Litigation Commons^™

Layers Of Lawyers: Parsing The Complexities Of Claimant Representation In Mass Tort Mdls, Lynn A. Baker, Stephen J. Herman

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The individual plaintiff in an MDL is subject to the efforts and decisions of numerous different attorneys, including many whom the plaintiff did not choose but who stand to share in any fees resulting from the plaintiff’s case. Which lawyers effectively represent the MDL plaintiff, at what point(s) in time, for what purpose(s), and with what obligations and potential liability to that plaintiff? What obligations and potential liability do the MDL leadership attorneys have to their own individually retained clients and other litigants in the MDL, and how should these attorneys handle any perceived conflicts in their obligations to the …

Procedural Self-Inflicted Wounds?, Joshua P. Davis, Brian J. Devine

Lewis & Clark Law Review

A proposal has recently come before the Federal Civil Rules Advisory Commit- tee to expand the ability of parties in multidistrict litigation to seek immediate interlocutory appellate review. This Essay suggests that the proposal is unwise as a matter of policy. It would make MDL litigation more expensive and less efficient. Counterintuitively, it may even harm the very large corporations who are championing the change. This Essay explains why that might occur—why large corporate defendants may pursue legal innovations that harm them—a possibility with implications well beyond interlocutory appellate review.

What Is A Fair Price For Objector Blackmail? Class Action Objectors And The 2018 Amendments To Rule 23, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Adam N. Steinman

Lewis & Clark Law Review

As part of a symposium addressing what the next 50 years might hold for class actions, mass torts, and MDLs, this Article examines a recent amendment to Rule 23 that offers a new solution to the persistent problem of strategic objections. Most significantly, Rule 23 now requires the district judge to approve any payments made to class members in exchange for withdrawing or forgoing challenges to a class action settlement. Although the new provision is still in its infancy, it has already been deployed to thwart improper objector behavior and to bring for-pay objection practice out of the shadows. The …

In Defense Of The Cy-Pres-Only Class Action, Robert G. Bone

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Cy pres is frequently used to dispose of class action settlement funds, yet it is one of the most controversial aspects of class action practice. Perhaps the most contested use of cy pres is what I call the “cy-pres-only class action”: a settlement class action in which the judge certifies a class and approves a settlement that expressly provides for a third-party charity to receive all the settlement funds. In these cases, the judge exercises her judicial power to enable a lawsuit that compensates a third party who does not have legal rights at stake and does so without providing …

The Importance Of Cy Pres In Modern Class Action Jurisprudence And Myths Concerning Its Use, Gerson H. Smoger

Lewis & Clark Law Review

When class actions resolve, it is common for some or even all funds paid to the class to remain undistributed. All U.S. circuits, 40 states, and the Class Action Fairness Act have permitted undistributed funds to be distributed as cy pres. Recently, a few commentators have voiced constitutional objections to cy pres, based upon standing pursuant to Article III, the Rules Enabling Act, and the First Amendment. However, these analyses generally ignore the congressional mandate found within Rule 23 and the power of the courts to supervise cy pres distribution. Finally, the following recommendations are made: such awards should not …

Symposium Interview On Aggregate Litigation, Arthur R. Miller, Robert Klonoff

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Professor Arthur R. Miller joined Professor Robert Klonoff for a Q&A session at Lewis & Clark Law School.

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 …

Better By The Dozen: Bringing Back The Twelve-Person Civil Jury, Steven Gensler, Lee Rosenthal, Patrick Higginbotham

Other Faculty Publications

A jury of 12 resonates through the centuries. Twelve-person juries were a fixture from at least the 14th century until the 1970s. Over 600 years of history is a powerful endorsement. So too are the many social-science studies consistently showing that a 12-person jury makes for a better deliberative process, with more predictable (and fewer outlier) results, by a more diverse group that is a more representative cross-section of the community. And yet, most federal judges today routinely seat civil juries without the full complement of 12 members. Why? Because in 1973 the United States Supreme Court said it was …

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.

Choice Of Law As Extraterritoriality, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This contribution to Resolving Conflicts on the Law: Essays in Honour of Lea Brilmayer (published under the title Choice of Law as Geographic Scope Limitation) argues that the choice-of-law question commonly addressed by state and foreign courts is conceptually identical to the question addressed by federal courts in determining whether a federal statute applies to a dispute having foreign elements. The latter question is clearly understood today to relate to the statute’s territorial scope. State courts have long conceptualized the choice-of-law question in the same way. Faced with a state statute addressing the issue before it and phrased in …

Between Scylla And Charybdis: Maritime Liens And The Bankruptcy Code, Ian T. Kitts

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

Federal courts have had trouble fitting maritime law into the bankruptcy scheme created by the Bankruptcy Code (the Code). Particularly troublesome have been vessel-arrest proceedings that are underway when the vessel’s owner files for bankruptcy. Prior to the enactment of the Code, courts applied the doctrine of custodia legis to decide whether the admiralty or the bankruptcy court would administer the vessel. Since the Code was enacted, courts have generally held that the bankruptcy court gained control. A recent Ninth Circuit decision, however, split with other circuits and seems to have revived custodia legis. This Note argues that the Ninth …

How Much Do Expert Opinions Matter? An Empirical Investigation Of Selection Bias, Adversarial Bias, And Judicial Deference In Chinese Medical, Chunyan Ding

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

This article investigates the nature of the operation and the role of expert opinions in Chinese medical negligence litigation, drawing on content analysis of 3,619 medical negligence cases and an in-depth survey of judges with experience of adjudicating medical negligence cases. It offers three major findings: first, that both parties to medical negligence disputes show significant selection bias of medical opinions, as do courts when selecting court-appointed experts; second, expert opinions in medical negligence litigation demonstrate substantial adversarial bias; third, courts display very strong judicial deference to expert opinions in determining medical negligence liability. This article fills the methodological gap …

Bankruptcy’S Class Act: Class Proofs Of Claim In Chapter 11, Tori Remington

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

When a business files for protection under Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it must begin to pay off its debt by reorganizing or liquidating its assets. Oftentimes, both processes include terminating employees to reduce the business’s expenditures. As a result of these terminations, former employees might file a “class proof of claim” against the business to preserve any claims of unpaid wages or violations of federal law.

Whether a group may file a class proof of claim against a debtor in bankruptcy remains unclear. The Tenth Circuit has rejected the class proof of claim in bankruptcy. The remaining circuit courts that have …

Out Of The Quandary: Personal Jurisdiction Over Absent Class Member Claims Explained, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, litigants and lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether a federal court must be able to exercise personal jurisdiction with respect to each of the claims asserted by absent class members in a class action and, if so, what standard governs that jurisdictional determination. This issue is rapidly coming to a head and is poised for inevitable resolution by the Supreme Court in the near future; multiple circuit courts have heard appeals from district courts that have reached varying conclusions on …

Righting The Ship: What Courts Are Still Getting Wrong About Electronic Discovery, Tanya Pierce

Faculty Scholarship

What happens when law changes but courts and lawyers ignore the changes? On December 1, 2015, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. One of those amendments includes a sweeping change to Rule 37(e), dealing with the availability of sanctions in federal courts for lost or destroyed electronically stored information (ESI). In the last few years, however, a number of courts have interpreted the amended rule in ways at odds with its plain language and underlying policies, and a surprising number of courts continue to ignore the amended rule altogether. This article examines those trends and …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Rockland County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Queens County

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Rhetorical Analysis Of Opening Statements In Trial: Reconsidering The Classical Canon Of Invention, Andrew Chandler

Undergraduate Theses

This analysis of 21 opening statements probes at current persuasive practices employed by trial attorneys through the lens of mainstream legal advice and an expanded definition of rhetorical invention – one which includes both discovery and creation. An evaluation of such practice reveals the utility, and furthermore the duty of the advocate, to draw upon an expanded realm of available arguments.

Are Interlocutory Qualified Immunity Appeals Lawful?, Michael E. Solimine

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

For half a century the Supreme Court has held that defendants in civil rights actions can avoid monetary liability if they demonstrate a qualified immunity for their actions. And for thirty years, the Court has held that district court denials of the qualified immunity defense are immediately appealable under the collateral order exception to the final order requirement. Controversial from the start, the qualified immunity defense has recently come under renewed stress, with calls from individual Justices and by leading voices in academia to either significantly modify or even abolish the defense. While primarily dealing with substantive aspects of the …

Save Our Sound Obx, Inc. V. North Carolina Department Of Transportation, Mitch L. Werbell V

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of several governmental agencies seeking to construct a new bridge in the Pamlico Sound adjacent to North Carolina’s Outer Banks. For years, state and federal agencies have put forth a massive coordinated effort to address the constant weather damage and erosion which occurs to a section of North Carolina Highway 12. The court found the agencies properly cleared NEPA’s environmental review requirements for the bridge’s construction. Additionally, the opponent-litigants’ efforts to add claims challenging the project, based on new information about a shipwreck in the bridge’s path, were futile.

O’Neill, Oh O’Neill, Wherefore Art Thou O’Neill: Defining And Cementing The Requirements For Asserting Deliberative Process Privilege, Andrew Scott

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The government may invoke the deliberative process privilege to protect the communications of government officials involving policy-driven decision-making. The privilege protects communications made before policy makers act upon the policy decision to allow government officials to speak candidly when deciding a course of action without fear of their words being used against them.

This privilege is not absolute and courts recognize the legitimate countervailing interest the public has in transparency. The Supreme Court in United States v. Reynolds held that someone with control over the protected information should personally consider the privilege before asserting it but did not provide definitive …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Discrimination Presumption, Joseph A. Seiner

Notre Dame Law Review

Employment discrimination is a fact in our society. Scientific studies continue to show that employer misconduct in the workplace is pervasive. This social science research is further supported by governmental data and litigation statistics. Even in the face of this evidence, however, it has never been more difficult to successfully bring a claim of employment discrimination. After the Supreme Court’s controversial decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, all civil litigants must sufficiently plead enough facts to give rise to a plausible claim. Empirical studies show that this plausibility test has been rigidly applied in …