Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Judicial Administrative Power, Jonathan Petkun, Joseph Schottenfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Article III of the Constitution confines the “judicial Power of the United States” to the adjudication of “cases” and “controversies.” In practice, however, federal judges exercise control over, and spend their scarce time on, a wide range of activities that traverse far beyond any individual adjudication. Typically classified as a form of “judicial administration,” these activities span everything from promulgating the rules of the various federal courts to overseeing federal pretrial detention services or choosing federal public defenders.

This Article describes how judges became involved in these nonadjudicatory Article III activities, clarifies the activities’ relationship to Article III adjudication, and …

Notice Pleading’S Quiet Return, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court announced two significant civil procedure decisions – Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Together, Iqbal and Twombly marked a new approach to pleading in federal courts. No longer would courts apply the forgiving notice pleading standard, in force since the 1938 adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In its place, the Court introduced plausibility pleading, inviting district courts to apply their “judicial experience and common sense” to decide whether a claim was “plausible.” Commentators expressed alarm, predicting that the new standard …

In Defense Of Civil Juries, Peter W. Culley

Maine Law Review

Criticism of the civil jury system is nothing new. In fact, virtually since its inception the civil jury has been embroiled in controversy. Typically critics argue that: the jury cannot handle the complex or technical case; there is great expense and delay attendant to trial by jury; jury adjudication is of low quality; verdicts rendered by different juries in cases involving similar facts often appear inconsistent. Recently, Justice Donald Alexander of the Maine Superior Court stated that "[t]he civil jury system has outlived its usefulness." In support of his basic premise that the civil jury system is merely an historical …

Restraining The Prosecutor: Restrictions On Threatening Prosecution For Civil Ends, James A. Trowbridge

Maine Law Review

Prosecutors in some cases agree to dismiss criminal charges, admit a defendant to a diversion program, or enter a nolle prosequi in exchange for the defendant signing a waiver of any civil claims against law enforcement agents, governments, or private persons. The practice of a prosecutor bargaining for the release of law enforcement personnel or others from civil liability raises serious questions concerning the independence of the prosecutorial function, the relationship of prosecutors to other legal institutions, and the application of rules of professional responsibility. Generally, courts have been critical of these arrangements. The Model Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) …

Tuttle V. Raymond: Drawing The Line On Punitive Damages, Elting H. Smith

Maine Law Review

In Tuttle v. Raymond, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, reconsidered the appropriateness of Maine's common law doctrine of punitive damages. Under the doctrine, punitive or exemplary awards are permitted in tort actions, at the factfinder's discretion, for the purpose of deterring wrongful conduct. Prior to Tuttle, a plaintiff raised a claim for such an award if he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was guilty of intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless, or grossly negligent behavior. Because of the doctrine's uncertain justification and vague standards, however, punitive damages had become the subject of …

Beyond The Equity Power Of Bankruptcy Courts: Toxic Tort Liabilities In Chapter 11 Cases, Kaighn Smith

Maine Law Review

In 1982, three asbestos product manufacturers filed voluntary petitions for business reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The common reason for each of these filings was that tort liabilities threatened the financial survival of the corporation. Never, in the history of United States bankruptcy law, had any business sought bankruptcy relief for such a reason. By 1985, two more firms, another asbestos product manufacturer and a pharmaceutical company, filed Chapter 11 petitions for the same reason. The torts of these "debtors" in bankruptcy are similar; they extend from the manufacture and wide-spread marketing of products that …

Affirmative Judicial Case Management: A Viable Solution To The Toxic Product Litigation Crisis, Patrick Francis Harrigan

Maine Law Review

With increasing frequency, federal courts throughout the nation have confronted a multiplicity of "toxic tort" claims, claims for relief arising from chronic and latent illnesses or diseases allegedly caused by toxic substances. Toxic substances are substances whose manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal presents or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to a person's health or to the environment. Because many of these unreasonable health risks are caused by consumer and industrial products, many toxic tort claims are actually "toxic product" claims. Examples of toxic product claims include those arising from the use, exposure to, or consumption of chemicals …

Not-So-Special Solicitude, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

In a high-profile case last term about state standing to sue in federal court, Justice Gorsuch deemed it “hard not to wonder why” the majority said “nothing about ‘special solicitude.’” The silence was indeed surprising, for in a landmark decision several years earlier, the Supreme Court had declared that states were “entitled to special solicitude”—presumably meaning some sort of preferential treatment—“in [the] standing analysis.” And since then, commentators had depicted the concept as permitting opportunistic states to wage ideological crusades in courts across the country, especially through administrative-law attacks on federal-government defendants.

But what if “special solicitude” is not so …

Egbert V. Boule And The Dwindling Bivens Doctrine, Luke Smith

MC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Leveling The Playing Field For Racial Justice In The Civil Litigation System, Suzette M. Malveaux

Scholarly Articles

Under the weight of the #MeToo movement and severe public pressure, Congress stopped this unseemly practice for a subset of Americans—those challenging sexual assault and harassment. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFASASHA), passed in 2022, gives these victims a choice of whether to challenge sexual misconduct in court or in arbitration. Such ubiquitous take-it-or-leave-it contracts are now unenforceable, giving this narrow swath of the population the power to decide for themselves how to challenge such outrageous wrongdoing. In Expanding the Ban on Forced Arbitration, Michael Z. Green argues that race discrimination claims should …

Cy Pres Silliness: Remedies That Do Not Remediate The Harm, Phil Pillari

Northwestern University Law Review

Class actions play an important role in civil litigation, but they suffer from a serious problem. No matter how many plaintiffs are in the class, the individual claims are often miniscule, which can make distributing the inevitable settlement futile. Very few people make a claim, and it often costs more to mail the check than the check is worth. To solve this problem, Steven Shepherd proposed importing the cy pres doctrine (a trusts and estates device that allows courts to rewrite an unenforceable trust) into the class actions context. Shepherd’s framework instructs courts to devise the next best alternative for …

A Feedback Loop Of Exclusion: The Treatment Of Bilingualism In The Courtroom, Simone Stover

Northwestern University Law Review

In the 1991 case Hernandez v. New York, the United States Supreme Court characterized bilingualism as a race-neutral trait that can be used to exclude individuals from jury service. This Note proceeds by demonstrating how the current state of the law undermines the interests of bilingual individuals and then proposes a solution. Focusing specifically on Hispanic bilingual Spanish speakers, this Note first employs Professor Jennifer Lackey’s multi-directional credibility model to show that bilingual Spanish speakers suffer injustice in the courtroom due to both credibility deficits and excesses. Following this analysis, it proposes a possible solution to this issue: an …

An Updated Practical Guide To Taking And Defending Depositions, Gary S. Gildin

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The deposition offers a singular opportunity to handcuff the deponent to an irreversible script. Consequently, both the attorney taking the deposition and defending counsel must prepare for and conduct the deposition with equal if not greater care than the trial.

Traditionally, lawyers have used the deposition to discover facts relating to the legal elements and the credibility, perception, and recollection of the witness. However, recent breakthroughs in neuroscience as to how the brain makes decisions have revealed a different genre of evidence that will drive how the trier of fact will decide the case. Today an attorney taking a deposition …

The Liv Golf V. Pga Tour Antitrust Case As A Case Study In Federal Civil Procedure, Michael J. Dube

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This Article uses LIV Golf Inc. v. PGA Tour, Inc., a sophisticated and headline-grabbing antitrust matter, as a means of instantiating federal civil procedure concepts. The first Part of this Article addresses the unsuccessful motion for a temporary restraining order that in many ways shaped how the litigation proceeded. The second Part examines the dance that is discovery through a focus on a drawn-out dispute regarding a single interrogatory. The final Part drills down on a more novel discovery dispute that began the path towards settlement, namely whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 and related common-law doctrine …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Federal Courts Professor Derek T. Muller In Support Of Defendant-Appellant, Daniel F. Mummolo, Christopher G. Michel, Rachel G. Frank, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 23-7173
David O'Connell v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
1:20-cv-01365-JMC ∙ Honorable Jia M. Cobb

From the Introduction and Summary of Argument

The threshold question in this appeal is whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear it. The answer turns on the proper construction of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which grants this Court jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts.” In keeping with the provision’s text and history, both the Supreme Court and this Court have long understood Section 1291 to …

Lawyerless Litigants, Filing Fees, Transaction Costs, And The Federal Courts: Learning From Scales, Judith Resnik, Henry Wu, Jenn Dikler, David T. Wong, Romina Lilollari, Claire Stobb, Elizabeth Beling, Avital Fried, Anna Selbrede, Jack Sollows, Mikael Tessema, Julia Udell

Northwestern University Law Review

Two Latin phrases describing litigants—pro se (for oneself) and in forma pauperis (IFP, as a poor person)—prompt this inquiry into the relationship between self-representation and requests for filing fee waivers. We sketch the governing legal principles for people seeking relief in the federal courts, the sources of income of the federal judiciary, the differing regimes to which Congress has subjected incarcerated and nonincarcerated people filing civil lawsuits, and analyses enabled by SCALES, a newly available database that coded 2016 and 2017 federal court docket sheets. This Essay’s account of what can be learned and of the data gaps demonstrates the …

University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review, University Of The District Of Columbia Law Review

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Modern Energizer Bunny - Hopping Into The Nuclear Energy Revolution: The Tenth Circuit's Analysis In New Mexico Ex Rel. Balderas V. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Jack A. Mansur

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Houston, We Have A Problem: The D.C. Circuit Closes Pathway To National Judicial Review In Sierra Club V. Environmental Protection Agency, Alison O. Moyer

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Trying Out The Electronic Case Management System In The Uae And Its Compliance With Fundamental Judicial Guarantees, Abdulla A. Alkhatib

An-Najah University Journal for Research - B (Humanities)

This study considers the Electronic Case Management System (ECMS) and the challenges it faces in achieving basic litigation guarantees, according to the legislation of the UAE, and comparing them with the practices followed by the judicial authorities. The importance of the study lies in the fact that electronic justice has replaced the traditional justice system, where all procedures from registering the case, submitting memoranda, conducting trials, issuing judgments, appealing, and implementing them are carried out through it remotely. This raised the question about the extent to which ECMS provides basic litigation guarantees, specifically the principles of equality, confrontation, defense, and …

Unintended Consequences: The New Test For Interlocutory Mandatory Injunctions, Jeff Berryman

Brooklyn Law Review

Interlocutory mandatory injunctions can be an important remedy during the pendency of a trial. With its decision in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp, the Supreme Court of Canada revised its test for an interlocutory mandatory injunction, holding that it should require a higher threshold and be therefore harder to obtain than an interlocutory prohibitive injunction. This higher threshold requires that the applicant demonstrate a strong prima facie case that it will succeed at trial based on law and evidence. This change adds uncertainty to the process, ultimately complicating and adding costs to litigation.

Nonparty Litigation Holds: Clear To Implement. Complex To Lift., Alexis Bianco-Burrill

Brooklyn Law Review

Legal holds have long been used by parties, and nonparties alike, as a fundamental tool to preserve information that could be needed in litigation. There are a breadth of statutes, case law, and scholarly work clarifying when a party has the duty to preserve documents and therefore issues legal holds under federal law, as well as when nonparties share this same duty. Although the question of when to issue a legal hold has a clear answer, the problem of when a nonparty can lift a litigation hold is much more complex. Often, nonparties who have been requested to preserve documents …

The Next Thirty Years: Developments In Mandamus Jurisprudence In The Last Thirty Years And Why The General Rule That Mandamus Is Unavailable To Review The Denial Of Summary Judgment Is Inconsistent With Modern Mandamus Jurisprudence Under The In Re Prudential Balancing Test, Timothy Delabar

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The "Inherent Powers" Of Multidistrict Litigation Courts, Lynn A. Baker

Pepperdine Law Review

Mass tort multidistrict litigations (MDLs) involving thousands of claims present the judge with unique management issues. The MDL statute, in its scant two pages enacted in 1968, offers no guidance for the proper handling of these issues, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure speak to these issues only very generally through Rules 16 and 42. Thus, MDL judges have often invoked their “inherent powers” as authority when they take certain actions with significant implications for the parties and their attorneys. Not surprisingly, several of these actions and their underlying justifications have been controversial: (a) appointing lead attorneys; (b) ordering …

Secrets, Secrets Are No Fun: Supreme Court Of Georgia Expands The Possible Remedies For A Confidential Breach Of Fiduciary Relationship And Analyzed Certified Questions Of Law, Olivia M. Sanders

Mercer Law Review

The crux of the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in King v. King revolved around one theme: the consequences for a party that fails to disclose information in a confidential and fiduciary relationship. In King, the plaintiff’s difficult circumstances began over three decades earlier when his father died in a plane crash and a wrongful death suit was filed on his behalf. Though the plaintiff became entitled to settlement funds as a result of the wrongful death suit, the plaintiff never received the funds and filed a suit accordingly, alleging that the defendant breached his fiduciary duties and converted the …

Piercing The Procedural Veil Of Qualified Immunity: From The Guardians Of Civil Rights To The Guardians Of States’ Rights, Leo Yu

Washington and Lee Law Review

Scholars have found that, despite a split on the burden of proof for qualified immunity, courts agreed that defendants must bear the burden of pleading to raise qualified immunity as a defense. This Article is the first to find that, over the past decade, this established consensus has been disrupted, culminating in a fresh circuit split.

This Article investigates twelve Federal Courts of Appeals’ qualified immunity rulings on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and finds that six have required plaintiffs to anticipate defendants’ qualified immunity arguments at the pleading stage, essentially treating the negating of qualified immunity as an element of …

The Perilous Focus Shift From The Rule Of Law To Appellate Efficiency, Elizabeth Lee Thompson

Connecticut Law Review

We should be wary of reforms that are attractive in terms of saving time but have unnoticed substantive effects. . . . The great end for which courts are created is not efficiency. It is justice.

Charles Alan Wright (1966)¹

Some of the most significant—and by some estimations the most controversial— transformations of the federal appellate system occurred in the late 1960s and 1970s. Many of the effects are still felt today, including the shift from oral argument for all appeals and the view that study and disposition of each appeal were exclusively judicial tasks, to the adoption of …

Housing Court: A Balancing Act, Todd Wilcher

UMKC Law Review

This article provides a general description of the Kansas City Municipal Court's Housing Court - its origin, jurisdiction, and process-and discusses the broader themes and competing interests at issue in its cases. Because detached single-family home cases take up most of the space on the dockets, the single-family home theme is a major thread in the fabric of this Article. At the same time, however-in the broader context of the municipal environment-every building, structure and open land is subject to building, zoning, and maintenance regulations. These regulations are pervasive in our modern society, and ensuring they are applied in a …

Legislating Courts, Michael Pollack

UMKC Law Review

Judges are ordinarily thought of as deciders of a specific sort: people who apply the rule of law to resolve disagreements between the parties appearing before them. But in every state, judges do far more. They are charged by state statutory or constitutional law with a range of quasi-administrative, quasi-legislative, and quasi-executive law enforcement functions. These roles raise a number of theoretical and practical concerns. In many states, though, legislatures have gone even further. They have either wholly delegated significant policymaking power to state court judges or have sat idle while those judges have assumed the mantle of functions that …

The Future Of State Standing And The Controversial Massachusetts V. Epa Decision: United States V. Texas And Biden V. Nebraska Provide Mixed Signals, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

An important question is under what circumstances should states have standing to sue the federal government. Should states have greater standing rights than private parties to protect states’ unique interests, or should all parties in federal courts have the same standing rights? In its 2007 decision Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court in a divided five-to-four decision stated that states are entitled to “special solicitude” for Article III standing in suits in federal courts, but a dissenting opinion argued that states ought to have the same standing rights as other parties in federal court. While Massachusetts initially appeared to …