Civil Procedure Commons^™

Clapper Dethroned: Imminent Injury And Standing For Data Breach Lawsuits In Light Of Ashley Madison, Arthur R. Vorbrodt

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Judgment Without Notice: The Unconstitutionality Of Constructive Notice Following Citizens United, Carliss N. Chatman

Scholarly Articles

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission positions a corporation as an entity entitled to constitutional rights equal to the rights of natural persons. In many situations, this holding may be the impetus for reform and reconsideration of state restrictions on corporate rights that were problematic before the decision. The operation of corporate statutes on corporations chartered in one state but doing business in another state as a foreign corporation is an area in need of this Citizens United-inspired review. Although most corporations operate as foreign corporations outside of their state of incorporation, neither the constitutional validity of corporate withdrawal …

Keep On Truckin', Uber: Using The Dormant Commerce Clause To Challenge Regulatory Roadblocks To Tncs, Boris Bindman

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

New Limits On General Personal Jurisdiction: Examining The Retroactive Application Of Daimler In Long-Pending Cases, Brooke A. Weedon

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Other Side Of The Rabbit Hole: Reconciling Recent Supreme Court Personal Jurisdiction Jurisprudence With Jurisdiction To Terminate Parental Rights, Joan M. Shaughnessy

Scholarly Articles

This Essay contrasts the jurisdictional regime followed in termination of parental rights and other child custody cases with the regime that has dominated recent Supreme Court personal jurisdiction cases. Jurisdiction in child custody cases has long been based upon the connection of the child, not the defendant parent, to the jurisdiction. Recent Supreme Court cases, on the other hand, have focused nearly exclusively on the defendant’s connection to the forum state. This Essay argues that the Supreme Court cases betray a failure of the Court to provide a consistent constitutional justification for the jurisdictional limitations it has imposed. The Essay …

Personal Jurisdiction And The "Interwebs", Alan M. Trammell, Derek E. Bambauer

Scholarly Articles

For nearly twenty years, lower courts and scholars have struggled to figure out how personal jurisdiction doctrine should apply in the Internet age. When does virtual conduct make someone amenable to jurisdiction in any particular forum? The classic but largely discredited response by courts has been to give primary consideration to a commercial Web site’s interactivity. That approach distorts the current doctrine and is divorced from coherent jurisdictional principles. Moreover, scholars have not yielded satisfying answers. They typically have argued either that the Internet is thoroughly exceptional and requires its own rules, or that it is largely unexceptional and can …

A Tale Of Two Jurisdictions, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court has recently clarified one corner of personal jurisdiction—a court’s power to hale a defendant into court—and pointed the way toward a coherent theory of the rest of the doctrine. For nearly seventy years, the Court has embraced two theories of when jurisdiction over a defendant is permissible. The traditional theory, general jurisdiction, authorizes jurisdiction when there is a tight connection between the defendant and the forum. The modern theory, specific jurisdiction, focuses more on the connection between the lawsuit itself and the forum. Although the two theories should have developed in tandem, the doctrine has become a …

Isolating Litigants: A Response To Pamela Bookman, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

In a recent article, Litigation Isolationism, Pamela Bookman identifies a phenomenon that similarly changes hue depending on one’s perspective or disposition. Bookman argues that four doctrines (personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, abstention comity, and the presumption against extraterritoriality) conspire to make U.S. courts significantly less hospitable to transnational litigation. In Bookman’s assessment, such isolationism is counterproductive because the doctrines often fail to vindicate their stated goals of respecting the separation of powers, international comity, and defendants’ interests. The article is crisp and elegant. It synthesizes disparate areas of law to elucidate a broader development in civil litigation. And it makes …

Brief Of Thirty-Four Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants: Altera Corp. V. Papst Licensing Gmbh, Christopher B. Seaman

Scholarly Articles

The amici curiae are law professors who teach and write on civil procedure and/or patent law and policy. As such, amici are interested in the effective functioning of the courts and the patent system in general. Amici believe that this Court’s rigid rule restricting personal jurisdiction in patent declaratory judgment actions both flouts Supreme Court precedent and frustrates the public policy of clearing invalid patents. Although amici hold different views on other aspects of modern patent law and policy, they are united in their professional opinion that this Court should overturn its inflexible jurisdictional rule.

I Like To Move It, Move It: Partialvenue Transfer For Less Than A Fulllegal Action, Krystal Brunner Swendsboe

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proportionality, Pretrial Confidentiality, And Discovery Sharing, Dustin B. Benham

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Transactionalism Costs, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Modern civil litigation is organized around the “transaction or occurrence,” a simple and fluid concept that brings together logically related claims in one lawsuit. It was a brilliant innovation a century ago, but its time has passed. Two inherent defects always lurked within transactionalism, but modern litigation realities have exacerbated them. First, transactionalism represents a crude estimate about the most efficient structure of a lawsuit. Often that estimate turns out to be wrong. Second, the goals of transactionalism are in tension. To function properly, the transactional approach must be simultaneously flexible (when structuring a lawsuit at the beginning of litigation) …

Toil And Trouble: How The Erie Doctrine Became Structurally Incoherent (And How Congress Can Fix It), Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

The Erie doctrine is still a minefield. It has long been a source of frustration for scholars and students, and recent case law has exacerbated the troubles. Although other scholars have noted and criticized these developments, this Article explores a deeper systemic problem that remains undeveloped in the literature. In its present form, the Erie doctrine fails to protect any coherent vision of the structural interests that supposedly are at its core—federalism, separation of powers, and equality.

This Article argues that Congress has the power to fix nearly all of these problems. Accordingly, it proposes a novel statute to revamp …

The Odd State Of Twiqbal Plausibility In Pleading Affirmative Defenses , William M. Janssen

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Class Actions, Heightened Commonality, And Declining Access To Justice, A. Benjamin Spencer

Scholarly Articles

A prerequisite to being certified as a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that there are "questions of law or fact common to the class." Although this “commonality” requirement had heretofore been regarded as something that was easily satisfied, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes the Supreme Court gave it new vitality by reading into it an obligation to identify among the class a common injury and common questions that are "central" to the dispute. Not only is such a reading of Rule 23’s commonality requirement unsupported by the text of the rule, but …

Remedies: A Guide For The Perplexed, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

Remedies is one of a law student’s most practical courses. Remedies students and their professors learn to work with their eyes on the question at the end of litigation: what can the court do for the successful plaintiff? Remedies develops students’ professional identities and broadens their professional horizons by reorganizing their analysis of procedure, torts, contracts, and property around choosing and measuring relief - compensatory damages, punitive damages, an injunction, specific performance, disgorgement, and restitution. This article discusses the law-school course in Remedies - the content of the Remedies course, the Remedies classroom experience, and Remedies outside the classroom through …

Jurisdictional Sequencing, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

Jurisdictional sequencing taps into fundamental questions about the nature and role of subject matter jurisdiction and what, if anything, a court may do before it has established jurisdiction. Because the Supreme Court has not rooted the doctrine in a clear theory, jurisdictional sequencing has engendered confusion among judges and scholars, who have been at a loss to explain it. Although a number of courts have embraced the leeway that the doctrine offers—the ability to dismiss a case on easier grounds before taking up harder jurisdictional questions—most scholars have criticized it as illegitimate or incoherent. This Article is the first to …

Applying The Stored Communications Act To The Civil Discovery Of Social Networking Sites, Rudolph J. Burshnic

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Open The Door, Not The Floodgates: Controlling Qui Tam Litigation Under The False Claims Act, Christopher M. Alexion

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reining In The Rogue Squadron: Making Sense Of The “Original Source” Exception For Qui Tam Relators, Dayna Bowen Matthew

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Optimizing Qui Tam Litigation And Minimizing Fraud And Abuse: A Comment On Christopher Alexion’S Open The Door, Not The Floodgates, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Arise Out Of" Or "Related To": Textualism And Understanding Precedent Through Interpretatio Objectificata, "Objectified Interpretation"—A Four Step Process To Resolve Jurisdiction Questions Utilizing The Third Circuit Test In O’Connor As A Uniform Standard, Victor N. Metallo

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

W(H)Ither The Jury? The Diminishing Role Of The Jury Trial In Our Legal System, Jennifer Walker Elrod

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process In Civil Commitments, Alexander Tsesis

Washington and Lee Law Review

In one of its most controversial decisions to date, United States v. Comstock, the Roberts Court upheld a federal civil commitment statute requiring only an intermediate burden of proof. The statute provided for the postsentencing confinement of anyone proven by "clear and convincing evidence" to be mentally ill and dangerous. The law relied on a judicial standard established more than thirty years before. The majority in Comstock missed the opportunity to reassess the precedent in light of recent psychiatric studies indicating that the ambiguity of available diagnostic tools can lead to erroneous insanity assessments and mistaken evaluations about patients’ likelihood …

The Restrictive Ethos In Civil Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer

Scholarly Articles

Those of us who study civil procedure are familiar with the notion that federal procedure under the 1938 civil rules was generally characterized by a "liberal ethos," meaning that it was originally designed to promote open access to the courts and to facilitate a resolution of disputes on the merits. Most of us are also aware of the fact that the reality of procedure is not always access-promoting or fixated on merits-based resolutions as a priority. Indeed, I would say that a "restrictive ethos" characterizes procedure today, with many rules being developed, interpreted, and applied in a manner that frustrates …

Iqbal And The Slide Toward Restrictive Procedure, A. Benjamin Spencer

Scholarly Articles

Last term, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court affirmed its commitment to more stringent pleading standards in the ordinary federal civil case. Although the decision is not a watershed, since it merely underscores the substantial changes to pleading doctrine wrought in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, Iqbal is disconcerting for at least two reasons. First, the Court treated Iqbal’s factual allegations in a manner that further erodes the assumption-of-truth rule that has been the cornerstone of modern federal civil pleading practice. The result is an approach to pleading that is governed by a subjective, malleable standard that permits judges …

Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction For Our Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer

Scholarly Articles

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits the territorial jurisdiction of federal district courts to that of the courts of their host states. This limitation is a voluntary rather than obligatory restriction, given district courts' status as courts of the national sovereign. Although there are sound policy reasons for limiting the jurisdictional reach of our federal courts in this manner, the limitation delivers little benefit from a judicial administration or even a fairness perspective, and ultimately costs more to implement than is gained in return. The rule should be amended to provide that district courts have personal …

Understanding Pleading Doctrine, A. Benjamin Spencer

Scholarly Articles

Where does pleading doctrine, at the federal level, stand today? The Supreme Court's revision of general pleading standards in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly has not left courts and litigants with a clear or precise understanding of what it takes to state a claim that can survive a motion to dismiss. Claimants are required to show "plausible entitlement to relief" by offering enough facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Translating those admonitions into predictable and consistent guidelines has been illusory. This Article proposes a descriptive theory that explains the fundaments of contemporary pleading doctrine in …

Filtering Through A Mess: A Proposal To Reduce The Confusion Surrounding The Requirements For Standing In False Advertising Claims Brought Under Section 43(A) Of The Lanham Act, Peter S. Massaro, Iii

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Will The Real Real Party In Interest Please Stand Up?: Applying The Capacity To Sue Rule In Diversity Cases, Benjamin J. Conley

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.