Civil Procedure Commons^™

When Staying Discovery Stays Justice: Analyzing Motions To Stay Discovery When A Motion To Dismiss Is Pending, Kevin J. Lynch

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Due to the important costs and benefits of discovery, decisions that affect the scope, timing, or availability of discovery are enormously consequential. For civil litigation in federal court, district and magistrate judges make many decisions about discovery that affect the cases before them. They decide the length and number of depositions that may be taken, compel or protect against the production of large numbers of documents and electronic data searches, serve as gatekeepers for expert witness testimony, and even decide whether the parties may take discovery at all until any motions to dismiss have been resolved. This Article focuses squarely …

A Reflection On American Justice At A Crossroads: A Public And Private Crisis, Maureen A. Weston

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

American Justice At A Crossroads: Remarks Of Thomas J. Stipanowich, Thomas J. Stipanowich

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

American Justice At A Crossroads: Remarks Of Kathleen Bryan, Kathleen Bryan

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

American Justice At A Crossroads: Opening Remarks, Kenneth Starr

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In April, 2010, a prominent group of judges, attorneys, academics, private dispute resolution professionals, and policymakers gathered to reflect upon the current state and future of the American justice system. A symposium entitled American Justice at a Crossroads: A Public and Private Crisis was held at Pepperdine University School of Law under the joint sponsorship of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR Institute). This special symposium edition of the Journal is comprised of select papers and speeches presented at that event and provide thoughtful …

Economical Litigation Agreements: The "Civil Litigation Prenup" Need, Basis, And Enforceability , Daniel B. Winslow, Alexandra Bedell-Healy

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article identifies the basis and limits of the parties' abilities to define and enforce discovery in an ex ante contract. Despite the deficiencies of litigation, the free, public dispute resolution forum of the civil justice system provides significant value in commercial disputes. That value can be used to maximum mutual advantage only if parties replace the infinite discovery permitted in conventional litigation with the finite discovery contracted in Economical Litigation Agreement (ELA) litigation. This article will help parties to understand the benefit and enforceability of the ELA.

Getting To Yes In Specialized Courts: The Unique Role Of Adr In Business Court Cases, Bejamin F. Tennille, Lee Applebaum, Anne Tucker Nees

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The assumed compatibility between ADR and specialized courts is largely unexamined. Without being able to statistically validate the motivations and preferences of individual disputants in a manner to draw generalized conclusions, this article examines the relationship between ADR and specialized business courts by looking at how the two are structurally intertwined through existing procedural rules and implementation practices. Part I of this article describes the foundational structures and concepts behind both ADR and specialized business courts, as well as the similarities and differences between them. Part II explores the existing formal structural relationship between ADR and specialized courts by examining …

Keynote Address: Civil Justice At A Crossroads , Rebecca Love Kourlis

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

I really do believe that, as your title suggests, the civil justice system is at a crossroads and that, as a result, we all have new opportunities and old responsibilities. Four years ago, concerns about skyrocketing costs, unprofessional gamesmanship, and long delays in civil litigation were the stuff of grousing and shoulder shrugs. We all had a level of fatalism or cynicism about our inability to change any of those factors. Now, that is not true. There is a window of opportunity that has opened-a convergence of various forces resulting in a willingness of decision-makers to consider change. As a …

The Disempowering Relationship Between Mediator Neutrality And Judicial Impartiality: Toward A New Mediation Ethic, Ronit Zamir

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The issue I shall discuss in this article is whether the concept of mediator neutrality advances the empowering and effective participation of parties from disadvantaged groups. Section II will deal with the relationship between the concept of neutrality in the adversarial legal process, in the mediation process, and the concept of procedural justice. I shall then present the meanings ascribed to the concept of mediator neutrality in the two prevailing models of mediation: the problem-solving model and the transformative model. The affinity between these meanings and the concept of judicial impartiality will be discussed and critiqued. Finally, I shall suggest …

Waiving Rights Goodbye: Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Agreements After Stolt-Nielsen V. Animalfeeds International , Diana M. Link, Richard A. Bales

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article first argues that to determine the enforceability of a class action waiver, courts should take a "totality of the circumstances" approach rather than adopting a bright-line rule. A set of defined factors that also allows courts to consider real-world issues facing litigants will provide a substantial framework for courts to interpret this area of the law and will lead to more consistent and well-reasoned outcomes in the future. These factors include: the probable size of each class member's individual recovery, the potential for retaliation against class members, the awareness of potential class members that their rights have been …

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, …

The Meaning Of Mcintyre, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

When certiorari was granted in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), many hoped that the Supreme Court would provide much-needed clarification to the area of personal jurisdiction. It didn’t. The Court failed to generate a majority opinion, splitting into Justice Kennedy’s four-Justice plurality, Justice Breyer’s two-Justice concurrence, and Justice Ginsburg’s three-Justice dissent.

This essay – for the Southwestern Journal of International Law’s 2012 symposium “Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Procedure” – examines how state and federal courts have been using the McIntyre decision. Some lower court opinions have mistakenly interpreted McIntyre as …

Beyond Common Sense: A Social Psychological Study Of Iqbal's Effect On Claims Of Race Discrimination, Victor D. Quintanilla

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) once operated as a notice pleading rule, requiring plaintiffs to set forth only a "short and plain" statement of their claim. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and then Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the United States Supreme Court recast Rule 8(a) into a plausibility pleading standard. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal requires federal courts, when deciding whether a complaint is plausible, to draw on their "judicial experience and common sense." Courts apply this standard …

Our Class Action Federalism: Erie And The Rules Enabling Act After Shady Grove, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The intersection of federalism and class-action litigation has been an area of significant controversy in recent years. With the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act placing more high-stakes class actions into federal court, an especially crucial question is the extent to which the Erie doctrine and the Rules Enabling Act (REA) require federal courts to follow state class-action law. The Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. begins to confront this issue, but many unanswered questions remain. Under several lines of argument that were neither made nor considered in Shady Grove, the Erie doctrine and the …

Order For The Courts: Reforming The Nollan/Dolan Threshold Inquiry For Exactions, Winfield B. Martin

Seattle University Law Review

For decades prior to 2005, Fifth Amendment regulatory takings jurisprudence languished in a state of confused neglect. Rather than articulating a clearly discernable standard for determining whether a violation of the Takings Clause had occurred, Justices rebuffed government action that seemed to amount to “an out-and-out plan of extortion” and nodded in approval when they deemed the government to have “acted diligently and in good faith” or in furtherance of a “compelling interest.” In trying to parse this imprecise thicket, scholars have characterized the Court’s approach to regulatory takings as a “muddle,” in “disarray,” and “incoherent.” Professor Kent even noted …

Making Appearances Matter: Recusal And The Appearance Of Bias, Dmitry Bam

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

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 …

An Expectation Of Empathy, Steve Leben

Faculty Works

No abstract provided.

Justice Souter And The Civil Rules, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

Justice Souter’s recent retirement from the Court after nearly twenty years presents a unique opportunity to comment on his legacy. No doubt others will eulogize or castigate him for his membership in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey troika, but there is much more to the man and his jurisprudence. Indeed, the danger is that Justice Souter will be pigeonholed into one opinion, an opinion that he wrote early in his Supreme Court career, to the detriment of understanding the complex justice that he was. And what it finds is a justice deeply committed to the fair treatment of the litigants …

Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hearings, Mark Spottswood

Faculty Working Papers

This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing their testimony in person than if the judges were to review …

All Rise! Standing In Judge Betty Fletcher’S Court, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

In this essay, based on a talk given at the Washington Law Review’s March 2009 symposium in honor of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher and her three decades of service on that court, I selectively survey her opinions on justiciability issues: standing, ripeness, mootness, and political questions. A significant starting point for this survey is Professor Richard Pierce’s 1999 law review article, Is Standing Law or Politics?, arguing that many Supreme Court votes in standing cases generally, and appellate judges’ votes in environmental-standing cases specifically, can be explained better on the basis of politics than by reference to …

Reform In California's Immigration Enforcement And Immigration Court, Nelson E. Gil

CMC Senior Theses

According to the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistic, California accounts for approximately 2,600,000 illegal immigrants in 2009. This number represents about 25 percent of the entire estimated illegal immigrant population in the United States, which is roughly 10.8 million. Between 2003 and 2008, the U.S. government removed 1,446,338 noncitizens from the United States. This rise in deportation is a result o the changes that have been enacted by the federal government over the years that transformed the nature of immigration enforcement. This thesis explores the California Immigration Enforcement system from the programs established to apprehend illegal aliens …

Iqbal And Empathy, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay argues that empathy does and should play an important, albeit limited role, in a judge’s decision making process. Specifically, empathy is essential for making correct, principled, and unbiased judgments, because empathy is one of the few means we have to understand human motivation. Empathy is a crucial cognitive mechanism that can help compensate for common cognitive bias. As such, empathy, appropriately restricted, should be an accepted and meaningful tool for judges to use in evaluating the sufficiency of complaints, especially as they relate to Iqbal’s plausibility pleading standard.

Imagining Judges That Apply Law: How They Might Do It, James Maxeiner

All Faculty Scholarship

"Judges should apply the law, not make it." That plea appears perennially in American politics. American legal scholars belittle it as a simple-minded demand that is silly and misleading. A glance beyond our shores dispels the notion that the American public is naive to expect judges to apply rather than to make law.

American obsession with judicial lawmaking has its price: indifference to judicial law applying. If truth be told, practically we have no method for judges, as a matter of routine, to apply law to facts. Our failure leads American legal scholars to question whether applying law to facts …

Silencing Tory Bowen: The Legal Implications Of Word Bans In Rape Trials, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 215 (2009), Randah Atassi

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Chief William's Ghost: The Problematic Persistence Of The Duty To Sit Doctrine, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

The duty to sit concept or “doctrine”—or at least what I term the “pernicious” version of the concept—emphasizes a judge's obligation to hear and decide cases unless there is a compelling ground for disqualification and creates a situation in which judges are erroneously pushed to resolve close disqualification issues against recusal when the presumption should run in exactly the opposite direction. In close cases, judges should err on the side of recusal in order to enhance public confidence in the judiciary and to ensure that subtle, subconscious, or hard-to-prove bias, prejudice, or partiality does not influence decision-making. The pernicious version …

Playing Forty Questions: Responding To Justice Roberts' Concerns In Caperton And Some Tentative Answers About Operationalizing Judicial Recusal And Due Process, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

The Chief Justice of the United States would probably have excelled as a negative debater in high school forensics competitions. Good negative debaters are, as my high school English teacher put it, “great point-pickers” in that they frequently challenge affirmative proposals with a series of “what if?” or “how about?” or “what would you do if?” questions designed to leave the affirmative resolution bleeding to death of a thousand cuts. Less charitable observers might call it nit-picking. After reading Chief Justice Roberts's dissenting opinion in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., one can easily imagine him as a high school …

Reluctant Judicial Factfinding: When Minimalism And Judicial Modesty Go Too Far, Scott A. Moss

Publications

No abstract provided.

A New Look At Judicial Impact: Attorney's Fees In Securities Class Actions After Goldberger V. Integrated Resources, Inc., Theodore Eisenberg, Geoffrey Miller, Michael A. Perino

Faculty Publications

Political scientists have long been interested in what impact judicial decisions have on their intended audiences. Compliance has been defined as the lower court's proper application of standards the superior court has enunciated in deciding all cases raising similar or related questions. Most studies find widespread compliance in lower courts, with only rare instances of overt defiance.

This Article attempts to address three questions in the extant judicial impact literature. First, existing studies use rather insensitive measures of compliance and thus may fail to identify instances of subtle resistance to higher court rulings. Second, judicial impact literature has a restrained …