Civil Procedure Commons^™

Qui Tam Legislation And Article Ii: State Constitutional Precursors To The “Take Care” Clause, Randy Beck

Scholarly Works

Anglo-American legislation since the fourteenth century has often authorized “popular” or “qui tam” enforcement, in which an uninjured “common informer” litigates to collect a forfeiture for violation of a statute. Popular enforcement has become considerably less common than in earlier centuries, but remains important because of the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act (FCA). In Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, the Supreme Court rejected an Article III standing challenge to qui tam litigation, concluding that the long history of popular enforcement means qui tam suits present cognizable “cases and controversies of …

Stand-In Standing, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

When the interests of a state, or of the federal government, are at issue in a lawsuit, those interests are typically represented by the Executive branch. But not always: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states, and the federal government, may delegate their claims to non-governmental litigants in some circumstances. But the Court has never defined the exact boundaries of when stand-in standing is permitted. And states have recently begun to exploit this doctrinal uncertainty, by enacting laws that are arguably, and in some cases flagrantly, unconstitutional, but outsourcing the enforcement of those laws to private individuals. The avowed …

Public Defender Workload And The Promise Of Gideon, M. Eve Hanan

Scholarly Works

Gideon v. Wainwright, which was decided in 1963, held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel for poor people charged with crimes in state court.1 Over the six decades since Gideon was decided, states have grappled with how to provide public defense services.

The Jury Does Not Always Need Help From Lay Opinion Witnesses, Taurus Myhand

Scholarly Works

Who is the “reasonable person”? There is little doubt that every competent legal professional, both in law practice and in the academic setting, has spent a great deal of time attempting to define the reasonable person. “Reasonableness is largely a matter of common sense.” In police encounters, the definition is certainly important to the outcome of questionable police conduct. How the reasonable person is defined often determines whether a police officer has infringed on an individual’s Fourth Amendment guarantee to be secure in their person against unreasonable searches and seizures. As the narratives of the news media shape how some …

Settlement As Construct: Defining And Counting Party Resolution In Federal District Court, Charlotte S. Alexander, Nathan Dahlberg, Anne M. Tucker

Scholarly Works

Most civil cases settle. Yet generating a definitive settlement rate presents complex definitional and empirical problems, both in what should count as a settlement and how to count it. This Essay makes three contributions to better understanding and defining settlement. First, we propose a flexible, empirically informed, operationalizable definition of settlement as party resolution. Second, we exploit a new federal litigation data source to count party resolutions using machine learning models trained on 11 million docket sheet entries. Third, we offer new findings on party resolution frequency and distribution in the federal courts. Settlement is more widely and differently deployed …

Can State Legislatures Strip Federal Courts Of Jurisdiction To Review State Laws?, Matthew I. Hall, Eliza K. Hall

Scholarly Works

For more than a century, federal courts have relied on the Ex parte Young doctrine to provide authority to protect individual constitutional rights against state infringement. Ex parte Young provides the primary mechanism for federal judicial review of allegedly unconstitutional state laws, permitting persons whose federal rights are affected by state law to seek an injunction in federal court against the state officials charged with enforcing the law. By some accounts, the Ex parte Young doctrine is an exception to sovereign immunity; by others, it is merely an example of the “traditional tool of equity” known as the anti-suit injunction. …

Plaintiffs' Process: Civil Procedure, Mdl, And A Day In Court, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Abbe R. Gluck

Scholarly Works

The article focuses on the concept of "plaintiffs process" within the field of civil procedure. It discusses how civil procedure doctrine has traditionally been defendant-centric, focusing on the rights and protections of defendants in legal cases. It examines the role of multidistrict litigation (MDL) in this context and how it impacts plaintiffs rights and access to the courts.

The Elastics Of Snap Removal: An Empirical Case Study Of Textualism, Thomas O. Main, Jeffrey W. Stempel, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

This article reports the findings of an empirical study of textualism as applied by federal judges interpreting the statute that permits removal of diversity cases from state to federal court. The “snap removal” provision in the statute is particularly interesting because its application forces judges into one of two interpretive camps—which are fairly extreme versions of textualism and purposivism, respectively. We studied characteristics of cases and judges to find predictors of textualist outcomes. In this article we offer a narrative discussion of key variables and we detail the results of our logistic regression analysis. The most salient predictive variable was …

Justice Ginsburg, Civil Procedure Professor And Champion Of Judicial Federalism, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Hands-Off Religion In The Early Months Of Covid-19, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

For decades, scholars have documented the United States Supreme Court’s “hands-off approach” to questions of religious practice and belief, pursuant to which the Court has repeatedly declared that judges are precluded from making decisions that require evaluating and determining the substance of religious doctrine. At the same time, many scholars have criticized this approach, for a variety of reasons. The early months of the COVID-19 outbreak brought these issues to the forefront, both directly, in disputes over limitations on religious gatherings due to the virus, and indirectly, as the Supreme Court decided important cases turning on religious doctrine. Taken together, …

The Nature Of Standing, Matthew I. Hall, Christian Turner

Scholarly Works

Standing to raise a claim before a judicial tribunal is notoriously contested. Federal courts during the last century developed an increasingly rule-like and rigid doctrine around the concept of private injury to govern access to the federal forum. Some states followed the federal lead. Others have created important exceptions, and even in federal courts, issues like organizational standing, legislative standing, and standing of qui tam relators have proved controversial. We describe a broader taxonomy of agenda control rules, of which standing rules are a special case, to understand why and how courts and other institutions govern their choices of what …

Snap Removal: Concept; Cause; Cacophony; And Cure, Jeffrey W. Stempel, Thomas O. Main, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

So-called “snap removal” – removal of a case from state to federal court prior to service on a forum state defendant – has divided federal trial courts for 20 years. Recently, panels of the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits have sided with those supporting the tactic even though it conflicts with the general prohibition on removal when the case includes a forum state defendant, a situation historically viewed as eliminating the need to protect the outsider defendant from possible state court hostility.

Consistent with the public policy underlying diversity jurisdiction – availability of a federal forum to protect against defending …

The Shadow Judiciary, Charlotte S. Alexander, Nathan Dahlberg, Anne M. Tucker

Scholarly Works

Magistrate judges function as a shadow judiciary, assisting U.S. district court judges-and sometimes standing in their shoes-in managing caseloads, resolving disputes, making law, and choosing winners and losers. Yet we lack basic knowledge about magistrates themselves, the rules that govern their activity, and the ways in which they execute their duties. To fill those gaps, this Article offers a detailed typology of the district-level local rules and standing orders that govern magistrate operations in civil cases. It also describes a case study of ten years of magistrate practice in a single federal district court, the U.S. District Court for the …

Civil Statutes Of Limitation For Child Sexual Abuse And Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking, Emma Hetherington, Melina D. Lewis, Brian Atkinson, Brittany Blanchard, Kevin Tyler Dysart, Chase Lyndale, Devin Mashman, Charles Lawson Turner

Scholarly Works

The Wilbanks Child Endangerment and Sexual Exploitation (CEASE) Clinic is a teaching and research clinic at the University of Georgia School of Law. The clinic represents survivors of childhood sexual abuse and exploitation in civil and juvenile dependency proceedings. Since opening its doors in 2016, CEASE has assisted over 100 survivors in the state of Georgia through legal representation, legal advice, and/or referrals. Law and masters of social work students work in the clinic and participate in a seminar covering best practices in representing survivors, relevant laws and policies, and practical legal and social work skills. Law students represent survivors …

Uniformity Of State & Federal Procedure, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Our Passive-Aggressive Model Of Civil Adjudication, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

In this essay, Professor Main offers one original observation and poses two new questions about the vanishing civil trial.

Mediation: An Unlikely Villain, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

Professor Main argues that the modem ADR movement (and mediation in particular), rather than some (other) ideology, beget the pleading and summary judgment standards that exemplify contemporary practice and procedure in the fourth era in the history of American civil procedure. The other key reforms of the fourth era-the vanishing trial, the embrace of ADR, judicial case management and the pursuit of settlement by any means necessary-are more obviously tied to the modem ADR movement. Blame for all of the key fourth era reforms is thus traceable to the modern ADR movement. This, in turn, matters because it is generally …

Statute Of Limitations For Child Sexual Abuse Civil Lawsuits In Georgia, Emma Hetherington, Jean Mangan, Chase Lyndale, Michael Nunnally, Wilbanks Child Endangerment And Sexual Exploitation Clinic, University Of Georgia School Of Law

Scholarly Works

Only 29% of child sexual abuse reports result in criminal charges being filed. As a result, most states have enacted civil statutes of limitations to allow survivors to file claims both against abusers and also those who owed them a duty of care and knew or should have known about the abuse. In 2015 the Georgia legislature passed the Hidden Predator Act (HPA) to amend the state’s civil statute of limitations. Under the HPA, survivors of child sexual abuse that occurred prior to July 1, 2015 were given a two-year retroactive window under which to file claims against their abusers. …

Brandeis’S I.P. Federalism: Thoughts On Erie At Eighty, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

Justice Brandeis is, in intellectual property law’s precincts, most famous for his lone dissent in International News Service v. Associate Press, the misappropriation case one can find in virtually every i.p. survey casebook (and many property law casebooks as well). But in the wider legal world, Brandeis is likely most famous for his earthquake opinion in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins. Do Brandeis’s opinions in these two cases speak to each other? Can considering them together inform broader reflections on the texture of our federalism in the i.p. context? This piece, prepared in connection with an “Erie at Eighty” conference …

Nudges And Norms In Multidistrict Litigation: A Response To Engstrom, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

On paper, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply equally to billion-dollar opioid allegations and small-stakes claims for $75,000.01. In practice, however, judges and attorneys in high-stakes multidistrict proceedings like those over opioids have invented a smattering of procedures that you’ll never find indexed in the Federal Rules: plaintiff fact sheets, short form complaints, science days, bellwether trials, census orders, inactive dockets, and Lone Pine orders to name but a few. In a world where settlement is the prevailing currency, norms take root. But as norms blossom, the stabilizing features of the federal rules—balance, predictability, and structural protections—can wither. As …

Disciplinary Regulation Of Prosecutorial Discretion: What Would A Rule Look Like?, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

This Essay is the third part of a larger project examining the potential role of professional discipline in the regulation and supervision of prosecutors’ charging decisions. The first two parts of the project argued that courts have both the authority and the ability to exercise effective disciplinary review of charging decisions through the adoption of ethics rules and their enforcement in the disciplinary process. This Essay takes the next step in the project, considering the nature of rules that courts might adopt, by exploring potential rules targeting two improprieties: arbitrary and capricious charging decisions, and discriminatory charging decisions.

Will The Jury System Survive The Peña-Rodriguez Exception To Rule 606(B)?: The Court’S Response To Racial Discrimination By A Juror Leaves The Future Of The American Jury Trial System In Jeopardy, Taurus Myhand

Scholarly Works

The enforcement of no-impeachment rules has been a long-standing tradition in the United States preventing jurors from offering testimony as to impeach their own verdict. In March 2017, the Supreme Court changed course from centuries of jurisprudence and superseded the Federal Rules of Evidence with a new exception to Rule 606(b) in the Court’s decision in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado. The Court’s effort to “root out” racial bias in the justice system resulted in the debunking of the legislative authority granted to the Congress while creating an exception that does little, if anything, toward eliminating racial bias during jury deliberations. In …

Notes From A Quiet Corner: User Concerns About Reinsurance Arbitration – And Attendant Lessons For Selection Of Dispute Resolution Forums And Methods, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Arbitration between insurers and reinsurers – those who insure insurance companies – should logically run as smoothly as any arbitration process. Like the traditional commercial arbitration that drove enactment of the Federal Arbitration Act, reinsurance arbitration involves experienced actors in a confined industry in which the parties should be constructively aware of the rules, norms, customs and practices of the industry. But in spite of this, reinsurance arbitration experiences consistent problems of which the participants complain. This article reviews the complaints and exams possible solutions – including the possibility of arbitrating less and litigating more. Although these possible solutions would …

Asymmetry And Adequacy In Discovery Incentives: The Discouraging Implications In Haeger V. Goodyear, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

In this article, Professor Jeffrey Stempel explores the implications the decision in Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. has for discovery and civil procedure. Professor Stempel argues the troublesome narrative that discovery problems and "abuse" are largely problems of claimants seeking excessive discovery that is unduly burdensome and costly relative to the case at hand is a significant part of the problem. Since the mid-1970s, the prevailing narrative has blamed discovery seekers more than discovery resisters.In that narrative, discovery problems are largely the problems of plaintiffs that are too unrealistic, sloppy, lazy, or greedy in frequently seeking excessive discovery. …

Telling Stories In The Supreme Court: Voices Briefs And The Role Of Democracy In Constitutional Deliberation, Linda H. Edwards

Scholarly Works

On January 4, 2016, over 112 women lawyers, law professors, and former judges told the world that they had had an abortion. In a daring amicus brief that captured national media attention, the women “came out” to their clients; to the lawyers with or against whom they practice; to the judges before whom they appear; and to the Justices of the Supreme Court.

The past three years have seen an explosion of such “voices briefs,” 16 in Obergefell and 17 in Whole Woman’s Health. The briefs can be powerful, but their use is controversial. They tell the stories of non-parties—strangers …

Monopolies In Multidistrict Litigation, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

When transferee judges receive a multidistrict proceeding, they select a few lead plaintiffs’ lawyers to efficiently manage litigation and settlement negotiations. That decision gives those attorneys total control over all consolidated plaintiffs’ claims and rewards them richly in common-benefit fees. It’s no surprise then that these are coveted positions, yet empirical evidence confirms that the same attorneys occupy them time and again.

Anytime repeat players exist and exercise both oligopolistic leadership control across multidistrict proceedings and monopolistic power within a single proceeding, there is concern that they will use their dominance to enshrine practices and norms that benefit themselves at …

A Politics-Reinforcing Political Question Doctrine, Harlan G. Cohen

Scholarly Works

The modern political question doctrine has long been criticized for shielding the political branches from proper judicial scrutiny and allowing the courts to abdicate their responsibilities. Critics of the doctrine thus cheered when the Supreme Court, in Zivotofsky I, announced a narrowing of the doctrine. Their joy though may have been short-lived. Almost immediately, Zivotofsky II demonstrated the dark side of judicial review of the separation of powers between Congress and the President: deciding separations of powers cases may permanently cut one of the political branches out of certain debates. Judicial scrutiny in a particular case could eliminate political scrutiny …

Who Has Standing To Sue The President Over Allegedly Unconstitutional Emoluments?, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

Three pending lawsuits challenge President Trump's practice of accepting payments and other benefits from foreign governments through his businesses as violative of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. They also allege that the President's practice of accepting payments and benefits from state or federal governmental units violates the Domestic Emoluments Clause. These actions raise interesting questions about the meaning of two little-discussed provisions of the Constitution. But before reaching the merits the courts will first have to grapple with issues of justiciability - in particular, with the question whether plaintiffs have "standing" to bring their claims in federal court. This article explains …

When Torts Met Civil Procedure: A Curricular Coupling, Laura G. Dooley, Brigham A. Fordham, Ann E. Woodley

Scholarly Works

Law students must become adept at understanding how various bodies of law interact-supporting, balancing, and even conflicting with each other. This article describes an attempt to achieve these goals by merging two canonical first-year courses, civil procedure and torts, into an integrated class titled ‘Introduction to Civil Litigation’. Our most pressing motivation was concern that students who study civil procedure and torts in isolation develop a skewed, unrealistic view of how law works in the real world. By combining these courses, we hoped to teach students early in their careers to approach problems more like practicing lawyers, who must deal …

Repeat Players In Multidistrict Litigation: The Social Network, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Margaret S. Williams

Scholarly Works

As class certification wanes, plaintiffs’ lawyers resolve hundreds of thousands of individual lawsuits through aggregate settlements in multidistrict litigation. But without class actions, formal rules are scarce and judges rarely scrutinize the private agreements that result. Meanwhile, the same principal-agent concerns that plagued class-action attorneys linger. These circumstances are ripe for exploitation: few rules, little oversight, multi-million dollar common-benefit fees, and a push for settlement can tempt a cadre of repeat players to fill in the gaps in ways that further their own self-interest.

Although multidistrict litigation now comprises 36 percent of the entire federal civil caseload, legal scholars have …