Litigation Commons^™

The Demise Of Drug Design Litigation Death By Federal Preemption, Aaron Twerski

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Oligopoly Pricing And Richard Posner, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

Over a span of nearly 50 years Richard Posner’s voice has loomed large over the subject of oligopoly pricingand antitrust. The span begins in 1969 with Posner’s publication of “Oligopoly and the Antitrust Laws: A Suggested Approach,” which argues for more aggressive enforcement of Section 1 in cases involving circumstantial evidence of conspiracy. The span ends with Posner’s opinion in In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation, in 2015. The two writings, the first an academic article published early in Posner’s career and the second a judicial opinion published near the end of his time on the bench, suggest very different …

Ousted: The New Dynamics Of Privatized Procedure And Judicial Discretion, Robin Effron

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A New Guard At The Courthouse Door: Corporate Personal Jurisdiction In Complex Litigation After The Supreme Court’S Decision Quartet, David W. Ichel

Faculty Scholarship

In a quartet of recent decisions, the Supreme Court substantially reshaped the analysis of due process limits for a state's exercise of personal jurisdiction over corporations for the first time since its groundbreaking 1945 decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The Court's decision quartet recasts the International Shoe continuum of corporate contacts for which it would be "reasonable" for the state to exercise jurisdiction based on "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" into a more rigid bright-line dichotomy between "general" and "specific" jurisdiction: for a state to exercise general (or all-purpose) jurisdiction over any suit, regardless of …

Adr And Access To Justice: Current Perspectives, Ellen E. Deason, Michael Z. Green, Donna Shestowsky, Rory Van Loo, Ellen Waldman

Faculty Scholarship

Access to justice is a broad topic, and we cannot cover everything. You will notice a few major omissions. Most notably, we are not going to emphasize consumer pre-dispute arbitration agreements. This is not because they are not important, but because much has been written and said on this topic, and it could easily swallow the whole discussion. Also, we are probably not going to say very much about restorative justice, and I am sure you will notice some other holes. We invite you to raise missing issues in your comments.

Let me start with a few opening remarks. We …

Resolving The Crisis In U.S. Merger Regulation: A Transatlantic Alternative To The Perpetual Litigation Machine, Dan Awrey, Blanaid Clarke, Sean J. Griffith

Faculty Scholarship

Regulation by litigation has driven U.S. merger regulation to crisis. The reliance on private lawsuits to police disclosures and potential conflicts of interest in mergers, takeovers, and other control transactions has resulted in the filing of claims after every major transaction. However, it has failed to achieve meaningful benefits for shareholders and has instead deprived them of potentially valuable rights. Regulation by litigation has devolved into attorney rent-seeking, and the raft of substantive and procedural reforms aimed at resolving the crisis has failed. There is an alternative to regulation by litigation. Drawing upon the code and panel-based models of merger …

State Public-Law Litigation In An Age Of Polarization, Margaret H. Lemos, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

Public-law litigation by state governments plays an increasingly prominent role in American governance. Although public lawsuits by state governments designed to challenge the validity or shape the content of national policy are not new, such suits have increased in number and salience over the last few decades — especially since the tobacco litigation of the late 1990s. Under the Obama and Trump Administrations, such suits have taken on a particularly partisan cast; “red” states have challenged the Affordable Care Act and President Obama’s immigration orders, for example, and “blue” states have challenged President Trump’s travel bans and attempts to roll …

Brief Of Professors William Baude And Stephen E. Sachs As Amici Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, William Baude, Stephen E. Sachs

Faculty Scholarship

This case presents the question whether to overrule Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979). That question requires careful attention to the legal status of sovereign immunity and to the Constitution’s effect on it, which neither Hall nor either party has quite right. The Founders did not silently constitutionalize a common-law immunity, but neither did they leave each State wholly free to hale other States before its courts. While Hall’s holding was mostly right, other statements in Hall are likely quite wrong—yet this case is a poor vehicle for reconsidering them.

Hall correctly held that States lack a constitutional immunity …

Case Law, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Although case law plays a crucial role in the American legal system, surprisingly little consensus exists on how to determine the “law” that any given “case” generates. Lawyers, judges, and scholars regularly note the difference between holdings and dicta and between necessary and unnecessary parts of a precedent-setting decision, but such concepts have eluded coherent application in practice. There remains considerable uncertainty about which aspects of a judicial decision impose prospective legal obligations as a matter of stare decisis and to what extent.

This Article develops a counterintuitive, but productive, way to conceptualize case law: the lawmaking content of a …

Empowering Individual Plaintiffs, Alex Stein, Gideon Parchomovsky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Dueling Grants: Reimagining Cafa's Jurisdictional Provisions, Tanya Pierce

Faculty Scholarship

Part I of the article discusses the relevant policies underlying CAFA and Rule 23. Part II briefly outlines the more straightforward operation of CAFA jurisdiction in pre-certification and post-successful certification situations before explaining the provisions in CAFA that have given rise to considerable confusion after courts deny class certification. Part III critiques the arguments made by courts and scholars in support of and against continuing jurisdiction. It then suggests an approach that is most consistent with the statute, in light of all of its relevant provisions and their corresponding limitations, and that furthers prudential concerns underlying Rule 23 and CAFA …

Reshaping Third-Party Funding, Victoria Sahani

Faculty Scholarship

Third-party funding is a controversial business arrangement whereby an outside entity—called a third-party funder—finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration or finances a law firm’s portfolio of cases in return for a profit. Attorney ethics regulations and other laws permit nonlawyers to become partial owners of law firms in the District of Columbia, England and Wales, Scotland, Australia, two provinces in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and other jurisdictions around the world. Recently, a U.S.-based third-party funder that is publicly traded in England started its own law firm in England. In addition, some U.S. …

Courts As Institutional Reformers: Bankruptcy And Public Law Litigation, Kathleen G. Noonan, Jonathan C. Lipson, William H. Simon

Faculty Scholarship

This article compares two spheres in which courts induce and oversee the restructuring of organizations that fail systematically to comply with their legal obligations: bankruptcy reorganization and public law litigation (civil rights or regulatory suits seeking structural remedies). The analogies between bankruptcy and public law litigation (PLL) have grown stronger in recent years as structural decrees have evolved away from highly specific directives to “framework” decrees designed to induce engagement with stakeholders and make performance transparent. We use the comparison with bankruptcy, where the value and legitimacy of judicial intervention are better understood and more accepted, to address prominent criticisms …

Restructuring Sovereign Debt After Nml V. Argentina, Lee C. Buchheit, G. Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

The decade and a half of litigation that followed Argentina’s sovereign bond default in 2001 ended with a great disturbance in the Force. A new creditor weapon had been uncloaked: The prospect of a court injunction requiring the sovereign borrower to pay those creditors that decline to participate in a debt restructuring ratably with any payments made to those creditors that do provide the country with debt relief.

For the first time holdouts succeeded in fashioning a weapon that could be used to injure their erstwhile fellow bondholders, not just the sovereign issuer. Is the availability of this new weapon …

Perpetual Evolution: A School's-Focused Public Law Litigation Model For Our Day, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

In celebrating the monumental accomplishments of the new form of public law litigation that Constance Baker Motley and her colleagues pioneered, this Essay reinterprets their paradigm-shifting body of work in a manner that obliges the current generation of civil rights advocates to change direction. In the hopes of reengaging the affirmative force of constitutional litigation after decades in which it has waned, this Essay argues that the central lesson to be derived from Motley’s generation lies not in the mode of public law litigation it pioneered but in the design of that litigation in the image of the dominant form …

Three Models Of Adjudicative Representation, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Threatening Litigation, Bruce A. Green

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Ad Hoc Procedure, Pamela K. Bookman, David L. Noll

Faculty Scholarship

Ad hoc procedure” seems like an oxymoron. A traditional model of the civil justice system depicts courts deciding cases using impartial procedures that are defined in advance of specific disputes. This model reflects a process-based account of the rule of law in which the process through which laws are made helps to ensure that lawmakers act in the public interest. Judgments produced using procedures promulgated in advance of specific disputes are legitimate because they are the product of fair rules of play designed in a manner that is the opposite of ad hoc.

Actual litigation frequently reveals the inadequacy of …

Is The Supreme Court Disabling The Enabling Act, Or Is Shady Grove Just Another Bad Opera?, Robert J. Condlin

Faculty Scholarship

After seventy years of trying, the Supreme Court has yet to agree on whether the Rules Enabling Act articulates a one or two part standard for determining the validity of a Federal Rule. Is it enough that a Federal Rule regulates “practice and procedure,” or must it also not “abridge substantive rights”? The Enabling Act seems to require both, but the Court is not so sure, and the costs of its uncertainty are real. Among other things, litigants must guess whether the decision to apply a Federal Rule in a given case will depend upon predictable ritual, judicial power grab, …

Sex, Videos, And Insurance: How Gawker Could Have Avoided Financial Responsibility For The $140 Million Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Verdict, Christopher French

Faculty Scholarship

On March 18, 2016, and March 22, 2016, a jury awarded Terry Bollea (a.k.a Hulk Hogan) a total of $140 million in compensatory and punitive damages against Gawker Media for posting less than two minutes of a video of Hulk Hogan having sex with his best friend’s wife. The award was based upon a finding that Gawker intentionally had invaded Hulk Hogan’s privacy by posting the video online. The case has been receiving extensive media coverage because it is a tawdry tale involving a celebrity, betrayal, adultery, sex, and the First Amendment. The case likely will be remembered by most …

Aggregation By Acquisition: Replacing Class Actions With A Market For Legal Claims, Minor Myers, C. Korsmo

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Transnational Litigation As A Prisoner's Dilemma, Maya Steinitz, Paul Gowder

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article we use game theory to argue that perceptions of widespread corruption in the judicial processes in developing countries create ex ante incentives to act corruptly. It is rational (though not moral) to preemptively act corruptly when litigating in the courts of many developing nations. The upshot of this analysis is to highlight that, contrary to judicial narratives in individual cases — such as the (in)famous Chevron–Ecuador dispute used herein as an illustration — the problem of corruption in transnational litigation is structural and as such calls for structural solutions. The article offers one such solution: the establishment …

The First Patent Litigation Explosion, Christopher Beauchamp

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judging Third-Party Funding, Victoria Sahani

Faculty Scholarship

Third-party funding is an arrangement whereby an outside entity finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration. The outside entity—called a “third-party funder”—could be a bank, hedge fund, insurance company, or some other entity or individual that finances the party’s legal representation in return for a profit. Third-party funding is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving phenomenon. The practice has attracted national headlines and the attention of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee stated in a recent report that “judges currently have the power to obtain information about …

Standing In The Judge’S Shoes: Exploring Techniques To Help Legal Writers More Fully Address The Needs Of Their Audience, Sherri Keene

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Occam's Phaser: Making Proportional Discovery (Finally) Work In Litigation By Requiring Phased Discovery, Michael Murphy

Faculty Scholarship

This is an article about solving the problem of expensive electronic discovery in litigation by simply learning the most important facts first. Judges and parties often complain that the scope of information included in fact discovery in civil litigation is overinclusive and disproportionate to size of the dispute, resulting in overly expensive costs. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recently changed again to further emphasize the use of “proportional” limits in discovery, but provide little practical mechanism for parties, lawyers, and judges to make discovery “right-sized.” This Article proposes that parties should be required to “phase” discovery by first setting …

Lawyers, Power, And Strategic Expertise, Colleen F. Shanahan, Anna E. Carpenter, Alyx Mark

Faculty Scholarship

The only sound in a courtroom is the hum of the ventilation system. It feels as if everyone in the room is holding their breath …. Litigants are uneasy in the courthouse, plaintiffs and defendants alike. They fidget. They keep their coats on. They clutch their sheaves of paper-rent receipts and summonses, leases and bills. You can always tell the lawyers, because they claim the front row, take off their jackets, lay out their files. It's not just their ease with the language and the process that sets them apart. They dominate the space.

This empirical study analyzes the experience …

Climate Litigation Scores Successes In The Netherlands And Pakistan, Michael B. Gerrard

Faculty Scholarship

Most U.S. climate change litigation falls into one of two categories. The vast majority of cases — which receive the bulk of the attention — are based on the Clean Air Act and other statutes. These include Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) and the current litigation over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan. The second category, and the focus of this article, comprises cases based on common law and the Constitution.

Litigation: Time To Revisit Chevron Deference?, Jack M. Beerman, Charles J. Cooper, Thomas W. Merrill, Amy J. Wildermuth, Don R. Willett

Faculty Scholarship

This panel discussion took place on Thursday, November 13, 2014 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., prior to the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia's impact on the development of administrative law in the United States is unparalleled.

Improving Predictability And Consistency In Class Action Tolling, Tanya Pierce

Faculty Scholarship

Class action tolling means that when parties in a suit allege federal treatment, the individual claims of putative class members are tolled federal courts while the class action is pending. Commonly referred to as American Pipe tolling, this rule prevents duplicative litigation that would result if plaintiffs were required to intervene or file independent lawsuits to protect their interests while the class action was pending. Federal courts have long settled the application of American Pipe tolling in scenarios involving later-filed individual actions. In other scenarios, however, the application of American Pipe tolling has caused considerable uncertainty. This Article examines the …