Civil Procedure Commons^™

Introduction: Dukes V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

This short introduction to Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. aims to explain the case and to set the table for what promises to be thought-provoking roundtable discussion hosted by Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc. Accordingly, what follows is a concise overview of the legal background and current debate over the two procedural issues that the Ninth Circuit explored in detail – how to evaluate Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality when common questions heavily implicate the case’s merits, and when a Rule 23(b)(2) class can include relief apart from injunctive or declaratory relief without endangering due process.

A Sense Of Disentitlement: Frame-Shifting And Metaphor In Ashcroft V. Iqbal, Lisa A. Eichhorn

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Cy Pres Relief And The Pathologies Of The Modern Class Action: A Normative And Empirical Analysis, Martin H. Redish, Peter Julian, Samantha Zyontz

Faculty Scholarship

Since the mid 1970s, federal courts have taken the doctrine of cy pres relief from the venerable law of trusts and adapted it for use in the modern class action proceeding. In its original context, cy pres was utilized as a means of judicially designating a charitable recipient when, for whatever reason, it was no longer possible to fulfill the original goal of the maker of the trust. The purpose of cy pres was to provide “the next best relief” by finding a recipient who would resemble the original donor’s recipient as much as possible. In the context of class …

Do Class Action Lawyers Make Too Little?, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Class action lawyers are some of the most frequently derided players in our system of civil litigation. It is often asserted that class action lawyers take too much from class judgments as fees, that class actions are little more than a device for the lawyers to enrich themselves at the expense of the class. In this Article, I argue that some of this criticism of class action lawyers is misguided. In particular, I perform a normative examination of fee percentages in class action litigation using the social-welfarist utilitarian account of litigation known as deterrence-insurance theory. I argue that in perhaps …

Did The Madisonian Compromise Survive Detention At Guantanamo?, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this essay, I take up the Court’s less heralded second holding in Boumediene v. Bush - that a federal habeas court must have the institutional capacity to find facts, which in Boumediene itself meant that a federal district court must be available to the petitioners. Although this has gone largely unnoticed, I contend that this holding is inconsistent with the Madisonian Compromise - the standard view that the Constitution does not require jurisdiction in any federal court, except the Supreme Court. In fact, it appears that the Court adopted Justice Story’s position that the Constitution requires vesting of jurisdiction …

Corporate Governance In The Courtroom: An Empirical Analysis, Jessica M. Erickson

Law Faculty Publications

Conventional wisdom is that shareholder derivative suits are dead. Yet this death knell is decidedly premature. The current conception of shareholder derivative suits is based on an empirical record limited to suits filed in Delaware or on behalf of Delaware corporations, leaving suits outside this sphere in the shadows of corporate law scholarship. This Article aims to fill this gap by presenting the first empirical examination of shareholder derivative suits in the federal courts. Using an original, hand-collected data set, my study reveals that shareholder derivative suits are far from dead. Shareholders file more shareholder derivative suits than securities class …

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

Faculty Publications

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 …

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 …

Hearings, Mark Spottswood

Faculty Working Papers

This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing their testimony in person than if the judges were to review …

Interlocutory Review By Agreement Of The Parties: A Preliminary Analysis, James Pfander, Dave Pekarek-Krohn

Faculty Working Papers

Although the nineteenth century's final judgment rule no longer represents an absolute barrier to interlocutory appellate review, scholars disagree about what should take its place. Some favor a regime of discretionary interlocutory review, with power conferred on appellate courts to select issues that warrant intervention. Others reject discretionary review as a waste of appellate resources and call upon the rule makers to identify specific categories of non-final orders that always warrant review. While the Supreme Court's collateral order doctrine bears some similarity to this process of categorization, the Court may have called a halt to the judicial recognition of new …

The Battle Lines Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 8(A)(2) And The Effects On A Pro Se Litigant's Ability To Survive A Motion To Dismiss, Melodee C. Rhodes

St. Thomas Law Review

Part II of this Comment discusses the development of pro se litigation from its historical roots to modern day concepts. Part III addresses the transformation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) through the Court's interpretation in Conley v. Gibson, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Part IV explains the unique relationship between pro se litigation and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Part V examines the tremendous effect of pro se litigation on the court system and highlights areas of the law in which pro se litigants find it extremely difficult to survive a motion to …

It's The Law! Applying The Law Is The Missing Measure Of Civil Law / Common Law Convergence, James Maxeiner

All Faculty Scholarship

It’s the Law! The application of law to facts is a measure of convergence of common and civil law systems of civil procedure that is missing from our program. The previous session addressed “Getting Straight to the Facts” and “Getting Results.” Facts and results are fine, but what of the law and of its application? Should not applying law have pride of place in systems of civil justice? Should not it be the measure of convergence?

The measure of convergence that I propose is whether methods of applying law to facts are converging. Applying law to facts is the principal …

Proportionality In Discovery: A Cautionary Tale, John L. Carroll

Campbell Law Review

"There has been widespread criticism of the abuse of discovery."' That statement comes not from a recent edition of the Defense Research Institute newsletter but from the Advisory Committee notes to the 1980 amendment that gave us the Rule 26(f) conference. Discovery abuse and the increase in the cost of litigation that flows from such abuse has been a constant theme emerging from analysis of the civil justice system.

Pleading In Ohio After Bell Atlantic V. Twombly And Ashcroft V. Iqbal: Why Ohio Shouldn't Notice A Change, Alana C. Jochum

Cleveland State Law Review

Ohio has only briefly addressed the entrance of Bell Atlantic onto the pleading stage, and, thus far, Ohio state courts have mostly retained the Conley standard for determining pleadings. However, multiple pleading standards are emerging, making the issue ripe for a determination by the Supreme Court of Ohio as to what the true pleading standard is for Ohio. This Note will explain why Ohio should preserve Conley, even if doing so diverges from the original intent of federal-state uniformity embodied by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

If We Don’T Get Civil Gideon: Trying To Make The Best Of The Civil-Justice Market, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

This article considers what market-oriented or market-regulation approaches might be most practical and helpful in trying to satisfy unmet civil legal-service needs and how much it appears that such approaches may be able to succeed in doing so.

Setting Foot On Enemy Ground: Cease-And-Desist Letters, Dmca Notifications And Personal Jurisdiction In Declaratory Judgment Actions, Marketa Trimble

Scholarly Works

In declaratory judgment actions brought by alleged infringers against rights holders, such as actions for declaration of invalidity or non-infringement of intellectual property rights, U.S. courts have long maintained that sending a cease-and-desist letter alone, absent other acts in an alleged infringer's forum, is not a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over the rights holder who mailed them to the alleged infringer's forum. Notwithstanding the similarities between cease-and-desist letters and notifications under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided that sending a notification alone does establish a basis for personal jurisdiction over the …

The Procedural Foundation Of Substantive Law, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

The substance-procedure dichotomy is a popular target of scholarly criticism because procedural law is inherently substantive. This article argues that substantive law is also inherently procedural. I suggest that the construction of substantive law entails assumptions about the procedures that will apply when that substantive law is ultimately enforced. Those procedures are embedded in the substantive law and, if not applied, will lead to over- or under-enforcement of the substantive mandate. Yet the substance-procedure dichotomy encourages us to treat procedural systems as essentially fungible-leading to a problem of mismatches between substantive law and unanticipated procedures. I locate this argument about …

United States Ex Rel. Drc, Inc. V. Custer Battles, Llc: A Brutal Battle Foreshadowing The Future Of False Claims Act Litigation, Kathleen H. Harne

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Ashcroft V. Iqbal: How The Supreme Court Rewrote Rule 8 To Immunize High-Level Executive Officials From Post-9/11 Liability (A Plausible Interpretation), Cara Shepley

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Reasonableness In E-Discovery, Debra Lyn Bassett

Campbell Law Review

Issues of reasonableness arise regularly throughout American law. Reasonableness is a concept central to tort law, which imposes a reasonable person standard in ascertaining duty. Criminal guilt turns on a reasonable doubt standard. And in civil discovery, the concept of reasonableness features prominently: discovery's scope reaches information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and discovery cannot be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. Reasonableness standards require judges to undertake an objective, rather than subjective, evaluation. E-discovery specifically has two significant overarching reasonableness components: reasonable accessibility for production and reasonable care in preservation and disclosure. The interpretation …

Exiting Litigation, Jay Tidmarsh

Journal Articles

The American judicial system will face significant challenges in the twenty-first century. One of its immediate challenges is adapting the rules of civil procedure to the stresses under which the civil-justice system operates. Some of the most notable pressures arise from transnational litigation, mass litigation, proliferation of claims against governmental and corporate institutions, and competition from methods of alternative dispute resolution that promise to dispense cheaper, faster, and more satisfying justice.

Resolving Cases On The Merits, Jay Tidmarsh

Journal Articles

Prepared for a Symposium on Civil Justice Reform, this essay examines the role of the “on the merits” principle in modern American procedure. After surveying the possible meanings of the phrase, the essay critiques its most common understanding due to its economic inefficiency and its lack of strong philosophical support. Relying on the recent work of Amartya Sen, the essay proposes that the principle be replaced with a “fair outcome” principle that melds both “procedural” and “substantive” concerns.

Imagining Judges That Apply Law: How They Might Do It, James Maxeiner

All Faculty Scholarship

"Judges should apply the law, not make it." That plea appears perennially in American politics. American legal scholars belittle it as a simple-minded demand that is silly and misleading. A glance beyond our shores dispels the notion that the American public is naive to expect judges to apply rather than to make law.

American obsession with judicial lawmaking has its price: indifference to judicial law applying. If truth be told, practically we have no method for judges, as a matter of routine, to apply law to facts. Our failure leads American legal scholars to question whether applying law to facts …

There's A Pennoyer In My Foyer: Civil Procedure According To Dr. Seuss, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

This is what it purports to be: a Seussian take on civil procedure. It’s a short, fun essay that covers (1) the iron triangle of civil procedure - the role of lawyers, judges, and juries, and (2) prominent civil procedure doctrines, such as personal jurisdiction, Erie, pleading, discovery, and joinder.

The Death Of The American Trial, Robert P. Burns

Faculty Working Papers

This short essay is a summary of my assessment of the meaning of the "vanishing trial" phenomenon. It addresses the obvious question: "So what?" It first briefly reviews the evidence of the trial's decline. It then sets out the steps necessary to understand the political and social signficance of our vastly reducing the trial's importance among our modes of social ordering. The essay serves as the Introduction to a book, The Death of the American Trial, soon to be published by the University of Chicago Press.

Voluntary Dismissal In Ohio: A Tale Of An Ancient Procedure In A Modern World, S. Ben Barnes

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note will demonstrate that a modified Federal Rule is the best rule for voluntary dismissal. First, this Note will survey the history of voluntary dismissal and the progression from the common law in England to the current Federal Rule. Second, this Note will discuss the abuses of the rule in Ohio and the need for change. Third, this Note will dissect the Ohio Rule and compare it alongside the Federal Rule. Fourth, this Note will examine possible alternatives. Finally, this Note will propose why a modification of the Federal Rule is the most practical answer to the abuses of …

Civil Procedure In Idaho: An Examination Of Significant Differences Between The Rules Of Procedure Of The Idaho State And Federal Courts, Katie Ball

Articles

The University of Idaho College of Law celebrates its centennial this year. The rules of civil procedure do not have that lengthy a history, but they are still a critical part of current legal education and any civil practice. Civil practitioners choosing an Idaho forum have two court system options for many types of cases-the federal courts or the state courts. The goal of this article is to point out the significant differences in the state and federal civil procedural rules for Idaho practitioners. It is meant to particularly address those Idaho attorneys who have practiced primarily or exclusively in …

A Call For The End Of The Doctrine Of Realignment, Jacob S. Sherkow

Articles & Chapters

In Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 1941, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of realignment, requiring federal courts to examine the issues in dispute and realign each party as plaintiff or defendant if necessary. Due to the complete diversity requirement, realignment gave the federal courts the ability to both create and destroy diversity jurisdiction. Since 1941, the federal courts have struggled to interpret the central holding in Indianapolis, and have created several competing "tests" for realignment. This confusion has made the doctrine of realignment unworkable. Realignment-along with each of the present tests-encourages jurisdictional abuses by forcing the federal courts to …

Muscular Procedure: Conditional Deference In The Executive Detention Cases, Joseph Landau

Faculty Scholarship

Although much of the prevailing scholarship surrounding the 9/11 decisions tends to downgrade procedural decisions of law as weak and inadequate, procedural rulings have affected the law of national security in remarkable ways. The Supreme Court and lower courts have used procedural devices to require, as a condition of deference, that the coordinate branches respect transsubstantive procedural values like transparency and deliberation. This is “muscular procedure,” the judicial invocation of a procedural rule to ensure the integrity of coordinate branch decision-making processes. Through muscular procedure, courts have accelerated the resolution of large numbers of highly charged cases. Moreover, they have …

Litigation Discovery Cannot Be Optimal But Could Be Better: The Economics Of Improving Discovery Timing In A Digital Age, Scott A. Moss

Publications

Cases are won and lost in discovery, yet discovery draws little academic attention. Most scholarship focuses on how much discovery to allow, not on how courts decide discovery disputes--which, unlike trials, occur in most cases. The growth of computer data--e-mails, lingering deleted files, and so forth--increased discovery cost, but the new e-discovery rules just reiterate existing cost-benefit proportionality limits that draw broad consensus among litigation scholars and economists. But proportionality rules are impossible to apply effectively; they fail to curb discovery excess yet disallow discovery that meritorious cases need. This Article notes proportionality's flaws but rejects the consensus blaming bad …