Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Quiet Revival Of The Effective Vindication Of Rights Doctrine, Myriam Gilles

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurantwas widely seen as the death knell for the “effective vindication of rights” doctrine—a judicially created rule that arbitration agreements are enforceable only “so long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate its statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum.” By upholding a class action–banning arbitration provision that rendered arbitration economically irrational, Italian Colors appeared to extinguish any meaningful limits on the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

But reports of the doctrine’s demise were premature. This Article uncovers how, in the decade since Italian Colors, lower …

Foreign Judgments In U.S. Courts, Yanbai Andrea Wang

Fordham Law Review

American law on foreign judgments is at an inflection point. For over a century, the doctrine has been shaped by concerns about outgoing U.S. judgments seeking asset collection in the civil law countries of continental Europe. But shifting trade flows and changing litigation tactics have carved a new landscape, demanding a return to foreign judgments law’s conceptual and doctrinal underpinnings. This Article first maps the new landscape, in which China is rapidly rising as a foremost foreign judgments interlocutor. Meanwhile, litigants are increasingly pursuing parallel litigation in multiple countries. The impact of incoming judgments and the interactions between related litigations …

All The King’S Lawyers, Rebecca Aviel

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remote Access Restrictions To Immigration-Related Court Records, Doris H. Zhang

Fordham Law Review

Journalists today often report on newsworthy federal court cases by remotely accessing the court records online. However, thanks to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c), remote access is not available by default in immigration-related cases. To obtain any court records in immigration cases, journalists must go to the courthouse, hire someone to go on their behalf, or ask the court to exercise its discretion to lift the Rule 5.2(c) remote access restrictions. These alternatives are burdensome, hindering the ability of the press and the public to keep track of immigration cases in federal courts. Despite the burdens on the press …

Federal Courts, Class Actions, And The Jurisdictional Void, Courtney T. Welch

Fordham Law Review

To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Article III. Among other things, Article III requires a plaintiff to have and maintain personal stake throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though a simple premise, this constitutional requirement has a complicated history. This is especially true as applied to class action lawsuits, where plaintiffs bring claims both on behalf of themselves and other harmed individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has applied flexible rules to some—but not all—of Article III’s requirements in class actions. The breadth of this flexibility, though, is uncertain. Accordingly, so too …

Defining “Cases” Or “Controversies”: A Fundamental Confusion In Article Iii Standing Doctrine And Its Consequences In Multi-Plaintiff Litigation, Dominic Signa

Fordham Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has addressed the absolute core requirements of standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution on several occasions. However, the Court has not clearly articulated what purpose standing serves relative to Article III’s limitations on the exercise of judicial power to only “cases” or “controversies,” and this has led to major downstream effects in the realm of multi plaintiff litigation. Specifically, the Court has not explained whether standing is meant to ensure (1) that all potential plaintiffs demonstrate that they are properly parties to the same case or controversy before a federal court or (2) …

When The Taxpayers Are Not Innocent: The Need For Punitive Damages Against Municipalities Under The Fair Housing Act, Charlotte Saltzman

Fordham Law Review

Combatting housing discrimination by municipalities is a core function of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Courts disagree, however, as to whether punitive damages can be awarded against municipal defendants. The purpose of this Note is twofold. First, it compares the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Gilead Community Services, Inc. v. Town of Cromwell, which held that punitive damages were appropriate against the Town of Cromwell, with the reasoning of district courts that came to the opposite conclusion in reliance on § 1983 precedent. Second, notwithstanding the sufficiency of the statutory analysis, it evaluates the public policy concerns of awarding …

Fixing The Fix: The Case For Unifying The Remedial Framework Of Apa Rulemaking Challenges, Dea Devlin

Fordham Law Review

Vacatur is the default remedy for successful administrative rulemaking challenges brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Yet its broad and sweeping effects raise critical questions regarding its appropriateness as a one-size-fits-all remedy. Unlike injunctive relief, which is subject to a rigorous heightened standard, and remand without vacatur, which has a comparable standard of its own, vacatur is routinely awarded without similar scrutiny, leading to inconsistencies in the judicial application of remedies in APA challenges.

Although vacatur can provide a plaintiff with relief, its award conflicts with underlying principles of equity and proportionality. In rulemaking challenges, vacatur can create regulatory …

Procedural Justice In Parallel Lawsuits, Sarah Parks

Fordham Law Review

The American public places a high value on access to justice and having the opportunity to be heard. These values can either be upheld or diminished by routine procedural rules. The first-to-file rule is an example of an innocuous procedural rule that is a barrier to justice. Under the first-to-file rule, when two parallel suits are filed in different federal district courts, the first-filed suit will proceed, and the second-filed suit will ordinarily be dismissed or transferred to the venue of the other suit. Transfers often terminate an individual’s case because most people cannot afford to litigate far from home. …

In Defense Of Pro Se Parents, Matthew F. Gillam

Fordham Law Review

Who gets to represent children in federal court? Adults have long been permitted to represent themselves in federal court under the plain meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1654. And, many adults do just that every year. But what if the real party in interest is a minor child? Who, if anyone, can exercise that child’s right to proceed pro se?

This Note argues that the correct reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1654 would permit parents to litigate pro se in federal court where the real party in interest is their minor child. This is based on a straightforward, grammatically correct …

Beyond Jarkesy: Rethinking The Role Of Administrative Law Judges In Sec Administrative Proceedings, Mark T. Uyeda, Jaime Marinaro

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

Plausibly Illiberal: Sua Sponte Dismissals Of Pro Se Complaints Under The Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pierce Edlich

Fordham Law Review

Over a quarter of civil litigants file suit in federal court without an attorney. Most unrepresented litigants are in prison, and many of their cases raise complex, delicate constitutional questions. The number of unrepresented litigants in federal courts rose steadily until the 1990s, when Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995 to limit the burden of frivolous inmate litigation on federal courts. Since 1996, the PLRA has defined courts’ procedural obligations for inmate and in forma pauperis (IFP) suits, often filed pro se. The PLRA requires that courts screen and dismiss sua sponte cases that are frivolous, …

Ethical Guardrails To Unbounded Procedure, Seth Katsuya Endo

Fordham Law Review

Civil lawsuits in federal courts—especially class actions and multidistrict litigation (MDL)—can be messy and complicated, calling for pragmatic interventions that lie beyond what is explicitly addressed by the existing rules. And flexibility is part of the genius of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, unbounded discretion and innovation in procedure can lead to illegitimate exercises of power, bias, democratic nonaccountability, and other serious harms. But the choice is not between providing individual courts with nearly limitless authority to experiment with procedure or having a set of rigid rules. Instead, there is a third path: district judges …

Deepfakes Reach The Advisory Committee On Evidence Rules, Daniel J. Capra

Fordham Law Review

A number of articles have been written in the last couple of years about the evidentiary challenges posed by “deepfakes”—inauthentic videos and audios generated by artificial intelligence (AI) in such a way as to appear to be genuine. You are probably aware of some of the widely distributed examples, such as: (1) Pope Francis wearing a Balenciaga jacket; (2) Jordan Peele’s video showing President Barack Obama speaking and saying things that President Obama never said; (3) Nancy Pelosi speaking while appearing to be intoxicated; and (4) Robert DeNiro’s de-aging in The Irishman.

The evidentiary risk posed by deepfakes is …

Rethinking Jurisdictional Maximalism In The Wake Of Mallory, Sayer Paige

Fordham Law Review

Jurisdiction-by-registration is the idea that by virtue of registering to do business in a state, corporations prospectively consent to jurisdiction on claims made against them in that state. For decades, this concept has stagnated behind the minimum contacts analysis developed by International Shoe Co. v. Washington and its progeny. Among other reasons, plaintiffs and states were not sure whether jurisdiction-by-registration withstood the Due Process Clause. But as the U.S. Supreme Court continued to narrow the limits of contacts-based jurisdiction, plaintiffs returned to registration based jurisdiction to recapture corporate defendants. Courts largely rejected these assertions. Then, in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern …

Symposium On Scholars’ Suggestions For Amendments, And Issues Raised By Artificial Intelligence

Fordham Law Review

CHAIR SCHILTZ: As those of you who have been in the rules work for a while know, rules work is cyclical. During the time I’ve been Chair of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, we’ve had two packages of amendments that have gone through. The first package will take effect on December 1, 2024, and that’s the package that is led by the amendment to Rule 702 on expert testimony. And then we have another package that was just approved by the Judicial Conference and sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that package is led by the new rule …

Avoiding Rejection: Studying When And Why State Courts Decline Certified Questions, Rachel Koehn Breland

Fordham Law Review

In December 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declared Tennessee’s punitive damages cap statute unconstitutional under the state’s constitution. Nearly five years later, however, Tennessee state courts are still reducing punitive damage awards under the statute—and they must, because the Tennessee Supreme Court has never addressed the statute’s constitutionality. See, the Sixth Circuit’s decision was merely an Erie guess as to how Tennessee courts would resolve the unsettled state law issue, and the Tennessee Supreme Court has since indicated that it would reach the opposite conclusion. But the Tennessee high court had already had an opportunity …

The Problem With The “Non-Class” Class: An Urgent Call For Improved Gatekeepers In Merger Objection Litigation, Josh Molder

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Until recently, class actions dominated merger objection litigation. However, plaintiff’s lawyers have constructed a “non-class” class where an individual suit can benefit from the leverage of a certified class without ever meeting the stringent class certification requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. This new development has initiated a shift in merger objection litigation where plaintiffs are increasingly filing individual suits instead of class actions. However, this shift has left shareholders vulnerable to collusive settlements because plaintiff’s attorneys have significant control over these suits and a strong incentive to settle quickly for a substantial fee. Additionally, corporate defendants are …

Misunderstanding Meriwether, Brian Soucek, Ryan Chen

Fordham Law Review

Meriwether v. Hartop is widely seen as one of the most important academic freedom and transgender rights cases of recent years. Whether praising it as a victory for free speech or condemning it as a threat to educational equality, commentators across the political spectrum have agreed on one thing: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did something big when it held that professors at public universities have a First Amendment right to misgender their students in class. But contrary to popular belief, Meriwether held no such thing. In fact, the Sixth Circuit could not have held what …

Between Scylla And Charybdis: Addressing Software Patent Eligibility In Early-Stage Litigation, Pooja Krishnan

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International established a two-step inquiry for determining the eligibility of a patent claim for protection. The test has faced criticism for its inconsistency, particularly when evaluating software-related patents. These inconsistencies are exacerbated when the test is applied during the early stages of litigation to address motions made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c), as the test often requires an in-depth technical analysis of the claims.

First, this Note examines the current approach to software patent eligibility and the various points of inconsistencies and tension. This Note …

Cultural Identity And Territorial Autonomy: U.S. Virgin Islands Jurisprudence And The Insular Cases, Dolace Mclean

Fordham Law Review

This Essay utilizes the lens of postcolonial theory to analyze the development of U.S. Virgin Islands jurisprudence. This Essay asserts that the United States’s acquisition of the territory served the purpose of helping to construct an American narrative of moving from colony to colonial power that surpassed its European forebears. The colonial narrative is fractured by instances of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands re-narrating territorial space by utilizing legal principles that are informed by local cultural expressions. Consequently, Virgin Islands jurisprudence is transformed from “colonial dependent” to “postcolonial independent” based on intersectional, progressive principles.

Rationalizing Relatedness: Understanding Personal Jurisdiction's Relatedness Prong In The Wake Of Bristol-Myers Squibb And Ford Motor Co., Anthony Petrosino

Fordham Law Review

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court marked a watershed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s personal jurisdiction jurisprudence. There, the Court came to a reasonable conclusion: Ford, a multinational conglomerate carrying on extensive business throughout the United States, was subject to personal jurisdiction in states where it maintained substantial contacts that were related to the injuries that prompted the suits. This was so, even though the business it conducted in those states was not the direct cause of the suit. While justifying that conclusion, however, the Court drastically altered the personal jurisdiction inquiry’s relatedness prong, which concerns whether …

Interpleader As A Vehicle For Challenging The Constitutionality Of Private Citizen Action Statutes, Delia Parker

Fordham Law Review

The rise of vigilante-esque statutes creates obstacles for litigants seeking to challenge a statute’s constitutionality. State legislatures in Texas and California enacted laws regulating constitutionally protected activity (abortion and firearm possession, respectively) through statutes enforced solely by private actors. The state legislatures cleverly crafted Texas S.B. 8, as well as other copycat statutes, as bounty hunter statutes to block litigants’ usual path to pre-enforcement adjudication—filing a claim against the state to enjoin its actors from enforcing the improper provisions.

The Texas and California state legislatures attempted to forbid constitutionally protected conduct by granting enforcement power to an infinite number of …

The Prison Mailbox Rule: Can Represented Incarcerated Litigants Benefit?, Nico Corti

Fordham Law Review

In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court created the “Prison Mailbox Rule,” which assesses the timeliness of incarcerated litigants’ filings based on the day they hand them to prison authorities. The rule reduces the structural barriers to filing while imprisoned. Although Houston v. Lack highlighted the unique challenges that pro se incarcerated litigants face, the Prison Mailbox Rule’s subsequent federal codifications did not limit its benefits to pro se litigants, despite purportedly “reflecting” the Houston decision. Federal circuit courts of appeal today are split on whether represented people in prison can benefit from the Prison Mailbox Rule, leaving both litigants and …

Second Service: 28 U.S.C. § 1448 And State Court Service Of Process After Removal, Leigh Forsyth

Fordham Law Review

28 U.S.C. § 1448 governs the requirements of process after removal, providing that when defendants are not completely or perfectly served prior to removal, plaintiffs may complete such process or service, or new process may be issued in the same manner as in cases originally filed in the district court. There remains an open question as to whether state court service issued prior to removal, but served after removal, retains its efficacy in federal court under § 1448. This open question has led to divergent interpretations among district courts, with differing consequences. As of this Note’s publication, at least twenty-seven …

The Anomalous Issue Class, Veniamin Privalov

Fordham Law Review Online

The modern class action is a litigation superstar. The device’s potential for opening the courthouse doors to “small people,” holding big business accountable, and enacting sweeping reform is second to none. In recent years, however, the star has waned. Judicial hostility has made it harder for plaintiffs to certify a class while making it easier for defendants to avoid class actionsentirely. Certifying a mass tort class has become nearly impossible. Plaintiff lawyers’ creative attempts to work around these roadblocks have been shut down one after another by the Supreme Court. It is in this scorched mass litigation landscape that commentators …

Court Mandated Technology-Assisted Review In E-Discovery: Changes In Proportionality, Cost-Shifting, And Spoliation, Graham Streich

Fordham Law Review Online

Burgeoning advanced technology-assisted review (TAR) methods challenge justifications for requesting parties’ burdens and litigant cooperation in e-discovery. Increasingly accurate and accessible TAR introduces novel issues in e-discovery, including determining the proportionality of discovery requests and managing information in spoliation cases. This Essay recommends reconsidering the judiciary’s role in e-discovery in light of new technology and argues that courts, particularly lower courts, need expert technical guidance to adequately address the issues e-discovery presents.

Recording Virtual Justice: Cameras In The Digital Courtroom, Matthew Bultman

Fordham Law Review Online

With in-person hearings limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, many courts pivoted to proceedings held over the telephone or on virtual platforms like Zoom. It appears these proceedings are here to stay, with various benefits having been realized from remote access to the courts. Remote hearings have, however, given rise to constitutional questions. This Essay focuses on one emerging issue: courts’ ability to prohibit the press and the public from recording or disseminating these proceedings. While the constitutionality of recording and broadcasting restrictions inside the real-world courtroom is established, little consideration was given to the extension of these rules to the …

The Federal Rules Of Pro Se Procedure, Andrew Hammond

Fordham Law Review

In recent years, more than a quarter of all federal civil cases were filed by people without legal representation. Yet, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure refer to pro se litigants only once, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not considered in over a decade the question of what process is due to unrepresented civil litigants. Many judicial opinions in these cases go unpublished, and many are never appealed. Instead, the task of developing rules for pro se parties has taken place inside our federal district courts, whose piecemeal and largely unnoticed local rulemaking governs thousands of such litigants each …

Class Action Boundaries, Daniel Wilf-Townsend

Fordham Law Review

In recent years, some judges have begun doubting—and at times denying— their jurisdiction in class actions whose membership crosses state lines. This doubt has followed from the U.S. Supreme Court’s significant tightening of personal jurisdiction doctrine, which has led many to argue that courts no longer have jurisdiction over the claims of unnamed class members unless those claims have some independent relationship with the forum state. Such an argument raises foundational questions about due process and federalism, and has significant implications for the size, location, and feasibility of many class actions. This Article argues that what it terms the “state-border …