Civil Procedure Commons^™

Concepcion's Pro-Defendant Biasing Of The Arbitration Process: The Class Counsel Solution, David Korn, David Rosenberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

By mandating that numerous plaintiffs litigate their common question claims separately in individual arbitrations rather than jointly in class action arbitrations, the Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion entrenched a potent structural and systemic bias in favor of defendants. The bias arises from the parties' divergent stakes in the outcome of the common question litigation in individual arbitrations: each plaintiff will only invest to maximize the value of his or her own claim, but the defendant has an incentive to protect its entire exposure and thus will have a classwide incentive to invest more in contesting common questions. …

Marco V. Doherty: Forcing An Agency To Play By Its Own Rules: Administrative Res Judicata, Matt Bove

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Buying A Judicial Seat For Appeal: Caperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., Is Right Out Of A John Grisham Novel, Richard Gillespie

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The End Of An Era: The Supreme Court (Finally) Butts Out Of Punitive Damages For Good, Jim Gash

Florida Law Review

Part I of this Article chronicles and summarizes the development of the Supreme Court’s punitive damages jurisprudence. Over the past two decades, the Court has increasingly constitutionalized various aspects of punitive damages jurisprudence, using both procedural and substantive due process rationales. A set of three “guideposts” has emerged that courts are to use in determining whether a punitive damages award runs afoul of constitutional guarantees.

Part II outlines the multiple punishments problem that is currently facing courts throughout the country and provides a brief overview of the various failed attempts and current proposals to remedy this problem.

Part III provides …

Has The Right To A Jury Trial As Guaranteed Under The Seventh Amendment Become Outdated In Complex Civil Litigation?, Georgiana G. Rodiger

Pepperdine Law Review

Recognizing the continually increasing burden placed on the jury in complex litigation cases, the author undertakes an extensive study of the origins of jury trials in the United States and England. Various arguments in favor of eliminating jury trials in complex litigation are discussed, along with a possible constitutional method of limiting the scope of the seventh amendment guarantee. The author also studies the case of Ross v. Bernhardt where the Supreme Court outlined a seldom used three- pronged test to determine whether or not a jury trial is constitutionally appropriate. The comment concludes that the factors in favor of …

Punitive Damages And The Drunken Driver, William C. Cooper

Pepperdine Law Review

A discussion of the history and theory of punitive damages which results in advocating their application in a drunk driving context after giving due consideration to the pros and cons of such a sanction. An analysis of case law will reveal the underlying rationale that has motivated certain jurisdictions in applying this severe penal approach in an attempt to deter and curtail the senseless destruction on our nation's highways as well as exploring the impetus behind those other jurisdictions that do not utilize the remedy of punitive damages. The culminating focus is on California's position in this regard. Finally, there …

A Reappraisal Of General And Limited Jurisdiction In California , Thomas Kallay

Pepperdine Law Review

The ability of a California court to assert jurisdiction over business enterprises currently depends upon how the court characterizes the nature and extent of the business's activities within the state. If the in-state business activities of a particular concern are extensive, California courts will exercise all-encompassing general jurisdiction over the cause of action, but if the activities are insufficient to warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction, which has been invariably the case, the court will then turn to a consideration of limited jurisdiction, which jurisdiction depends upon the quality and nature of the business's activities in the forum in relation …

Sequencing The Issues For Judicial Decisionmaking: Limitations From Jurisdictional Primacy And Intrasuit Preclusion, Kevin M. Clermont

Florida Law Review

This Article treats the order of decision on multiple issues in a single case. That order can be very important, with a lot at stake for the court, society, and parties. Generally speaking, although the parties can control which issues they put before a judge, the judge gets to choose the decisional sequence in light of those various interests.

The law sees fit to put few limits on the judge’s power to sequence. The few limits are, in fact, quite narrow in application, and even narrower if properly understood. The Steel Co.-Ruhrgas rule generally requires a federal court to decide …

Mediation Confidentiality: For California Litigants, Why Should Mediation Confidentiality Be A Function Of The Court In Which The Litigation Is Pending?, Rebecca Callahan

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The article presents information on mediation confidentiality. Confidentiality protections are available to California litigants depending on whether the litigants are in state or federal court. It depicts that California courts provide protection only when disputants utilize mediation for resolving their differences and also focuses on the evidence exclusion provision in which the privilege held by participant acts as bar to compel discovery without everyone's consent.

Dissent: Supreme Court Reform: Diversion Instead Of Division, Gerald F. Uelmen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Analysis Of A First Amendment Challenge To Rent-A-Judge Proceedings , Perry L. Glantz

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sanction Provision Of The New California Civil Discovery Act, Section 2023: Will It Make A Difference Or Is It Just Another "Paper Tiger"? , Timothy Michael Donovan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Mandatory Summary Jury Trial In Federal Court: Foundationally Flawed, Nina Jill Spiegel

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rule 408: Maintaining The Sheild For Negotiation In Federal And Bankruptcy Courts, Leslie T. Gladstone

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Using Court-Annexed Arbitration To Reduce Litigant Costs And To Increase The Pace Of Litigation, John L. Barkai, Gene Kassebaum

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

States Escape Liability For Copyright Infringement?, Michelle V. Francis

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Restraints On The Doctrine Of Punitive Damages, Theodore B. Olson, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trial Jurors And Variables Influencing Why They Return The Verdicts They Do - A Guide For Practicing And Future Trial Attorneys, Mitchell J. Frank, Osvaldo F. Morera

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Using The Scientific Method In The Law: Examining State Interlocutory Appeals Procedures That Would Improve Uniformity, Efficiency, And Fairness In The Federal Appellate System, Hannah M. Smith

Cleveland State Law Review

[T}he current use of the federal interlocutory appeal process operates much like an appeal-less system. A pretrial motion is filed, the interlocutory order is given, and the petition for interlocutory review is usually denied. Thus, the case continues. It may continue into settlement negotiations or go to trial where the losing party files an appeal. That final appeal could find that the lower court erred, rendering that trial meritless. In reaching any of those stages, the adversely affected party more than likely devoted unnecessary time, resources, and finances in the case. Additionally, the parties are often unable to predict success …

Voir Dire In The #Lol Society: Jury Selection Needs Drastic Updates To Remain Relevant In The Digital Age, 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 459 (2013), Zachary Mesenbourg

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Reappearing Judge, Steven S. Gensler, Lee Rosenthal

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

The Stricter Standard: An Empirical Assessment Of Daubert’S Effect On Civil Defendants, Andrew Jurs, Scott Devito

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Exhuming The “Diversity Explanation” Of The Eleventh Amendment, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

This essay, in a symposium honoring the scholarship of Ninth Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher, explores the “diversity explanation” of the Eleventh Amendment that he had advanced in articles while he was a UC-Berkeley law professor. That explanation, contrary to existing Supreme Court doctrine that heavily constitutionalizes state sovereign immunity from suits by private parties and foreign countries, would view the Eleventh Amendment as having solely to do with federal courts’ constitutional jurisdiction and nothing to do with states’ sovereign immunity. The essay notes the cleanness of interpretation provided by the diversity explanation, in contrast with the convoluted nature of …

(In)Competence In Appellate And District Court Brief Writing On Rule 12 And 56 Motions, Scott A. Moss

Publications

No abstract provided.

Understanding The Obstacles To The Recognition And Enforcement Of U.S. Judgments Abroad, Samuel P. Baumgartner

Akron Law Faculty Publications

Questions of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments have entered center stage. Recent empirical work suggests that there has been a marked increase in the frequency with which U.S. courts are asked to recognize and enforce foreign judgments. The U.S. litigation surrounding a multibillion-dollar Ecuadoran judgment against Chevron indicates that the stakes in some of these cases can be high indeed. This rising importance of questions of judgments recognition has not been lost on lawmakers. In November of 2011, the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee held hearings on whether to …

Where Corporations Are: Why Casual Visits To New York Are Bad For Business, Jeanne L. Schroeder, David G. Carlson

Articles

In this article, we examine the recent case of Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Falor (2010), from the New York Court of Appeals. In this case, New York’s highest court held that LLCs are “present” in New York for jurisdictional purposes when the president of the LLC has submitted to New York jurisdiction in an unrelated law suit against him personally, and where the president came to New York for a deposition in that action. This, we claim, was unconstitutional. In addition, the New York Court of Appeals pronounced itself obliged by the United States Constitution to change the …

Building A Taxonomy Of Litigation: Clusters Of Causes Of Action In Federal Complaints, Christina L. Boyd, David A. Hoffman, Zoran Obradovic, Kosta Ristovski

Scholarship@WashULaw

This project empirically explores civil litigation from its inception by examining the content of civil complaints. We utilize spectral cluster analysis on a newly compiled federal district court dataset of causes of action in complaints to illustrate the relationship of legal claims to one another, the broader composition of lawsuits in trial courts, and the breadth of pleading in individual complaints. Our results shed light not only on the networks of legal theories in civil litigation but also on how lawsuits are classified and the strategies that plaintiffs and their attorneys employ when commencing litigation. This approach permits us to …

Litigating Toward Settlement, Christina L. Boyd, David A. Hoffman

Scholarship@WashULaw

Civil litigation typically ends when the parties compromise. While existing theories of settlement primarily focus on information exchange, we instead examine how motion practice, especially non-discovery motions, can substantially shape parties’ knowledge about their cases and thereby influence the timing of settlement. Using docket-level federal district court data, we find a number of strong effects regarding how motions can influence this process, including that the filing of a motion significantly speeds case settlement, that granted motions are more immediately critical to settlement timing than motions denied, and that plaintiff victories have a stronger effect than defendant victories. These results provide …

Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf

Faculty Scholarship

Concurrent jurisdiction frequently allows attorneys the choice of filing a complaint in state or federal court. State courts presumptively have jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal law. At times, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. Similarly, federal courts have authority over state claims because of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction. Many claims are rooted in both state and federal law, such as antitrust, civil rights, environmental, consumer protection, and civil liberties. Confronted with the choice of state or federal court, the attorney must evaluate a variety of factors before deciding in which court to file.

In a …

Brief Of Professor Stephen E. Sachs As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

The parties in this case defend two sides of a many-sided circuit split. This brief argues that a third view is correct.

If a contract requires suit in a particular forum, and the plaintiff sues somewhere else, how may the defendant raise the issue? Petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company suggests a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406, on the theory that the contract renders venue improper. Respondent J-Crew Management, Inc. contends that venue remains proper, and that the defendant¹s only remedy is a transfer motion under § 1404.

Both sides are wrong. Forum-selection …