Civil Procedure Commons^™

"An Overwhelming Question" About Non-Formal Procedure, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Federal Class Action Reform In The United States: Past And Future And Where Next?, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

Predicting the likely future developments in class action practice in the federal courts of the United States must begin in the past.

Pleading Rules In Antitrust Cases: A Return To Fact Pleading?, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted in 1938, introduced a simplified pleading regimen for litigation in the federal courts. Commonly referred to as notice pleading, this new pleading regimen was designed to shift the courts' attention away from the pleadings and toward proof at trial. Under the simplified pleading standards adopted by the Federal Rules, the complaint need not contain a ritualistic recitation of elements of an abstruse theory of recovery, as required at common law; nor did it need to detail "facts" sufficient to make out a "cause of action," as required under the old scheme of …

Swallowing The Apple Whole: Improper Patent Use By Local Rule, Ellisen S. Turner

Michigan Law Review

During patent infringement litigation, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and the federal district court's local rules govern the parties' pretrial discovery and motion practice. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has adopted the most comprehensive local rules to date covering pretrial procedures in the patent litigation context. The Northern District of California Patent Local Rules ("Local Rules") may come to have a significant impact throughout the federal courts, as it appears that other jurisdictions and commentators are looking to the Local Rules for guidance. For instance, the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property …

Procedural Uniformity And The Exaggerated Role Of Rules: A Survey Of Intra-State Uniformity In Three States That Have Not Adopted The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Thomas O. Main

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Purchasing While Black: How Courts Condone Discrimination In The Marketplace, Matt Graves

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Given the sweeping language of § 1981 and 1982, it cannot be that sellers of goods can engage in intentional discrimination, so long as they make relatively minor attempts to cover it up. By exploring the interaction between substantive law, procedural law, legal culture, and real-world context, Graves seeks to demonstrate that judges cannot offer any legal or practical justification for heightened pleading requirements in § 1981 and 1982 actions. Through this argument, a conclusion is reached that § 1981 and 1982 plaintiffs must be given the same opportunity to litigate their claims that virtually all other plaintiffs are given. …

Class Action Advice In The Form Of Questions, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

The opportunity to offer advice to those who are considering the adoption or modification of class or group action procedures for other legal systems is both welcome and distracting. It is welcome because it forces a change of perspective in the attempt to contemplate adaptation of United States practice to different cultures, political structures, substantive laws, and courts with dissimilar surrounding procedures. It is distracting because there are so many different levels of possible comparison that the choice of perspective must be tailored to the immediate occasion. It is tempting to take on the most important sets of questions-for example, …

A Modest Reform For Federal Procedural Rulemaking, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Following the adoption of the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to discovery in 2000, Prof. Tobias notes the lack of empirical research or other indication of how the new rules might work in practice preceding their enactment. He suggests that Congress should reconsider a reject 1983 amendment to F.R.C.P. 83 which would authorize courts to obtain Judicial Conference approval to test promising mechanisms for five years before adoption.

Procedural Uniformity And The Exagerated Role Of Rules, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The 2000 Federal Civil Rules Revisions, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

During April 2000, the United States Supreme Court prescribed a comparatively thorough set of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These amendments took effect in December 2000. That development represented the culmination of a rule revision proceeding commenced in 1996 by the Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Advisory Committee). Because certain provisos that the Supreme Court included in the 2000 amendments are rather controversial and could alter significant features of modern federal civil litigation primarily involving discovery, these revisions deserve assessment. This Essay undertakes that effort by emphasizing changes in mandatory prediscovery, …

Teaching First-Year Civil Procedure And Other Introductory Courses By The Problem Method, Stephen J. Shapiro

All Faculty Scholarship

I have been teaching the first-year course in Civil Procedure for twenty years, first for five years at Ohio Northern University, and for the last fifteen years at the University of Baltimore, where I also teach a required second-year course in Evidence. When I first started teaching Civil Procedure, I used a fairly typical case method. I was never very happy with this approach for teaching a course in which one of my major goals was getting the students to learn to read, interpret and apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Federal Rules”). Gradually, I began to develop sets …

Pleading Under Section 11 Of The Securities Act Of 1933, Krista L. Turnquist

Michigan Law Review

The Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") requires full and fair disclosure of the nature of securities sold in interstate and foreign commerce. Section 11 of the Securities Act prohibits false or misleading registration statements. It also provides buyers a private remedy for false or misleading statements against any signer of the registration statement, any partner or director of the issuer, any professional involved in preparing or certifying the statement, and any underwriter. The rule appears simple: if there is a material misstatement or omission in the registration statement, the buyer may sue the seller. Courts disagree, however, over how …

Aggregation And Settlement Of Mass Torts, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

The following essay is the pre-editing draft of the introduction to a paper delivered at a Mass Torts conference held at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in November 1999. Thc conference grew out of the work of the ad hoc Mass Torts Working Group that on February 15, 1999, delivered a Report to the Chief Justice of the United States and the judicial Conference of the United States. The Working Group, chaired by Third Circuit Judge Anthony J. Scirica, '65, included members drawn from several Judicial Conference committees, including the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, …

Aggregation And Settlement Of Mass Torts, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

It is the way of symposia that, after conveners assign topics for discussion, participants interpret those topics to cover subjects that interest themselves. I understand my assignment to be discussion of "nonbankruptcy closure" and "settlement." The Judicial Conference Working Group on Mass Torts suggests possible approaches that might facilitate closure of mass tort claims by litigation or by settlement! This paper will explore two models prepared to illustrate the challenges that confront any approach to fair and efficient closure. The first model is the "All-Encompassing Model," while the second is a draft of settlement-class provisions for Federal Rule of Civil …

Congress And The 2000 Federal Civil Rules Amendments, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

In April 2000, the United States Supreme Court promulgated, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist transmitted to the United States Congress, a comprehensive package of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking arm of the federal courts, had forwarded these proposals to the Supreme Court in September 1999, and the Justices transmitted the amendments to Congress without making any modifications. The new group of federal rules amendments warrants assessment for two reasons. First, a few provisions in the package of revisions are comparatively controversial and could significantly change important aspects …

Rule 26(C)(7) Protective Orders: Just What Are You Hiding Under There, Anyway?, Ross T. Turner

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Foxes Guarding The Chicken Coop: Intervention As Of Right And The Defense Of Civil Rights Remedies, Alan Jenkins

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This article focuses on the recent spate of cases in which educational institutions on the grounds that their race-conscious admissions policies are unconstitutional. The author analyzes the role of minority students and organizations who are the beneficiaries of those polices at the defendant institutions and their recent attempts to intervene in the lawsuits pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, the author argues that under the traditional interpretation of Rule 24(a); intervention of right should be granted to minority students and organizations in the great majority of instances. Second, the author looks at the reasons …

Discovery Reform Redux, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The recent resolve of the Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules to revisit reform of the discovery rules, which the Supreme Court revised as recently as 1993, is replete with ironies. In August, 1998, that Committee, which has primary responsibility for studying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and developing suggestions for their improvement, published proposals that would significantly revise the substantial 1993 revisions of the discovery rules. Ironies suffuse many specific aspects of the rule revision process and of the proposals to revise the 1993 revisions less than five years after their implementation. I emphasize the proposal to revise …

… And From The Associate, Myriam E. Gilles

Articles

No abstract provided.

Did The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990 Actually Expire?, Carl Tobias

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) was intended to reduce the expense and delay associated with federal district court litigation by requiring courts to study and adopt new procedures. The CJRA's gains, however, may be erased by the uncertainty surrounding its sunset provision. Professor Tobias argues that Congress or the Judicial Conference should resolve the uncertainty by proclaiming that the CJRA has expired, thus forcing districts to abrogate procedures inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Waiting For Divine Intervention: The Fifth Circuit Tries To Give Meaning To Intervention Rules In Sierra Club V. City Of San Antonio, Brian Hutchings

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The (Cloudy) Future Of Class Actions, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

The past, both proximate and remote, is often consulted in attempts to predict the future. Of course extrapolation from past to future is at best an uncertain art. Extrapolation, however, is not the only problem. Lessons from the recent past are distorted by lack of perspective. Lessons from the distant past are distorted by distance. The first step is to choose which of the competing pasts to consult. Selfishly, I choose to consult the recent past, as it continues through the present and on into the near-term future, from the perspective of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of …

Civil Rule 53: An Enabling Act Challenge (Federal Practice And Procedure Symposiusm Honoring Charles Alan Wright), Edward H. Cooper

Articles

The Judicial Conference of the United States is charged by statute to "carry on a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure," recommending desirable changes to the Supreme Court.' The Rules Enabling Act,2 which describes the Supreme Court's role, further provides that the Judicial Conference is to be assisted in this task by a "standing committee on rules of practice, procedure, and evidence" ;3 the standing committee in turn reviews "each recommendation of any other committees" appointed to advise it.4

Did The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990 Actually Expire?, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) was intended to reduce the expense and delay associated with federal district court litigation by requiring courts to study and adopt new procedures. The CJR.lrs gains, however, may be erased by the uncertainty surrounding its sunset provision. Professor Tobias argues that Congress or the Judicial Conference should resolve the uncertainty by proclaiming that the CJRA has expired, thus forcing districts to abrogate procedures inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Awarding Attorney's Fees To Pro Se Litigants Under Rule 11, Jeremy D. Spector

Michigan Law Review

Among the myriad rules and statutes designed to curb litigation abuse, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") is "the most widely used and most controversial of the sanctions rules." The increased use of Rule ll during the last fifteen years and the recent proliferation of fee-shifting provisions in federal statutes4 have led to an onslaught of motions for attorney's fees in the federal district courts. Simultaneously, these courts are seeing an increasing number of pro se litigants appear before them. The confluence of these two trends has produced the seemingly paradoxical result of pro se parties …

Some Realism About Federal Procedural Reform, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

A New Confederacy? Disunionism in the Federal Courts is a thought-provoking tour de force about many ills that federal court observers believe plague the modem federal district courts. In Disunionism, Professor Paul Carrington paints a perceptive portrait of the troubling conditions that he asserts impede civil litigation in a number of districts, and he trenchantly criticizes district judges for their contributions to these circumstances while admonishing the Judicial Conference to sweep "our national courts clear of all local clutter."

Structuring Multiclaim Litigation: Should Rule 23 Be Revised?, William W. Schwarzer

Michigan Law Review

The question whether Rule 23 should be revised therefore is not susceptible to a global answer unless revision is stylistic only, limited to making the text more elegant - and even stylistic revision is likely to have some substantive impact, even if unintended. But if the argument for revision is that the Rule is in some respect deficient and should be made to work better, one must begin by answering the question how it should work. That in tum depends on defining the Rule's purpose - what it is intended to accomplish.This paper examines briefly the purposes for which the …

Class Action Rule Changes: A Midpoint Report, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

This a midpoint progress report of the Reporter on current proposals to amend the class action rule, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In part, it is one of many calls for help. The proposed amendments have been published for comment. It is important that the rulemakers hear from as many interested observers as possible. One of the pitfalls of the comment process - at least one of the pitfalls that the rulemakers like to believe in - is that there are many observers who believe that the rulemakers have got it right, and do not need …

Rule 23: Challenges To The Rulemaking Process (Symposium: The Institute Of Judicial Administration Research Conference On Class Actions), Edward H. Cooper

Articles

Three decades have elapsed since Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure last underwent revision. Taking a cue from proposed amendments prepared by the Civil Rules Advisory Committee, Professor Cooper asks whether now is the appropriate time to revise Rule 23. In this Articl e he identifis three potential "big changes" to the Rule. subsantially curtailing class actions; accommodating the needs of mass-tort actions; and recognizing the class as an entity, distinct from Its representatives. After outlining and critiquing the Advisory Committee's draf4 Professor Cooper raises a host of questions about many aspects of Rule 23 and suggests …

Legislative Development, The Attorney Accountability Act: A Case Study Of The Complexities Of Incentive-Based Legal Reform, Jamie S. Henikoff, Scott R. Peppet

Publications

No abstract provided.