Civil Procedure Commons^™

What Is A Fair Price For Objector Blackmail? Class Actions, Objectors, And The 2018 Amendments To Rule 23, Elizabeth Cabraser, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

As part of a symposium addressing what the next 50 years might hold for class actions, mass torts, and MDLs, this Article examines a recent amendment to Rule 23 that offers a new solution to the persistent problem of strategic objections. Most significantly, Rule 23 now requires the district judge to approve any payments made to class members in exchange for withdrawing or forgoing challenges to a class action settlement. Although the new provision is still in its infancy, it has already been deployed to thwart improper objector behavior and to bring for-pay objection practice out of the shadows. The …

Civil Procedure As A Critical Discussion, Susan Provenzano, Brian N. Larson

Faculty Scholarship

This Article develops a model for analyzing legal dispute resolution systems as systems for argumentation. Our model meshes two theories of argument conceived centuries apart: contemporary argumentation theory and classical stasis theory. In this Article, we apply the model to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a proof of concept. Specifically, the model analyzes how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure function as a staged argumentative critical discussion designed to permit judge and jury to rationally resolve litigants’ differences in a reasonable manner. At a high level, this critical discussion has three phases: a confrontation, an (extended) opening, and …

Notice Pleading In Exile, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

According to the conventional wisdom, the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal discarded notice pleading in favor of plausibility pleading. This Article — part of a symposium commemorating the Iqbal decision's tenth anniversary — highlights decisions during those ten years that have continued to endorse notice pleading despite Iqbal. It also argues that those decisions reflect the best way to read the Iqbal decision. Although Iqbal is a troubling decision in many respects, it can be implemented consistently with the notice-pleading framework that the original drafters of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure had in mind.

Righting The Ship: What Courts Are Still Getting Wrong About Electronic Discovery, Tanya Pierce

Faculty Scholarship

What happens when law changes but courts and lawyers ignore the changes? On December 1, 2015, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. One of those amendments includes a sweeping change to Rule 37(e), dealing with the availability of sanctions in federal courts for lost or destroyed electronically stored information (ESI). In the last few years, however, a number of courts have interpreted the amended rule in ways at odds with its plain language and underlying policies, and a surprising number of courts continue to ignore the amended rule altogether. This article examines those trends and …

An Organizational Account Of State Standing, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

Again and again in regard to recent high-profile disputes, the legal community has tied itself in knots over questions about when state plaintiffs should have standing to sue in federal court, especially in cases where they seek to sue federal-government defendants. Lawsuits challenging everything from the Bush administration’s environmental policies to the Obama administration’s immigration actions to the Trump administration’s travel bans have become mired in tricky and technical questions about whether state plaintiffs belonged in federal court.

Should state standing cause so much controversy and confusion? This Essay argues that state plaintiffs are far more like at least one …

The Forgotten Property Right: The Unconstitutionality Of The At Home Standard In Assertions Of General Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporations, Peter Kuylen

Texas A&M Journal of Property Law

With its move to the “at home” standard in Goodyear, Daimler, and BNSF, the Supreme Court significantly restricted the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over nonresident corporation defendants. This restriction offers questionable actual benefits to corporate defendants, but its rigid focus on defendant’s rights has impacted the ability of certain plaintiffs to bring a cause of action against those defendants. Because the at home standard infringes on this group of plaintiffs’ ability to assert their property right of redress in violation of the Due Process Clauses of the Constitution (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), the Court should return to the previous …

Forum Clauses At The Margin, James P. George

Faculty Scholarship

This article will first dispel the historical account and demonstrate an enforcement history that was reasoned and fairly consistent in England, but erratic in the United States, yielding to an ever-increasing contract-autonomy view after Bremen. The history concludes with concerns about what is now the Bremen/Atlantic Marine presumption (referred to under either case name depending on the context and time frame), including its encouragement of summary analysis and enforcement. To illustrate this extreme, the last section focuses on a Fifth Circuit decision that, with its cursory analysis and extreme favoring of enforcement, leaves significant questions unanswered—a result the law should …

Appellate Jurisdiction And The Emoluments Litigation, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

This article — part of a symposium on federal appellate procedure — addresses questions of appellate jurisdiction that have played an important role in litigation challenging Donald Trump’s conduct under the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses. When federal trial judges in the District of Columbia and Maryland rejected Trump’s early attempts to dismiss two of these cases, Trump sought immediate relief from the federal courts of appeals rather than allowing the litigation to proceed in the district courts. The lack of a traditional final judgment, however, prompted difficult jurisdictional issues for the D.C. Circuit and the Fourth Circuit.

In both cases, the …

Robots Are Coming: A Discussion Of Choice-Of-Law Issues And Outcomes In Telesurgical Malpractice, Megan Cloud

Texas A&M Law Review

New technology frequently emerges that challenges the legal status quo. Early adopters must then grapple with uncertainty over how the law will apply to novel legal quandaries. There is no better example of this than in medicine; however, the health care field is notoriously risk averse. Despite this, the practice of medicine stands to gain tremendously from these technological advancements. One such advancement is the relatively new ability to perform robotic surgery in which the surgeon is remote from the patient. Widespread use of this technology would improve rural access to surgical care, as well as improve access to more …

Access To Justice, Rationality, And Personal Jurisdiction, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

After more than twenty years of silence, the Supreme Court has addressed personal jurisdiction six times over the last six Terms. This Article examines the Court’s recent decisions in terms of their effect on access to justice and the enforcement of substantive law. The Court’s new case law has unquestionably made it harder to establish general jurisdiction—that is, the kind of jurisdiction that requires no affiliation at all between the forum state and the litigation. Although this shift has been justifiably criticized, meaningful access and enforcement can be preserved through other aspects of the jurisdictional framework, namely (1) the basic …

When Can The Patent Office Intervene In Its Own Cases?, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

The rise of administrative patent validity review since the America Invents Act has rested on an enormous expansion of Patent Office authority. A relatively little-known aspect of that authority is the agency's statutory ability to intervene in Federal Circuit appeals from adversarial proceedings in its own Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Patent Office has exercised this intervenor authority frequently and with specific apparent policy objectives, including where one of the adverse parties did not participate in the appeal. Moreover, until recently, there has been no constitutional inquiry into the Article III standing that the Patent Office must establish in …

When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner

Texas A&M Law Review

In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason …

Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Pregnant: The Jurisprudence Of Abortion Exceptionalism In Garza V. Hargan, Kaytlin L. Roholt

Texas A&M Law Review

Since a majority of Supreme Court justices created the abortion right in 1973, a troubling pattern has emerged: The Supreme Court has come to ignore—and even nullify—longstanding precedent and legal doctrines in the name of preserving and expanding the abortion right. And with a Supreme Court majority that is blithe to manipulate any doctrine or principle—no matter how deeply rooted in U.S. legal tradition—in the name of expansive abortion rights, it should come as no surprise that lower courts are following suit. Most recently, the D.C. Circuit fired up the “ad hoc nullification machine,” but this time, its victim of …

Standing In The Way Of Our Goals: How The Best Interest Of The Child (Whatever That Means) Is Never Reached In Texas Due To Lack Of Standing For Third-Party Parents, Jessica Nation Holtman

Texas A&M Law Review

Currently in Texas, standing options for third-party nonparents seeking to file suits affecting the parent-child relationship (“SAPCRs”) are extremely limited. And, even though the standing options are codified, the evidence necessary to meet the threshold elements may be drastically different depending on the case’s location. These third parties, who have previously exercised parental responsibilities, must make showings to the court that most divorced parents could not make; and this is just for a chance to bring a claim in court. While this seems unfair, and Texas should absolutely resolve the split among its appellate courts, there is one extremely important …

Nonmajority Opinions And Biconditional Rules, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

In Hughes v. United States, the Supreme Court will revisit a thorny question: how to determine the precedential effect of decisions with no majority opinion. For four decades, the clearest instruction from the Court has been the rule from Marks v. United States: the Court's holding is "the position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds." The Marks rule raises particular concerns, however, when it is applied to biconditional rules. Biconditionals are distinctive in that they set a standard that dictates both success and failure for a given issue. More formulaically, they combine an …

Can Nfl Players Obtain Judicial Review Of Arbitration Decisions On The Merits When A Typical Hourly Union Worker Cannot Obtain This Unusual Court Access?, Michael Z. Green, Kyle T. Carney

Faculty Scholarship

Several recent court cases, brought on behalf of National Football League (NFL) players by their union, the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), have increased media and public attention to the challenges of labor arbitrator decisions in federal courts. The Supreme Court has established a body of federal common law that places a high premium on deferring to labor arbitrator decisions and counseling against judges deciding the merits of disputes covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). A recent trend suggests federal judges have ignored this body of law and analyzed the merits of labor arbitration decisions in the NFL setting.

NFL …

Dueling Grants: Reimagining Cafa's Jurisdictional Provisions, Tanya Pierce

Faculty Scholarship

Part I of the article discusses the relevant policies underlying CAFA and Rule 23. Part II briefly outlines the more straightforward operation of CAFA jurisdiction in pre-certification and post-successful certification situations before explaining the provisions in CAFA that have given rise to considerable confusion after courts deny class certification. Part III critiques the arguments made by courts and scholars in support of and against continuing jurisdiction. It then suggests an approach that is most consistent with the statute, in light of all of its relevant provisions and their corresponding limitations, and that furthers prudential concerns underlying Rule 23 and CAFA …

Class Action-Barring Mandatory Pre-Dispute Consumer Arbitration Clauses: An Example Of (And Opportunity For) Dispute System Design?, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

Ultimately, this essay will conclude that a private, ad hoc dispute system design process did lead to the insertion of class action waivers in mandatory pre-dispute consumer arbitration clauses. In-house and outside counsel certainly played key roles in initiating this process, but it is unclear that any individual lawyers could claim credit or responsibility as "designers." The representatives of dispute resolution organizations, meanwhile, played supporting roles-as providers of information and as amici in Supreme Court litigation. The essay will consider whether dispute resolution professionals could have managed their role in the process differently-and if so, why they would have managed …

The Rise And Fall Of Plausibility Pleading?, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and its 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal unleashed a torrent of scholarly reaction. Commentators charged these decisions with adopting a new pleading regime, "plausibility pleading," that upended the notice-pleading approach that had long prevailed in federal court. Whether a complaint could survive a motion to dismiss — it was argued — now depends on whether the court found the complaint plausible, allowing courts to second-guess a complaint's allegations without any opportunity for discovery or consideration of actual evidence. Lower courts began to cite Twombly and Iqbal at a …

The End Of An Era? Federal Civil Procedure After The 2015 Amendments, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were the most controversial in decades. The biggest criticisms concerned pleading standards and access to discovery. Many feared that the amendments would undermine the simplified, merits-driven approach that the original drafters of the Federal Rules envisioned and would weaken access to justice and the enforcement of substantive rights and obligations.

This Article argues that the amendments that came into effect on December 1, 2015, do not mandate a more restrictive approach to pleading or discovery. Although there was legitimate cause for alarm given the advisory committee’s earlier proposals and supporting …

Improving Predictability And Consistency In Class Action Tolling, Tanya Pierce

Faculty Scholarship

Class action tolling means that when parties in a suit allege federal treatment, the individual claims of putative class members are tolled federal courts while the class action is pending. Commonly referred to as American Pipe tolling, this rule prevents duplicative litigation that would result if plaintiffs were required to intervene or file independent lawsuits to protect their interests while the class action was pending. Federal courts have long settled the application of American Pipe tolling in scenarios involving later-filed individual actions. In other scenarios, however, the application of American Pipe tolling has caused considerable uncertainty. This Article examines the …

Atlantic Marine Through The Lens Of Erie, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Atlantic Marine clarified several things about the enforcement of forum-selection clauses in federal court. But something important was missing from Justice Alito's opinion — the Erie doctrine. Erie, of course, helps to determine the applicability of state law in federal court, and state law potentially has a lot to say about contractual forum-selection clauses. Indeed, Erie was front and center the last time the Court confronted the enforcement of forum-selection clauses in federal court, when it decided Stewart Organization v. Ricoh a quarter century ago.

This article for the Hastings Law Journal's symposium on …

Justifying A Prudential Solution To The Williamson County Ripeness Puzzle, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

In the much-maligned 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, the Supreme Court articulated a rule of “ripeness” requiring most Fifth Amendment regulatory-takings claimants to seek “just compensation” in state court before attempting to litigate in federal court. Williamson County and its progeny have opened a Pandora’s box of unforeseen complications, spawning many more questions than they purported to answer. At the forefront is what kind of requirement the rule is anyway. This Article contends that reading Williamson County as grounded in the Constitution (specifically, in Article III or the Fifth Amendment) runs the …

Conflict Of Laws, James P. George, Susan T. Phillips

Faculty Scholarship

States' and nations' laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This Article reviews Texas conflict cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey-period from November 1, 2011 through October 31, 2013. The Article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts; intrastate issues, such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue; and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together …

Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitration Agreements And Awards: Application Of The New York Convention In The United States, Louis Del Duca, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

Internationalc ommercial arbitrationp rovides customized and efficient resolution for disputes arising out of transnational commerce. When arbitration occurs in states that have ratified the New York Convention, the process also offers enforceable outcomes even in states other than the one where the arbitration occurred. The United States ratified the New York Convention in 1970, and its courts overwhelmingly enforce both arbitration agreements and arbitral awards. There are exceptions, however, and American courts require the use of certain procedures.

This Article provides a brief survey of American courts' recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration agreements and arbitral awards. It begins by …

Reforming Property Law To Address Devastating Land Loss, Thomas W. Mitchell

Faculty Scholarship

Tenancy-in-common ownership represents the most widespread form of common ownership of real property in the United States. Such ownership under the default rules also represents the most unstable ownership of real property in this country. Thousands of tenancy-in-common property owners, including members of many poor and minority families, have lost their commonly-owned property due to court-ordered, forced partition sales as well as much of their real estate wealth associated with such ownership as a result of such sales. Though some scholars and the media have highlighted how thousands of African-Americans have lost an untold amount of property and substantial real …

To Say What The Law Is: Rules, Results, And The Dangers Of Inferential Stare Decisis, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Judicial decisions do more than resolve disputes. They are also crucial sources of prospective law, because stare decisis obligates future courts to follow those decisions. Yet there remains tremendous uncertainty about how we identify a judicial decision’s lawmaking content. Does stare decisis require future courts to follow the rules stated in a precedent-setting opinion? Or must future courts merely reconcile their decisions with the ultimate result of the precedent-setting case? Although it is widely assumed that a rule-based approach puts greater constraints on future courts, two recent Supreme Court decisions—Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Ashcroft v. Iqbal—turn this conventional …

Kryptonite For Cafa?, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

This essay — for the Review of Litigation’s symposium issue on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and accompanying panel at the 2013 annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools — explores the tension between CAFA and the Erie doctrine. CAFA was designed to expand federal diversity jurisdiction over high-stakes state-law class actions and, thereby, allow federal judges to decide class certification pursuant to federal law. The Erie doctrine, by contrast, aims to discourage vertical forum shopping by requiring federal courts hearing state-law claims to follow state law. Put the two together, and the result could be that …

The Lay Of The Land: Examining The Three Opinions In J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

It was a long time coming. The Supreme Court's decisions last Term in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown ended a two-decade high-court hiatus from the subject of personal jurisdiction. In McIntyre, the more controversial of the two, the Court concludes that New Jersey state courts lacked jurisdiction over a British manufacturer in a suit by a New Jersey plaintiff who was injured in New Jersey by a machine purchased by his New Jersey employer. McIntyre lacks a majority opinion, however. Instead we have a four-Justice plurality authored by Justice Kennedy, a …

The Jury's Second Coming, Jenny E. Carroll

Faculty Scholarship

This article explores the controversial issue of jury nullification by reconceptualizing nullification through the lens of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions beginning with Apprendi v. New Jersey. Apprendi’s embrace of the jury’s historical powers — require a rejection of the formalized and static paradigm in favor of a more fluid vision of the law. Despite extensive scholarship surrounding Apprendi, an innovative (though admittedly counter-intuitive) reading of the case line has been overlooked. This reading draws on Apprendi’s embrace of a vision of the law constructed and completed through jury interpretation and verdict. Interpreted in this way, the Apprendi case line …