Civil Procedure Commons^™

A Further Note On Federal Causes Of Action, John F. Preis

Law Faculty Publications

In the article, I argue that federal causes of action ought to be treated as (1) distinct from substantive rights, (2) synonymous with the availability of a remedy (but not whether a remedy will in fact issue) and (3) distinct from subject matter jurisdiction (unless Congress instructs otherwise). This thesis is built principally on a historical recounting of the cause of action from eighteenth century England to twenty-first century America. In taking an historical approach, I did not mean to argue that federal courts are bound to adhere to centuries-old conceptions of the cause of action. I merely used history …

Making Sense Of Legislative Standing, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

Legislative standing doctrine is neglected and under-theorized. There has always been a wide range of opinions on the Supreme Court about the proper contours of legislative standing doctrine and even about whether the Court should adjudicate disputes between the other two branches at all. Perhaps owing to these disagreements, the full Court has never articulated a clear vision of the doctrine. While the Court has managed to resolve some cases, it has not achieved the consensus necessary to provide a comprehensive and coherent account of critical doctrinal issues such as what type of injury can give rise to legislative standing …

Neutralizing The Stratagem Of “Snap Removal”: A Proposed Amendment To The Judicial Code, Arthur Hellman, Lonny Hoffman, Thomas D. Rowe Jr., Joan Steinman, Georgene Vairo

Faculty Scholarship

The “Removal Jurisdiction Clarification Act” is a narrowly tailored legislative proposal designed to resolve a widespread conflict in the federal district courts over the proper interpretation of the statutory “forum-defendant” rule.

The forum-defendant rule prohibits removal of a diversity case “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the [forum state].” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (emphasis added). Some courts, following the “plain language” of the statute, hold that defendants can avoid the constraints of the rule by removing diversity cases to federal court when a citizen of the forum state has …

Civil Practice And Procedure, John R. Walker, Jaime B. Wisegarver

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

"A Distinction Without A Difference"?: Bartlett Going Forward, Steven A. Schwartz

Fordham Law Review

    This Note addresses the question of whether federal law preempts state design defect claims against generic drug manufacturers regardless of which test state law uses to determine whether a drug is defective. This issue, arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of preemption jurisprudence and fundamental tort law as stated in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, is significant because it plays a large role in determining to what extent generic drug manufacturers are immune to civil liability arising out of injuries caused by their generic drugs. In an age of rising medical costs and jury awards, both plaintiff …

How Congress Should Fix Personal Jurisdiction, Stephen E. Sachs

Northwestern University 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 …

From Commitment To Compliance: Enforceability Of Remedial Orders Of African Human Rights Bodies, Roger-Claude Liwanga

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Over the last seven decades, there has been a global proliferation of international and regional human rights tribunals. But with no coercive power to enforce their judgments, these international tribunals rely either on the good faith of the State parties or on the political process for the implementation of their remedial orders. This nonjudicial approach to enforcement has showed its limits, as most State parties are noncompliant with international judgments to the detriment of human rights victims. This article recommends a new approach involving the judicialization of the post-adjudicative stage of international proceedings as an avenue to increase the enforceability …

Five Questions After Atlantic Marine, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s Atlantic Marine ruling did a lot to clear up the law of forum selection. But it also left a number of live questions in place. This essay briefly discusses five of them. When a party wants to move a case to the selected forum, what procedures can it use, other than venue transfer or forum non conveniens? When is a forum selection clause valid and enforceable, as a matter of state or federal law? If the clause isn’t valid, should a federal court still give it any weight? What if there are multiple parties or claims, and …

Resoling International Shoe, Donald L. Doernberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Goodyear Dunlop Tire Operations, S.A. v. Brown and Daimler AG v. Bauman sharply restricted general jurisdiction over corporations, limiting it to a corporation’s (1) state of incorporation, (2) state of principal place of business, or (3) another state where the corporation is “essentially at home.” The Court analogized the first two categories to an individual’s domicile. The Court made clear that the third category is very small, leading Justice Sotomayor, in her opinion concurring in the judgment, to charge that the Court had made many corporations “too big for general jurisdiction.” It is noteworthy that although the Court used the …

With Apologies To Paxton Blair, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

Much has been written on the forum non conveniens doctrine, yet I nonetheless believe that recent developments in related areas still enable scholars to offer an original perspective on the subject. In this brief essay, I advance the following thesis: the forum non conveniens doctrine developed in response to a specific set of doctrines and specific social phenomena. The waning of some of those doctrines have diminished though not altogether eliminated the need for forum non conveniens, which always has had a suspect status following Erie’s declaration that there is “no federal general common law.” While it is most certainly …

A Reappraisal Of General And Limited Jurisdiction In California , Thomas Kallay

Pepperdine Law Review

The ability of a California court to assert jurisdiction over business enterprises currently depends upon how the court characterizes the nature and extent of the business's activities within the state. If the in-state business activities of a particular concern are extensive, California courts will exercise all-encompassing general jurisdiction over the cause of action, but if the activities are insufficient to warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction, which has been invariably the case, the court will then turn to a consideration of limited jurisdiction, which jurisdiction depends upon the quality and nature of the business's activities in the forum in relation …

Cross-Border Collective Redress And Individual Participatory Rights: Quo Vadis?, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

This article fills a critical gap in the commentary by undertaking a rights-based analysis of the various issues that arise in cases involving large-scale international litigation, focusing in particular on the Brussels I Regulation and what may be called ‘individual participatory rights’. In so doing, the discussion considers the nature and scope of individual participatory rights in collective litigation as well the ways in which these rights should be weighed and considered. Although the analysis is set in the context of European procedural law, this discussion is of equal relevance to parties outside the European Union, either because they will …

The Alien Tort Statute And The Law Of Nations In Kiobel And Beyond, Anthony J. Colangelo

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum the U.S. Supreme Court wrongly applied a presumption against extraterritoriality to claims authorized by the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Even assuming such a presumption properly could extend to the ATS and claims authorized thereunder, the presumption is easily overcome by Congress’s unambiguous instruction that the statute encompasses violations of “the law of nations,” which includes both substantive and jurisdictional components — including principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Early 19th Century case law and congressional reaction thereto clearly demonstrate that Congress expressly invoked “the law of nations” to overturn the Court’s imposition of a limiting presumption …

Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf

Faculty Scholarship

Concurrent jurisdiction frequently allows attorneys the choice of filing a complaint in state or federal court. State courts presumptively have jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal law. At times, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. Similarly, federal courts have authority over state claims because of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction. Many claims are rooted in both state and federal law, such as antitrust, civil rights, environmental, consumer protection, and civil liberties. Confronted with the choice of state or federal court, the attorney must evaluate a variety of factors before deciding in which court to file.

In a …

Brief Of Professor Stephen E. Sachs As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

The parties in this case defend two sides of a many-sided circuit split. This brief argues that a third view is correct.

If a contract requires suit in a particular forum, and the plaintiff sues somewhere else, how may the defendant raise the issue? Petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company suggests a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406, on the theory that the contract renders venue improper. Respondent J-Crew Management, Inc. contends that venue remains proper, and that the defendant¹s only remedy is a transfer motion under § 1404.

Both sides are wrong. Forum-selection …

Cooperative Agreements: Government-To-Government Relations To Foster Reservation Business Development, Joel H. Mack, Gwyn Goodson Timms

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Judicial And Legislative Jurisdiction Over Entities Abroad: The Long-Arm Of U.S. Antitrust Law And Viable Solutions Beyond The Timberlane/Restatement Comity Approach, Michael G. Mckinnon

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Wrong, Out Of Step, And Pernicious: Erie As The Worst Decision Of All Time, Suzanna Sherry

Pepperdine Law Review

This essay was written for “Supreme Mistakes: Exploring the Most Maligned Decisions in Supreme Court History.” A symposium on the worst Supreme Court decision of all time risks becoming an exercise best described by Claude Rains’s memorable line in Casablanca: “Round up the usual suspects.” Two things saved this symposium from that fate. First, each of the usual suspects was appointed defense counsel, which made things more interesting. Second, a new face found its way into the line-up: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. My goal in this essay is to explain why Erie is in fact guiltier than all of the …

Hypothetical Jurisdiction And Interjurisdictional Preclusion: A "Comity" Of Errors, Ely Todd Chayet

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Post-Iqbal State Of Pleading: An Argument Opposing A Uniform National Pleading Regime, Mark W. Payne

University of Miami Business Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal placed a squeeze on the once touted liberal Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by requiring judges to consider the veracity of potential plaintiffs' federal claims in light of Iqbal's new heightened pleading standard. This article examines post-Iqbal pleading standards across United States jurisdictions and argues that states should exert caution before choosing to adopt Iqbal's new "plausibility" standard, and if they elect to modify their pleading standards in light of the Iqbal decision, they should also carefully contemplate their method of adoption.

Court Reform And Breathing Space Under The Establishment Clause, Mark C. Rahdert

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Flast v. Cohen held that federal taxpayers have standing to challenge government spending for religion. While Frothingham v. Mellon generally prohibits taxpayer standing in federal courts, the Court reasoned that the Establishment Clause specifically prohibits taxation in any amount to fund unconstitutional religious spending. For several decades Flast has been settled law that supplied jurisdiction in many leading establishment cases. But Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn signal that Flast may soon be overruled. This jurisdictional ferment raises two questions: Why this sudden shift? And what does it signify for the …

The Lay Of The Land: Examining The Three Opinions In J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

It was a long time coming. The Supreme Court's decisions last Term in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown ended a two-decade high-court hiatus from the subject of personal jurisdiction. In McIntyre, the more controversial of the two, the Court concludes that New Jersey state courts lacked jurisdiction over a British manufacturer in a suit by a New Jersey plaintiff who was injured in New Jersey by a machine purchased by his New Jersey employer. McIntyre lacks a majority opinion, however. Instead we have a four-Justice plurality authored by Justice Kennedy, a …

Reading The Standing Tea Leaves In American Electric Power V. Connecticut, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP), the U.S. Supreme Court by an equally divided vote of four to four affirmed the Second Circuit’s decision finding standing and jurisdiction in the case. Even though it did not announce the identities of the justices who voted for standing and against standing, the AEP decision took the unusual step of providing some explanation for how the Court divided on the standing question, and, as a result, provided important information about the positions of the justices on the issue. While it is not binding as a decision for the lower courts except …

Proof Of Classwide Injury, Sergio J. Campos

Articles

No abstract provided.

Untangling Jurisdiction And Contract Scope Issues Within Intellectual Property Licenses, Brandon Beam

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Copyright license cases pose difficult issues regarding the mixture of federal copyright law and state contract law for courts and commentators alike. Specifically, a split exists over which cases "arise under" federal copyright law. This complication is compounded by the difficulty in predicting federal preemption of state contract law.

In an effort to stabilize these complications, this comment recommends an approach of split sovereignty that would empower different systems to control the areas they are designated to regulate. In particular, the author suggests that procedural issues in copyright license cases should be clarified by (1) governing exclusive federal jurisdiction under …

The Meaning Of Mcintyre, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

When certiorari was granted in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), many hoped that the Supreme Court would provide much-needed clarification to the area of personal jurisdiction. It didn’t. The Court failed to generate a majority opinion, splitting into Justice Kennedy’s four-Justice plurality, Justice Breyer’s two-Justice concurrence, and Justice Ginsburg’s three-Justice dissent.

This essay – for the Southwestern Journal of International Law’s 2012 symposium “Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Procedure” – examines how state and federal courts have been using the McIntyre decision. Some lower court opinions have mistakenly interpreted McIntyre as …

Civil Practice And Procedure, John R. Walk, Andrew P. Sherrod

University of Richmond Law Review

This article surveys recent significant developments in Virginia civil practice and procedure. Specifically, the article discusses opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia from June 2010through June 2011 addressing civil procedure topics; significant amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia concerning procedural issues during the same period; and legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during its 2011 session that relates to civil practice.

The Judicial Power And The Inferior Federal Courts: Exploring The Constitutional Vesting Thesis, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Although the Constitution vests the "Judicial Power" of the United States in the Supreme Court and in any inferior courts that Congress establishes, both Congress and the Court have long propounded the traditional view that the inferior courts may be deprived cognizance of some of the cases and controversies that fall within that power. Is this view fully consonant with the history and text of Article III? One possible reading of those sources suggests that the Constitution vests the full Judicial Power of the United States in the inferior federal courts, directly extending to them jurisdiction over matters that Congress …

Asymmetrical Jurisdiction, Matthew I. Hall

Scholarly Works

Most people — and most lawyers — would assume that the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review any determination of federal law by an inferior court, whether state or federal. And there was a time when it was so. But the Court’s recent justiciability decisions have created a perplexing jurisdictional gap — a set of cases in which state court determinations of federal law are immune from the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The Court has thus surrendered a portion of its supremacy and thereby undermined the policies that underlie its appellate jurisdiction.

In an effort to address this problem, …