

Professor Silver advocates recognition of an inherent judicial power to send or authorize notice of pending litigation to potentially interested persons with unfiled claims. Recognizing such a judicial power is consistent with recent legal developments establishing a role for judges in expediting and managing federal litigation. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only explicitly provide for notice to potential parties in Rule 23 class action litigation, Professor Silver demonstrates that a more general judicial power to notify putative plaintiffs is consistent with the federal rules and the Constitution. She also shows that the first amendment values support a judicial …

Breaking The Transsubstantive Pleading Mold: Public Interest Environmental Litigation After Ashcroft V. Iqbal, Scott Foster

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Making Sense Of Twombly, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In May 2007, the United States Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and sent shockwaves throughout the federal civil justice system. Reversing the Second Circuit, the Court held that an antitrust complaint that alleged mere parallel behavior among rival telecommunications companies, coupled with stray averments of agreement that amounted merely to legal conclusions, failed as a matter of law to state a claim for conspiracy in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act and had been properly dismissed by the trial court. The Court then proceeded to (1) redefine the concept of notice pleading by "retiring" …

When Can Attorneys' Fees Be Recovered In An Award Enforcement Action, M. Anderson Berry, Katherine S. Ritchey, Nandini Iyer

M. Anderson Berry

Because parties do not always comply with arbitration awards, it may be necessary for the prevailing party to seek enforcement of the award in a court of law—typically in a jurisdiction where the losing party has sufficient assets. This article focuses on whether the prevailing party can recover attorneys’ fees accrued during the enforcement procedure in U.S. district court under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Four Years Later: How The 2006 Amendments To The Federal Rules Have Reshaped The E-Discovery Landscape And Are Revitalizing The Civil Justice System, Bennett B. Borden, Monica Mccarroll, Brian C. Vick, Lauren M. Wheeling

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

The 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which were enacted to address the potentially immense burden involved in the discovery of electronically-stored information (“ESI”), set in motion a process that is revitalizing the primary purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopted nearly seventy years earlier: “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” One of the principal means through which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure achieve this purpose is by allowing for the discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” The reasoning …

Rethinking Jurisdictional Discovery Under The Hague Evidence Convention, Kathleen B. Gilchrist

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

When a federal court in the United States compels the discovery of information located abroad to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the defendant, the court can apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Hague Evidence Convention. This Note argues that the approach taken by most courts--applying the balancing test formulated by the Supreme Court in Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court and favoring application of the Federal Rules--is misguided. Courts should apply the Evidence Convention more often in jurisdictional discovery disputes. They can do so under the existing legal framework with one of three holdings: …

Law In The Age Of Exabytes: Some Further Thoughts On ‘Information Inflation’ And Current Issues In E-Discovery Search, Jason R. Baron

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

In 2007, in the pages of this Journal, George L. Paul and I posed a question to the legal profession at large, to wit: can the legal system adapt to the new reality of an era of rapid inflation in the amount of electronically stored information (ESI) at issue in civil litigation? After surveying the history of technological innovation that led to an explosion of new data, we proceeded to discuss various legal strategies for success in our current inflationary epoch. These strategies included: consideration of new and emerging ways in which to think about search and information retrieval in …

In Defense Of The Substance-Procedure Dichotomy, Jennifer S. Hendricks

Publications

John Hart Ely famously observed, "We were all brought up on sophisticated talk about the fluidity of the line between substance and procedure," but for most of Erie's history, the Supreme Court has answered the question "Does this state law govern in federal court? " with a "yes" or a "no." Beginning, however, with Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, and continuing with Semtek v. Lockheed Martin and the dissenting opinion in Shady Grove v. Allstate, a shifting coalition of justices has pursued a third path. Instead of declaring state law applicable or inapplicable, they have claimed for …

Rulemaking, Litigation Culture And Reform In Federal Courts, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

Culturally based litigation practices are central to the policies of federal courts. Unlike the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, cultural based practices are neither uniform nor explicitly defined among the federal courts. These practices are specifically tailored to ensure judicial efficiency, and in turn, they heavily influence practice and procedure in federal courts. This Article examines the significance of cultural litigation practices and their influence on amending or establishing new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The author proposes that rulemaking must compliment cultural practices in order to be successful and concludes that when conflict exists between these practices and rulemaking, …

False Security: How Courts Have Improperly Rendered The Protections Of The Protective Order Illusory, Ramona L. Lampley

Faculty Articles

The protective order is perhaps one of the most useful and “taken for granted” discovery devices contemplated by the Colorado and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The purpose of a joint protective order in civil litigation is to permit the parties to produce business information without fear that the information will be disseminated publicly, and with a court order that the information be used only for purposes of the present litigation. Blanket protective orders serve the interests of a just, speedy, and less expensive determination of complex disputes by alleviating the need for and delay occasioned by extensive and repeated …

Clearing Civil Procedure Hurdles In The Quest For Justice, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.

Litigation And Democracy: Restoring A Realistic Prospect Of Trial, Stephen B. Burbank, Stephen N. Subrin

All Faculty Scholarship

In this essay we review some of the evidence confirming, and some of the reasons underlying, the phenomenon of the vanishing trial in federal civil cases and examine some of the costs of that phenomenon for democratic values, including in particular democratic values represented by the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. We discuss the Supreme Court’s recent pleading decisions in Twombly and Iqbal as examples of procedural attacks on democracy in four dimensions: (1) they put the right to jury trial in jeopardy; (2) they undercut the effectiveness of congressional statutes designed to compensate citizens for …

The Amended Attorney-Client Privilege In Oklahoma: A Misstep In The Right Direction, Robert A. Brown

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.