Litigation Commons^™

Sentencing Statutes: The Deviation From Federal Sentencing Guidelines And Variation Among States' Sentencing Laws, Ashley Walsh

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights - Slamming Shut The Courthouse Doors: The Supreme Court's Expansive View Of Qualified Immunity Kills Section 1983 Suits For Excessive Force At Summary Judgment - Kisela V. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018), Kevin Hennessey

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Turning Texters Into A Civil Liability: Texting And Driving Bans And New Ways Of Expanding Liability On The Road, Julianne Jeha

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

State Of Slayer's Estate, Paul Mourad

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Straight Past Go And Collect $200: A Look Into The Clayton Act And Vertical Mergers Within Corporate America, Natalie Brough

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Contract Law/Property Law - Just Text The Contract Over - St. John's Holdings, Llc V. Two Elecs., No. 16 Misc 000090 Rbf, 2016 Wl 6191911 (Mass. Land Ct. Oct. 24, 2016), Darius Brown

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights - Medical Marijuana Recognized As Facially Reasonable Accommodation Under Handicap Discrimination Claim In Massachusetts - Barbuto V. Advantage Sales And Mktg., Llc, 78 N.E.3d 40 (Mass. 2017), Molly Carroll

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Criminal Law - Prosecutorial Mistake Results In Sexual Assault Retrial - Commonwealth V. Angel Luis Alvarez, 103 N.E.3d 1202 (Mass. 2018), Danielle Paulson

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Let Them Eat Cake - Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm'n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018), Timothy Rennie

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Books And Olive Oil: Why Antitrust Must Deal With Consolidated Corporate Power, Carl T. Bogus

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Following an epic battle in the marketplace between Apple and major book publishers, on one side, and Amazon, on the other side, the United States Department of Justice and thirty-three states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and the publishers, alleging that they had conspired to fix the prices of ebooks. Both the district court and a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided the case in the government’s favor. This Article argues that government regulators and the courts took the wrong side in the dispute and did so because of fundamental flaws …

Fifth Indifference: Clarifying The Fifth Circuit's Intent Standard For Damages Under Title Ii Of The Americans With Disabilities Act, Derek Warden

Texas A&M Law Review

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. Title II of the ADA applies to public entities. That same Title allows plaintiffs to obtain damages upon a showing that the discrimination was intentional. There are generally two possible standards of intent: (1) deliberate indifference or (2) animus. While most Circuit Courts expressly adopted the deliberate indifference model, the Fifth Circuit has not. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has not adopted any standard and this has led to confusion. The confusion is not helped, moreover, by the sheer lack of justification offered by a number of the Circuit Courts …

The Supreme Court And Public Schools, Erwin Chemerinsky

Michigan Law Review

Review of Justin Driver's The Schoolhouse Gate: Public Education, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for the American Mind.

Plaintiff Personal Jurisdiction And Venue Transfer, Scott Dodson

Michigan Law Review

Personal jurisdiction usually focuses on the rights of the defendant. This is because a plaintiff implicitly consents to personal jurisdiction in the court where the plaintiff chooses to file. But what if the defendant seeks to transfer venue to a court in a state in which the plaintiff has no contacts and never consented to personal jurisdiction? Lower courts operate on the assumption that in both ordinary venue-transfer cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and multidistrict-litigation cases under § 1407(a), personal-jurisdiction concerns for plaintiffs simply do not apply. I contest that assumption. Neither statute expands the statutory authorization of federal-court …

The Future Of Multidistrict Litigation, Jay Tidmarsh, Daniela Peinado Welsh

Journal Articles

The occasion for this Essay is the fiftieth anniversary of the enactment of the multidistrict-litigation statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Multidistrict litigation has quietly become a central feature of federal litigation, sweeping one-third or more of all federal civil cases each year into aggregate proceedings. Recent commentary on multidistrict litigation has been highly critical of the “Wild West” quality of the proceedings, which arguably benefit repeat-player lawyers at the expense of their clients’ interests and autonomy. Reform of the process now seems likely. This Essay begins by describing the features, most historically contingent, that have brought multidistrict litigation to this …

Offensive Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion Revisited, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Some forty years ago, in Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, the United States Supreme Court held that the rule of mutuality of estoppel was no longer an absolute bar to the invocation of issue preclusion for the benefit of a plaintiff who had been a stranger to the prior (F-1) litigation against a defendant who had been party to both the F-I and present (F-2) cases. In so ruling, the Supreme Court gave its imprimatur to Judge Traynor's dramatic takedown of the mutuality rule in Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association nearly four decades …

Insurance Coverage In A Climate Changed Canada: How Can Canada Pay For Loss And Damage From Anthropogenic Climate Change?, Eric Dwyer

Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies

This article looks at the impact of anthropogenic climate change and its associated costs in the Canadian context. It begins by outlining how climate change is predicted to alter the Canadian climate before evaluating how this will affect the insurance industry. It determines that insurers’ response to the unpredictable risks and high costs associated with climate change will lead to significant gaps in coverage. How litigation of major carbon polluters could help cover some of the costs associated with climate change by holding polluters accountable is considered. State-led climate litigation can overcome some of the litigation obstacles identified and it …

No Longer A Second-Class Class Action? Finding Common Ground In The Debate Over Wage Collective Actions With Best Practices For Litigation And Adjudication, Scott A. Moss, Nantiya Ruan

Publications

Rule 23 class actions include all potential members, if granted certification. For wage claims, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) allows not class but collective actions covering only those opting in. Courts have practiced Rule 23-style gatekeeping in collective actions – requiring certification motions, which they deny if members lack enough commonality. Our 2012 article argued against this practice. No statute or rule grants judges the § 216(b) gatekeeping power early cases assumed, and with good reason: opt-in reduces the agency problems justifying Rule 23 gatekeeping; and Congress passed § 216(b) as not a stricter, opt-in form of class action, but liberalized …

The Effects Of Comparable‐Case Guidance On Awards For Pain And Suffering And Punitive Damages: Evidence From A Randomized Controlled Trial, Hillel J. Bavli, Reagan Mozer

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Damage awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages are notoriously unpredictable. Courts provide minimal, if any, guidance to jurors determining these awards, and apply similarly minimal standards in reviewing them. Lawmakers have enacted crude measures, such as damage caps, aimed at curbing award unpredictability, while ignoring less drastic alternatives that involve guiding jurors with information regarding damage awards in comparable cases (“comparable‐case guidance” or “prior‐award information”). The primary objections to the latter approach are based on the argument that, because prior‐award information uses information regarding awards in distinct cases, it introduces the possibility of biasing the award, or distorting …

The Myth Of Settlement In Mdl Proceedings, Douglas G. Smith

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Res Ipsa Loquitur: Reducing Confusion Of Creating Bias?, Jeffrey H. Kahn, John E. Lopatka

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Enforcement Piggybacking And Multistate Actions, Elysa Dishman

Faculty Scholarship

Civil enforcement in the United States is uniquely “multienforcer.” Numerous public and private enforcers including federal agencies, state attorneys general (AGs), and private litigants have overlapping authority to enforce myriad federal and state laws. Ideally, enforcers would complement one another’s efforts and use their comparative enforcement advantages to broaden the scope of enforcement and act as a check on underenforcement. But in reality, enforcers are often attracted to the same targets—large, public, deep-pocketed corporations. This means that multiple enforcers may pursue essentially the same enforcement action, arising from the same series of events and against the same target. Redundant enforcement …

Mdl Immunity: Lessons From The National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Roger Michalski

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mdl Immunity: Lessons From The National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Roger Michalski

Faculty Articles

Federal multi-district litigation (“MDL”) suffers from a massive blind spot that has largely escaped notice: it only selects cases based on “convenience,” “efficiency,” and the preservation of judicial resources. The statute does not take into account broader societal and governmental interests that can trump litigation efficiency arguments. One way to fix this blind spot is through the new concept of MDL immunity (a procedural rather than liability immunity). This doctrinal innovation would exempt cases by and against government entities from generalized MDL treatment. I make the doctrinal argument for MDL immunity informed by original data collected from hundreds of cases …

National Injunctions And Preclusion, Zachary D. Clopton

Michigan Law Review

Critics of national injunctions are lining up. Attorney General Jeff Sessions labeled these injunctions “absurd” and “simply unsustainable.” Justice Clarence Thomas called them “legally and historically dubious,” while Justice Neil Gorsuch mockingly referred to them as “cosmic injunctions.” Scholars in leading law reviews have called for their demise. Critics argue that national injunctions encourage forum shopping, unfairly burden the federal government, and depart from the history of equity. They also claim that national injunctions contradict the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Mendoza to exempt the federal government from offensive nonmutual issue preclusion—a doctrine that permits nonparties to benefit …

Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using A Multifactor Test To Evaluate The Admissibility Of Evidence At Class Certification, Cianan M. Lesley

Michigan Law Review

Circuit courts are split on whether and to what extent the Daubert standard should apply at class certification. Potential plaintiffs believe that application of Daubert would make it nearly impossible to obtain class certification. For potential defendants, the application of the standard is an important way to ensure that the certification process is fair. This Note examines the incentives underlying the push to apply the Daubert standard at class certification and the benefits and drawbacks associated with that proposal. It proposes a solution that balances the concerns of both plaintiffs and defendants by focusing on three factors: the obstacles to …

State Standing And Cooperative Federalism, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

State lawsuits challenging federal policy generally encounter arguments that the states lack standing to sue, either under Article III’s “case or controversy” clause or under various prudential standing doctrines. These arguments have often taken novel forms—such as claims that states’ injuries are “self-inflicted” or offset by other benefits of federal policies—that have few precedents or analogs in the standing jurisprudence governing suits by private individuals. The United States has taken the position, in other words, that states should have special disabilities in filing lawsuits that would not apply to ordinary litigants. Likewise, prominent academics have argued that uniquely narrow standing …

Has Shoe Run Its Course?, David W. Ichel

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Catholic Dioceses In Bankruptcy, Marie T. Reilly

Catholic Dioceses in Bankruptcy

The Catholic Church is coping with mass tort liability for sexual abuse of children by priests. Since 2004, eighteen Catholic organizations have filed for relief in bankruptcy. Fifteen debtors emerged from bankruptcy after settling with sexual abuse claimants and insurers. During settlement negotiations, sexual abuse claimants and debtors clashed over the extent of the debtors’ property and ability to pay claims. Although such disputes are common in chapter 11 plan negotiations, the Catholic cases required the parties and bankruptcy courts to account for unique religious attributes of Catholic debtors. This article reviews the arguments and outcomes on property issues based …

Arbitration Law Update: 2018-2019, Teresa J. Verges, Elissa Germaine

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

This article summarizes the leading federal and state arbitration cases during the last year that are of particular relevance to the securities arbitration practitioner. The Supreme Court decided three cases related to arbitration involving the “wholly groundless” exception, class arbitration, and arbitrability. Courts also addressed issues concerning arbitrability, vacating arbitration awards, a receiver action on behalf of defrauded investors, the limits of FINRA arbitration over member’s other business activities, and discovery in arbitration.

Fact Or Fiction: Flawed Approaches To Evaluating Market Behavior In Securities Litigation, Ann Lipton

Publications

Courts entertaining class actions brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act are required to make numerous factual judgments about the economic effects of the alleged misconduct. For example, they must determine whether and for how long publicly-available information has exerted an influence on security prices, and whether an alleged fraud caused economic harm to investors. Judgments on these matters dictate whether cases will proceed to summary judgment and trial, whether classes will be certified and the scope of such classes, and the damages that investors are entitled to collect.

Over the years, courts have developed a variety of …