Civil Procedure Commons^™

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 …

Magic Words And The Erie Doctrine, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Securing Sovereign State Standing, Katherine Mims Crocker

Faculty Scholarship

There are three main categories of interests upon which states can premise standing to sue as plaintiffs in federal court - proprietary, sovereign, and quasi-sovereign interests. Proprietary and sovereign interests, this Note contends, are held independently by states qua states, whereas quasi-sovereign interests are derivative of citizens’ collective welfare interests. This Note attempts to correct the pervasive confusion clouding the boundary between sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests, arguing that they are meaningfully distinct and should be treated differently.

This argument is especially important in the context of the jurisdictional bar instituted by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. Mellon, which prohibits …

Pre-Service Removal In The Forum Defendant's Arsenal, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

This article is the first academic defense of pre-service removal in diversity cases by forum-state defendants under the “properly joined and served” language of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Pre-service removal has proliferated nationally in recent years. Appellate courts, however, have been silent on the issue for two reasons: First, orders that remand a case to state court are statutorily non-reviewable on appeal. Second, cases retained in federal court and litigated to final judgment are highly unlikely, for reasons of judicial economy, to be voided for de novo readjudication in state court. After tracing the development of the removal statute and …

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 …

The Pleading Problem, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Federal pleading standards are in crisis. The Supreme Court's recent decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal have the potential to upend civil litigation as we know it. What is urgently needed is a theory of pleading that can bring Twombly and Iqbal into alignment with the text of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a half-century worth of Supreme Court precedent, while providing a coherent methodology that preserves access to the courts and allows pleadings to continue to play their appropriate role in the adjudicative process. This Article provides that theory. It develops a …

I Could Have Been A Contender: Summary Jury Trial As A Means To Overcome Iqbal's Negative Effects Upon Pre-Litigation Communication, Negotiation And Early, Consensual Dispute Resolution, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

With its recent decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Supreme Court may be intentionally or unintentionally “throwing the fight,” at least in the legal contests between many civil rights claimants and institutional defendants. The most obvious feared effect is reduction of civil rights claimants’ access to the expressive and coercive power of the courts. Less obviously, the Supreme Court may be effectively undermining institutions’ motivation to negotiate, mediate - or even communicate with and listen to - such claimants before they initiate legal action. Thus, the Supreme Court’s recent decisions have the potential to deprive …

An Ounce Of Prevention: Solving Some Unforeseen Problems With The Proposed Amendments To Rule 56 And The Federal Summary Judgment Process, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The Civil Rules Advisory Committee has recently proposed the most significant revisions to Rule 56 since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted seventy years ago. Although the stated goal of the proposed amendments is laudable - "to improve the procedures for making and opposing summary-judgment motions, and to facilitate the judge's work in resolving them" - this Essay in the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy identifies some unanticipated problems with the proposed text. Contrary to the Advisory Committee's intent, the proposed text may inadvertently make substantial changes to the summary-judgment standard and the burdens on litigants at the …

What Is The Erie Doctrine? (And What Does It Mean For The Contemporary Politics Of Judicial Federalism?), Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

As when Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was decided seventy years ago, federal courts today are seen as more favorable to corporate and business interests than many of their state-court brethren. The current situation is due in no small part to federal courts' comparatively pro-defendant approaches to summary judgment, class certification, and other procedural issues. The Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which tilts federal pleading standards in favor of defendants, will likely have similar federalism implications. This Article presents a straightforward argument that the Erie doctrine may require federal courts to follow state-law standards on summary judgment, …

Is That All There Is? "The Problem" In Court-Oriented Mediation, Leonard L. Riskin, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

The alternative process of mediation is now well-institutionalized and widely (though not universally) perceived to save time and money and satisfy lawyers and parties. However, the process has failed to meet important aspirations of its early proponents and certain expectations and needs of one-shot players. In particular, court-oriented mediation now reflects the dominance and preferences of lawyers and insurance claims adjusters. These repeat players understand the problem to be addressed in personal injury, employment, contract, medical malpractice and other ordinary civil non-family disputes as a matter of merits assessment and litigation risk analysis. Mediation is structured so that litigation issues …

Looking Down The Road Less Traveled: Challenges To Persuading The Legal Profession To Define Problems More Humanistically, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

This essay will focus on three factors that may help to explain why it seems to be so difficult for many lawyers to escape the confines of a narrow, legalistic framing of issues-or more poetically, why they may be predisposed against looking down "the road less traveled by." These factors should be taken into account as challenges to the widespread adoption of innovative, more humanistic approaches to lawyering. First, the essay will turn to research regarding the psyches and psychological needs of the people who choose to attend law school and become lawyers. Second, the essay will consider what is …

Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Appellate jurisdiction in the federal system has been properly criticized for both its doctrinal incoherence and its procedural complexity. Although these critiques are well-founded, this Article reveals that, as applied in practice, federal courts have drawn sensible lines between interlocutory orders that are immediately appealable and those that are not. A limited category of interlocutory orders, primarily those rejecting immunities from suit, are immediately appealable as of right. All other interlocutory orders are potentially eligible for discretionary appellate review. The doctrinal morass of the present framework, however, has obscured this basically sensible structure and has led to inefficient procedures for …

From Federalism To Intersystemic Governance: The Changing Nature Of Modern Jurisdiction, Robert B. Ahdieh

Faculty Scholarship

At heart, this introductory essay aspires to encourage scholars who write in widely divergent areas, yet share a focus on the changing nature of jurisdiction, to engage one another more closely. From Jackson's study of "convergence, resistance, and engagement" among courts, Kingsbury's study of "global administrative law," and Bermann's analysis of "transatlantic regulatory cooperation," to Resnik's evaluation of "trans-local networks," Weiser's account of "cooperative federalism" in telecommunications law, and Thompson's concept of "collaborative corporate governance," a related set of questions is ultimately at stake: How ought we understand the reach of any given decision-maker's jurisdiction? What are the implications of …

'Less' Is 'More'? Textualism, Intentionalism, And A Better Solution To The Class Action Fairness Act's Appellate Deadline Riddle, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

In recent months, federal appellate judges have grappled with an interpretive puzzle that opens a new frontier in the long-running judicial and scholarly debate about statutory interpretation. The landmark but controversial Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) authorizes immediate appeals from certain jurisdictional decisions by district courts, provided that litigants appeal "not less than 7 days after entry of the order." Although the goal of this provision was to set a seven-day deadline for CAFA appeals, the statutory text does precisely the opposite -- it imposes a seven-day waiting period and sets no outer deadline. Federal appellate judges have …

Only One Kick At The Cat: A Contextual Rubric For Evaluating Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel In International Commercial Arbitration, Randy D. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

Arbitration is the preferred method of resolving disputes arising out of international commercial transactions. It stands outside national legal systems because contracting parties agree in advance that they want neutral arbitrators — not local judges and juries — deciding who is at fault when a commercial relationship breaks down. But arbitration nevertheless butts up against litigation from time to time, often because one party attempts to arbitrate a matter that has been litigated to conclusion or vice versa. This article examines — through a contextual approach — questions of preclusion that thereby arise and ultimately suggests that res judicata and …

Sausage-Making, Pigs' Ears, And Congressional Expansions Of Federal Jurisdiction: Exxon Mobil V. Allapattah And Its Lessons For The Class Action Fairness Act, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The year 2005 witnessed two watershed developments in federal jurisdiction: the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. and the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Allapattah and CAFA raise the same fundamental question: how should courts interpret a statute whose text would expand federal jurisdiction far beyond what Congress apparently intended? In Allapattah, the Court confronted this question in resolving an aspect of the supplemental jurisdiction statute that had deeply divided both the judiciary and academia. CAFA's expansion of federal jurisdiction over class actions will require courts to struggle with this question …

The Irrepressible Myth Of Celotex: Reconsidering Summary Judgment Burdens Twenty Years After The Trilogy, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court decided a trilogy of cases on summary judgment. These cases have had a profound impact on federal litigation. Empirical data presented in this article demonstrate that federal courts have cited these three cases more than any Supreme Court decisions in history. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett is widely recognized as the most significant decision of the trilogy, both because it expanded the availability of summary judgment and because it remains the Court's most current instructions on how burdens are allocated between the party seeking and the party opposing summary judgment. However, Celotex failed to clarify …

Rethinking Civil Rico: The Vexing Problem Of Causation In Fraud-Based Claims Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C), Randy D. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

To recover in a private action, the three-part structure of RICO demands proof of particularized crimes at two levels and civil standing to sue for those crimes. The interpretation and application of the standing requirement — which arises from the statute’s mandate that compensable injuries be caused “by reason of” acts of racketeering — have bedeviled courts and litigants for decades. Recent developments in class action law have exacerbated the problem. As more and more courts have rendered it nearly impossible to certify classes asserting state-law claims, class plaintiffs have turned to uniform federal laws like RICO. But civil RICO …

The Place Of Court-Connected Mediation In A Democratic Justice System, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

A justice system, and the processes located within it, ought to deliver justice. That seems simple enough. But, of course, delivering justice is never so simple. Justice and the systems that serve it are the creatures of context.

This Article considers mediation as just one innovation within the much larger evolution of the judicial system of the United States. First, this Article outlines how the values of democratic governance undergird our traditional picture of the American justice system, presumably because the invocation of such values helps the system to deliver something that will be respected by the nation’s citizens as …