Litigation Commons^™

Joinder’S Diversity Asymmetry, Jason J. Jarvis

Fordham Law Review

In federal diversity cases, plaintiffs are barred from joining nondiverse supplemental parties or claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). Defendants, however, can expand the case without the same restriction. Section 1367(b) codified the U.S. Supreme Court’s concern in Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger: Plaintiffs might so prefer federal court that they would “sneak” nondiverse parties in by hiding them until after diversity jurisdiction is established, only then springing them on unsuspecting courts and defendants. This Article challenges the justification for that asymmetry in three ways.

First, it explores the history of the asymmetry, starting with how joinder …

Controlling Shareholder Primacy, Naveen Thomas

Fordham Law Review

In just eight months, Delaware’s legislature upended over fifty years of corporate law. Its courts had long upheld shareholder primacy, treating shareholders equally in proportion to their ownership. But after several controversial decisions reinforced this principle, sudden amendments to the corporate code shifted the law toward a distinct paradigm: controller primacy.

While motivated by legitimate concerns, the legislation went too far, threatening to fundamentally realign corporate power and purpose. Contrary to shareholder primacy, the new regime disproportionately prioritizes controlling shareholders above all others. It authorizes contracts that cede the board’s managerial authority to controllers, insulates their self-dealing from shareholder approval …

Royal Canin And The Jurisdiction It Left Behind: The Class Action Fairness Act, Nicole Brosnan

Fordham Law Review

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger created waves in the federal litigation world by setting forth a new rule, declaring that a plaintiff’s amendment of a complaint following removal is capable of destroying federal jurisdiction. Prior to this case, courts generally followed the “time-of-filing rule” by which federal jurisdiction attached at the time of removal. The U.S. Supreme Court was clear that this rule applies to federal claim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but the Court remained generally silent on its application to jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

This Note explores this lack of clarity and proposes …

Crossing The Toll Bridge: American Pipe And The Fate Of State Law Claims After Class Certification Denial In Federal Court, Alexander Schnur

Fordham Law Review

Rule 23(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) provides that, “At an early practicable time after a person sues . . . as a class representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action.” In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the interplay of this FRCP 23(c)(1)(A) class certification decision and statutes of limitations, holding that the commencement of a putative class action suspends the statute of limitations for putative class members while class certification is pending. Over the last fifty years, the American …

Fabricating The Crime Of Undocumented Presence, Eric S. Fish, Doug Keller

Fordham Law Review

In 2025, the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) declared that it is a federal crime simply to be an undocumented immigrant. Congress has enacted no such crime. Congress has made it a crime for an immigrant to enter the United States in a manner that “eludes examination or inspection.” For nearly 100 years, this “elude” offense has been understood to occur only at the moment an immigrant enters the country. But the Trump administration’s OLC has reinterpreted this crime as a continuing offense. Under this new reading, an immigrant who entered unlawfully eludes examination until the moment of …

What Can States Teach? The Right To Education After Mahmoud, Will Simon

Fordham Law Review

In the summer of 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court set new limits on what public schools could require students to learn. Mahmoud v. Taylor pitted a school district interested in promoting pluralism against religious parents who wished to withdraw their children from classroom instruction that promoted celebration and acceptance of LGBTQ+ people. The Court found a violation of those parents’ constitutional right to freely exercise their religion, which both expanded the control parents can exert over their child’s public school education and increased the likelihood of similar claims going forward. As federal courts hear this newly expanded set of First …

Splitting The Baby: Determining The Causation Standard In Family And Medical Leave Act Retaliation Claims, Eliana C. Singer

Fordham Law Review

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees employees unpaid leave following certain qualifying events. The FMLA not only provides substantive rights but also prohibits retaliation against employees who exercise those rights. When employees face unlawful retaliation, they can bring retaliation claims against their employers. However, there is disagreement among courts as to how to evaluate these claims. More precisely, courts are split concerning whether employees must prove their use of leave was a but-for cause of retaliation, or merely that it was one of an employer’s mixed motives for retaliating. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and …

The Mirage Of Meta Pixel Code: Redefining Pii In The Era Of Generative Ai, Sophie Venter

Fordham Law Review

Data privacy laws are intended to put consumers in control of whether their identifying data can be sold and used for targeted advertising. However, these laws do not provide adequate protections in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI). This Note examines one way that existing privacy law permits companies to profit from selling data for targeted advertising without obtaining user consent: transferring video watching data in a pixel code. Some U.S. Courts of Appeals have determined that these data transfers do not sufficiently identify users and the videos they watched to constitute violations of user privacy. This has led …

The Quiet Revival Of The Effective Vindication Of Rights Doctrine, Myriam Gilles

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurantwas widely seen as the death knell for the “effective vindication of rights” doctrine—a judicially created rule that arbitration agreements are enforceable only “so long as the prospective litigant effectively may vindicate its statutory cause of action in the arbitral forum.” By upholding a class action–banning arbitration provision that rendered arbitration economically irrational, Italian Colors appeared to extinguish any meaningful limits on the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

But reports of the doctrine’s demise were premature. This Article uncovers how, in the decade since Italian Colors, lower …

Foreign Judgments In U.S. Courts, Yanbai Andrea Wang

Fordham Law Review

American law on foreign judgments is at an inflection point. For over a century, the doctrine has been shaped by concerns about outgoing U.S. judgments seeking asset collection in the civil law countries of continental Europe. But shifting trade flows and changing litigation tactics have carved a new landscape, demanding a return to foreign judgments law’s conceptual and doctrinal underpinnings. This Article first maps the new landscape, in which China is rapidly rising as a foremost foreign judgments interlocutor. Meanwhile, litigants are increasingly pursuing parallel litigation in multiple countries. The impact of incoming judgments and the interactions between related litigations …

Antitrust, Vampires And Bloody Acquisitions, Theodosia Stavroulaki

Fordham Law Review

Private equity has rapidly seized control of large swaths of the U.S. healthcare system. This Essay argues that its takeover is not a story of efficiency or innovation but one of extraction. Drawing on a substantial body of research, it shows that private equity acquisitions are associated with rising healthcare costs, inferior care, reduced access to essential services, and deteriorating working conditions for physicians and nurses—harms that fall most heavily on marginalized communities.

These outcomes are not accidental. They stem from the private equity business model, which relies on leveraged buyouts, aggressive cost cutting, and roll-up strategies designed to generate …

Ai, Antitrust, And The Marketplace Of Ideas, Maurice E. Stucke

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Blockchain Evidence: How Smart Litigators Can Keep It Out At Trial, Alexandra Sahara

Fordham Law Review Online

A blockchain is a peer-to-peer decentralized ledger that records transactions by creating a secure, time-stamped chain of information. A network of nodes—computers that use a consensus mechanism and cryptography—stores this information, creating a long and permanent history of verified transactions—in other words, blocks on the blockchain. Blockchain records provide valuable, verifiable documentation of facts that can be used in litigation; this renders blockchain a more attractive archival option compared to standard electronic archives, which can be altered. As more blockchains emerge, litigators will need to verify their authenticity and reliability because valuable and sensitive evidence may only be accessible via …

All The King’S Lawyers, Rebecca Aviel

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Against The Drafter: An Empirical And Theoretical Analysis Of The Doctrine Of Contra Proferentem, Farshad Ghodoosi, Tal Kastner

Fordham Law Review

Contra proferentem, the enduring maxim that directs courts to interpret an ambiguity in a contract against its drafter, appears simple on its face. Although it might be best known as a fundamental principle of insurance law, contra proferentem figures in courts’ interpretation of a range of contract types. As an interpretive rule of thumb that parties can easily override with a simple contract provision, the doctrine and its boilerplate antidote seem to offer a straightforward means to facilitate private ordering—a central goal of contract law.

However, neither courts’ application of the doctrine in case law nor contract drafters’ treatment …

Reevaluating Consumer Debt Enforcement: Why We Don’T Need Courts To Enforce Consumer Debt Contracts, Adam Toobin

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Enforcing consumer debt contracts against low- and middle-income borrowers, rather than making consumer debt markets work better, is inefficient and exacerbates consumer protection concerns. While consumer debt litigation—and enforcement of consumer debt contracts through wage and bank account garnishment—may have once strengthened nascent consumer debt markets, consumer credit scoring now effectively structures consumers’ incentives to repay their debt obligations. Debt enforcement is not necessary to encourage consumers to repay their debts and tends to drive borrowers into bankruptcy. Debt enforcement also undermines efforts to provide consumer protection in these markets by raising the stakes of any debt contract—where any default …

Texas’S Attempt To Compete With Delaware, Robert A. Ragazzo

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Delaware derives substantial economic benefits from attracting incorporation business. Other states have sought to receive a share of these economic benefits. Texas is among them. Part I of this article will consider Texas’s attempt to copy Delaware’s enabling philosophy. It will conclude that, although the Texas courts have not always shared Delaware’s enabling view, the Texas legislature has historically done its best to place Texas on a par with Delaware in terms of its enabling philosophy of corporate governance. In recent times, the Texas legislature has actually outdone the Delaware legislature in creating a pro-managerial corporate environment. Part II of …

Red, White-, And Blue-Collar Crime: Federal Sentencing Practices Among White-Collar And Blue-Collar Offenders, Henna Judge

Fordham Law Review

Under the current federal sentencing regime, district courts exercise immense amounts of discretion when sentencing. Though strict adherence to the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) was once mandatory, courts must now use these Guidelines as an advisory starting point and make a series of fact-specific determinations when sentencing a defendant. Though judicial discretion in this realm aids in preventing undue reliance on Guidelines-range recommendations that can lack nuance, it also invites bias.

In recent years, scholars and courts alike have called attention to a potential disparity in the way blue-collar and white-collar offenders are sentenced. This Note examines relevant …

Settling On A Standard: Reviewing The Right To Self-Representation, Lauren Lipson

Fordham Law Review

Courts appoint counsel for indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford legal representation to uphold their Sixth Amendment rights. In its seminal waiver case, Faretta v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court elevated the corollary right—the right to self-representation—to constitutional status. In dicta, the Court created a standard by which defendants must waive their right to counsel “knowingly and intelligently” to proceed pro se. The Court subsequently sculpted the right to self-representation as it came to standby counsel and mental competency, but it never prescribed a precise waiver colloquy for district court judges to administer, causing the Faretta colloquy to look …

Federal Courts, Class Actions, And The Jurisdictional Void, Courtney T. Welch

Fordham Law Review

To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Article III. Among other things, Article III requires a plaintiff to have and maintain personal stake throughout the lifespan of the litigation. Though a simple premise, this constitutional requirement has a complicated history. This is especially true as applied to class action lawsuits, where plaintiffs bring claims both on behalf of themselves and other harmed individuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has applied flexible rules to some—but not all—of Article III’s requirements in class actions. The breadth of this flexibility, though, is uncertain. Accordingly, so too …

When The Taxpayers Are Not Innocent: The Need For Punitive Damages Against Municipalities Under The Fair Housing Act, Charlotte Saltzman

Fordham Law Review

Combatting housing discrimination by municipalities is a core function of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Courts disagree, however, as to whether punitive damages can be awarded against municipal defendants. The purpose of this Note is twofold. First, it compares the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Gilead Community Services, Inc. v. Town of Cromwell, which held that punitive damages were appropriate against the Town of Cromwell, with the reasoning of district courts that came to the opposite conclusion in reliance on § 1983 precedent. Second, notwithstanding the sufficiency of the statutory analysis, it evaluates the public policy concerns of awarding …

Defining “Cases” Or “Controversies”: A Fundamental Confusion In Article Iii Standing Doctrine And Its Consequences In Multi-Plaintiff Litigation, Dominic Signa

Fordham Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has addressed the absolute core requirements of standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution on several occasions. However, the Court has not clearly articulated what purpose standing serves relative to Article III’s limitations on the exercise of judicial power to only “cases” or “controversies,” and this has led to major downstream effects in the realm of multi plaintiff litigation. Specifically, the Court has not explained whether standing is meant to ensure (1) that all potential plaintiffs demonstrate that they are properly parties to the same case or controversy before a federal court or (2) …

The Roberts Court Paradox, John C. P. Goldberg, Benjamin C. Zipursky

Fordham Law Review

As perhaps the most conservative Supreme Court of the past century, the Roberts Court regularly touts its commitment to traditional ideals, including the rule of law. Yet Trump v. United States seems ready to place presidents entirely or largely above the law by granting them absolute or near absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for official conduct. And Trump is not a one-off: from judicial recusal to qualified immunity to due process decisions, the Court frequently seems to display indifference to values of accountability and impartiality that have long been thought integral to the rule of law. What is going on? …

Emotionally Unstable: Addressing Emotional Distress As A Concrete Injury In Data Breach Cases Post-Transunion, Anna P. Cox

Fordham Law Review

Data breaches and data breach litigation are exponentially on the rise. Plaintiffs whose information is stolen in a data breach often claim emotional distress for fear of future harm the data breach may cause. However, plaintiffs who bring suit in federal court must show that they have suffered an injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing before a federal court will exercise jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez requires that plaintiffs who seek money damages under a theory of risk of future harm show that they have suffered a present concrete injury to …

“Shipping” Away The Captive Audience Meeting, Nathan Kakalec

Fordham Law Review

On November 14, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned seventy-six years of labor law precedent by banning captive audience meetings in Amazon.com Services LLC. Captive audience meetings, mandatory meetings where employers discuss unionization with their employees, were a powerful anti-union tool used by employers to coerce their employees into rejecting unionization. The NLRB argues that captive audience meetings are inconsistent with § 7 and § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employers reject the NLRB’s assertion and contend that banning captive audience meetings infringes on their First Amendment right to communicate their views on unionization. …

Litigating Corporate Risk, Henry B. Blaikie

Fordham Law Review

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires companies to disclose risk factors in Item 105 of Regulation S-K, which calls for “a discussion of the material factors that make an investment speculative or risky.” Whether companies incur liability for omitting or mischaracterizing risk factors in their disclosures is the subject of a three-way split between eight federal courts of appeals. The majority approach among the circuits—consisting of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits—imposes liability when companies omit or mischaracterize a risk factor that, at the time of disclosure, is …

Abortion Travel Restrictions Under The Dormant Commerce Clause After National Pork Producers Council V. Ross, Katherine Bartley

Fordham Law Review

Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, twelve states have banned abortion entirely, and seven states have banned abortion earlier in pregnancy than the standard set in Roe v. Wade. As abortion access dwindles, patients increasingly cross state lines to seek reproductive healthcare. In response, antiabortion state officials and lawmakers have made efforts to restrict interstate travel for abortion care.

This Note examines abortion travel restrictions under the “Dormant” Commerce Clause doctrine, which limits state laws that burden interstate commerce. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed but narrowed the judge-made doctrine in National Pork Producers Council v. …

When Prenatal Care Becomes A Crime, Casey Hunter

Fordham Law Review

For decades, pregnant women have increasingly faced criminalization for their actions and conduct during pregnancy, with Alabama emerging as a focal point due to its aggressive use of section 26-15-3.2: Chemical Endangerment of Exposing a Child to an Environment in Which Controlled Substances Are Produced or Distributed. Originally intended to protect children from the dangers of methamphetamine labs, this law has been reinterpreted to prosecute pregnant women who test positive for controlled substances. Central to these prosecutions are positive drug tests obtained from prenatal health records, causing many women to avoid prenatal care for fear of legal consequences.

This Note …

“The Gun’S Not Mine!”: The Admissibility Of Defendants’ Exculpatory Hearsay Statements Under Federal Rules Of Evidence 803(2) & (3), Faustino S. Galante

Fordham Law Review Online

Exculpatory hearsay statements made by criminal defendants often warrant admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) as excited utterances, under Rule 803(2), or as statements reflecting a then-existing state of mind, under Rule 803(3). Nevertheless, defendants often struggle to have their exculpatory statements admitted pursuant to these rules—even when those statements fulfill their categorical requirements.

This Comment surveys the different approaches courts take to determine whether exculpatory hearsay statements made by criminal defendants are admissible under Rules 803(2) and (3). It argues that courts too often misapply these rules to exclude defendants’ exculpatory statements. In particular, courts counteract the …

Lawyering As A Public Health Tool: Enforcing Title Ii Of The Americans With Disabilities Act With Preventative Litigation, Elena Cohen

Fordham Law Review

A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs cannot bring a claim alleging a risk of unnecessary institutionalization under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This directly contradicts the holdings of six other circuit courts and guidance issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ)—all of which maintain that Title II of the ADA (Title II), the integration mandate, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring permit these claims. This Note explores how the circuit courts have evaluated risk of unnecessary institutionalization claims, including …