Civil Procedure Commons^™

At The Intersection Of Erie And Administrative Law: Front-Loading The Erie Question Into The Adoption Of A Federal Rule, Jeffrey L. Rensberger

Akron Law Review

The Supreme Court regularly faces Erie issues involving the displacement of state law by a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Under Hanna v. Plummer, federal rules displace state law if they were intended to apply to the matter at issue and are valid. But in such cases, the Court has already encountered the rule once before, at the time it adopted the rule and transmitted it to Congress. Why is the Erie question decided at the back end of the process rather than at its front? If the question of whether a rule is intended to displace state law …

Adrift On Erie: Characterizing Forum-Selection Clauses, Kermit Roosevelt Iii, Bethan R. Jones

Akron Law Review

Erie is one of our most famous cases, but also one of the most mysterious. It has become something of a Rorschach test, a pattern onto which scholars project their own concerns. This article presents a simple view of Erie as a case about power: first, who has the power to make certain laws and second, who has the power to interpret them. From this perspective, Erie has nothing to do with substance-procedure characterization—the topic now understood to be governed by Erie analysis. Indeed, early post-Erie cases describe Erie as concerned with power. The substance-procedure distinction enters the picture …

The Erie Doctrine: A Flowchart, Michael S. Green

Akron Law Review

The following is a complete flowchart for Erie problems. Although it differs from past efforts in many respects, perhaps the most important difference is that it accommodates all the jurisdictional contexts in which Erie problems can arise in federal court, not just diversity jurisdiction. My hope is that this flowchart will help demystify Erie, by showing that Erie problems are, by and large, standard choice-of-law problems, much like those faced by state courts.

Pleading Poverty In Federal Court, Andrew Hammond

UF Law Faculty Publications

What must a poor person plead to gain access to the federal courts? How do courts decide when a poor litigant is poor enough? This Article answers those questions with the first comprehensive study of how district courts determine when a litigant may proceed in forma pauperis in a civil lawsuit. It shows that district courts lack standards to determine a litigant’s poverty and often require litigants to answer an array of questions to little effect. As a result, discrepancies in federal practice abound—across and within district courts—and produce a pleading system that is arbitrary, inefficient, and invasive.

The Article …

The Procedure Of Patent Eligibility, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

A decade ago, the patent-eligible subject matter requirement was defunct. Several recent Supreme Court decisions, however, have made eligibility the most important issue in many patent cases. To date, debates over the resurgent doctrine have focused mainly on its substance. Critics contend that the Supreme Court’s case law makes patents too easy to invalidate and discourages innovation. Supporters emphasize that the Court’s decisions help eradicate the overly broad patents often asserted by so-called patent trolls.

Yet one important consequence of eligibility’s revival has been procedural. Because district courts often view eligibility to present a pure question of law, they are—for …

Has Shoe Run Its Course?, David W. Ichel

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Goodrich-Amram: Who Were They?, Joel Fishman

Law Faculty Publications

Generations of Pennsylvania judges and lawyers have used Goodrich-Amram Procedural Rules with Forms as a major treatise on the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The authors wrote the first edition beginning in 1940 as Pennsylvania Procedural Rules Service, with Forms: Civil Practice Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, published by Matthew Bender and Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company. There were four volumes with updates published as pamphlets refilling the volumes as needed. Two additional publications were A 1963 Supplement to the Rules Binder (binder) and a September 1977 pamphlet to the Rules Binder.2 In 1976, a …

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. …

The Parable Of The Forms, Samuel L. Bray

Journal Articles

This is a parable about the forms of action, code pleading, and the "civil action" of the Federal Rules.

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 …

Superior Court Of Arizona In Maricopa County: Commercial Court Evaluation, Final Report, Paula Hannaford-Agor

Faculty Publications

On July 1, 2015, the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County (“Superior Court”) implemented a specialized commercial court (“Commercial Court”) as a pilot project. The goal of the Commercial Court was to meet the unique needs of business cases by assigning them to judges with substantial commercial and civil case management experience. Specialized rules governing the assignment and management of Commercial Court cases were developed by the Superior Court and implemented as Experimental Rule 8.1 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Three judges were initially assigned to the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court was authorized to conduct a …

$314m And Sovereign Immunity Are At Stake In Upcoming High Court Case, Peter B. Rutledge, Amanda W. Newton

Popular Media

The Nov. 7 Supreme Court arguments in Republic of Sudan v. Harrison will implicate issues of civil procedure, sovereign immunity, and statutory interpretation. At stake for the Republic of Sudan is $314 million in Sudanese assets. More broadly, however, the court’s decision could have ramifications for any nation, including the United States, that enjoys sovereign immunity.

Guidelines And Best Practices For Large And Mass-Tort Mdls (Second Edition), Bolch Judicial Institute

Bolch Judicial Institute Publications

Mass-tort MDLs dominate the federal civil docket, yet they present enormous challenges to transferee judges assigned to manage them. There is little official guidance and no rules specific to the management of mass-tort MDLs, often requiring the transferee judge to develop procedures out of whole cloth.

Beginning in 2013, the Bolch Judicial Institute (then the Center for Judicial Studies) sought to address this issue through a series of annual bench-bar conferences. From these conferences came the Guidelines and Best Practices for Large and Mass-Tort MDLs document — now in its Second Edition — which is designed to help judges and …

Stays, Portia Pedro

Faculty Scholarship

After judges issue orders or judgments, they often face the difficult task of making a determination even more complex than that of the underlying order, but in less time, with less guidance, and with high stakes. These judges are deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal — whether to prevent the enforcement of a court order or judgment until a court has decided the appeal. Although stays may seem to be a mere procedural technicality, stays are, instead, the new battleground for injunctive litigation. While review was pending, stay determinations have decided if abortion providers could operate in Texas, …

Procedural Design, Alexandra D. Lahav

Vanderbilt Law Review

The procedural law dictates the sequence of steps that bring a lawsuit from filing to completion. The design of civil procedure in the federal courts is generally described as having the following sequential order: complaint, motion to dismiss, discovery, summary judgment, trial, and finally, appeal. While this is a passable description of the vision of the drafters of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, it no longer describes the reality of federal litigation. Jurisdiction can be determined at the end of the lawsuit rather than the beginning. Judges demand determination of factual disputes before discovery commences through a …

Personal Jurisdiction And The Web, Joseph S. Burns, Richard A. Bales

Maine Law Review

Courts have struggled in determining precisely when a defendant should be subject to suit in a particular forum based on his or her Web activity. Although most jurisdictions have applied some form of the “minimum contacts” test, the test has been applied inconsistently. A new standard is needed to resolve personal jurisdiction disputes arising out of Web activity. This Article examines the ways in which modern courts have attempted to resolve personal jurisdiction issues based on Web activity, as well as the inconsistencies that have resulted from the inherent difficulty in conceptualizing the Web.

Mdl V. Trump: The Puzzle Of Public Law In Multidistrict Litigation, Andrew D. Bradt, Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern University Law Review

Litigation against the Trump Administration has proliferated rapidly since the inauguration. As cases challenging executive actions, such as the “travel ban,” multiply in federal courts around the country, an important procedural question has so far not been considered—Should these sets of cases be consolidated in a single court under the Multidistrict Litigation Act? Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, has become one of the most prominent parts of federal litigation and offers substantial benefits by coordinating litigation pending in geographically dispersed federal courts. Arguably, those benefits would also accrue if “public law” cases were given MDL treatment. There also are some underappreciated …

Discouraging Frivolous Copyright Infringement Claims: Fee Shifting Under Rule 11 Or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 As An Alternative To Awarding Attorney’S Fees Under Section 505 Of The Copyright Act, David E. Shipley

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

The United States Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons resolved a disagreement over when it is appropriate to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing defendant under section 505 of the Copyright Act, and ended a perceived venue advantage for losing plaintiffs in some jurisdictions. The Court ruled unanimously that courts are correct to give substantial weight to the question of whether the losing side had a reasonable case to fight, but that the objective reasonableness of that side’s position does not give rise to a presumption against fee shifting. It made clear that other factors …

Disbelief Doctrines, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Employment discrimination law is riddled with doctrines that tell courts to believe employers and not workers. Judges often use these disbelief doctrines to dismiss cases at the summary judgment stage. At times, judges even use them after a jury trial to justify nullifying jury verdicts in favor of workers.

This article brings together many disparate discrimination doctrines and shows how they function as disbelief doctrines, causing courts to believe employers and not workers. The strongest disbelief doctrines include the stray comments doctrine, the same decisionmaker inference, and the same protected class inference. However, these are not the only ones. Even …

How To Sue A Robot, Roger Michalski

Faculty Articles

We are entering the age of robots where autonomous robots will drive our cars, milk cows, drill for oil, invest in stock, mine coal, build houses, pick strawberries, and work as surgeons. Robots, in mimicking the work of humans, will also mimic their legal liability. But how do you sue a robot? The current answer is that you cannot. Robots are property. They are not entities with a legal status that would make them amendable to sue or be sued. If a robot causes harm, you have to sue its owner. Corporations used to be like this for many procedural …

Teaching And Learning Personal Jurisdiction After The Stealth Revolution, Deborah Challener

Journal Articles

In this Response [to Professor Michael Hoffheimer’s article The Stealth Revolution in Personal Jurisdiction], Professor Challener points out one additional cost of the stealth revolution: the substantially increased difficulty of teaching and learning the law of personal jurisdiction which, in turn, erodes law students’ confidence in the Supreme Court as an institution.

Florida's Controlling Summary Judgment Rule 1.510(C) Contrasted With The Common Law-Created Rule Grounded On Two Conflicted Federal Cases, H Michael Muñiz

St. Thomas Law Review

Florida litigators, who are familiar with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, should not be surprised that the prescribed, controlling procedural rule to be followed as well as for a Florida state trial court to adjudicate a motion for summary judgment ("MSJ") is presumptively set forth within Rule 1.510 of the modem-day Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The current rule expressly provides, in material part, "the judgment sought must be rendered immediately if the pleadings and summary judgment evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled …

Human-Centered Civil Justice Design: Procedural Justice And Process Value Pluralism, Victor D. Quintanilla, Michael A. Yontz

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

The Narrative Of Costs, The Cost Of Narrative, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

In Judge Victor Marrero’s Article “The Cost of Rules, the Rule of Costs,” he argues that too many lawyers use too many procedural devices to cause too much inefficiency within our civil justice system. His Article helpfully asks us to focus on the role of the lawyer and law firm economics in assessing how to solve waste and abuse in civil litigation. He proposes an array of procedural changes to address these perceived problems. In this response, I argue that Judge Marrero’s assertions about costs are questionable, given relevant empirical evidence. Moreover, although I am confident that there are instances …

Introduction: Reflections On The Future Of Discovery In Civil Cases, Paul W. Grimm

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Defense Against The Dark Arts Of Copyright Trolling, Matthew Sag, Jake Haskell

Faculty Publications & Other Works

In this Article, we offer both a legal and a pragmatic framework for defending against copyright trolls. Lawsuits alleging online copyright infringement by John Doe defendants have accounted for roughly half of all copyright cases filed in the United States over the past three years. In the typical case, the plaintiff's claims of infringement rely on a poorly substantiated form pleading and are targeted indiscriminately at noninfringers as well as infringers. This practice is a subset of the broader problem of opportunistic litigation, but it persists due to certain unique features of copyright law and the technical complexity of Internet …

Civil Procedure: You've Been Served . . . Or Have You?—Jaeger V. Palladium Holdings, Gus Cochran

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Clash Of Procedural Values, Roger Michalski

Faculty Articles

Should civil litigation be fast, inexpensive or accurate? When these goals clash, which one should prevail? These questions are the subject of countless court opinions, policy arguments, academic debates, and civil procedure exams. Yet discussion of procedural values to date has taken place in the dark, lacking vital information about which procedural values matter to actual litigants. This Article fills that void with empirical analysis. It analyzes an original dataset based on 1200 surveys mailed to a broad range of litigants and judges asking for their views on procedural values. It interprets survey responses by introducing to legal scholarship a …

Preclusion Law As A Model For National Injunctions, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.

Changing Times, Changing Relationships For The Bench And Civil Bar, Paula Hannaford-Agor

Faculty Publications

For the past century, the interests of the bench and bar in delivering justice to civil litigants were closely aligned. As civil litigants’ needs change, courts recognize they must lead the way on civil justice reforms both for their own sake and to encourage productive change in civil legal practice.