Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Complicated Economics Of Prison Reform, John F. Pfaff

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Class Action As Trust, Sergio J. Campos

Articles

No abstract provided.

When May A Litigant Rely In Its Own Complaint On Allegations From Another Complaint? – Lipsky V. Commonwealth United Corp. And Its Progeny – Still An Unresolved Question, Laurence A. Steckman, Joseph T. Johnson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Privatizing Public Litigation, Margaret H. Lemos

Faculty Scholarship

Government litigators increasingly use private resources—human and financial—to support their efforts in court. In some cases, government entities hire private lawyers to perform legal work on behalf of the government; in others, they draw on private donations to fund litigation; and in some cases they do both, relying on privately funded private lawyers to litigate cases in the government’s name. These mergers of public and private can be understood as part of broader trends toward the privatization of government services. This Article uses lessons from the privatization debates to illuminate the likely costs and benefits of bringing private actors into …

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 …

Being Deprived Of The Right To Effective Counsel In Removal Proceedings: Why The Eighth Circuit’S Decision In Rafiyev Must Be Overturned, Charles Shane Ellison

Faculty Scholarship

The situation for immigrants who have received frightfully defective assistance from their attorneys, or non-attorneys masquerading as such, is all too common. For the reasons discussed more fully in this article, immigrant victims are at particular risk in tribunals beneath the Eighth Circuit because of its aberrant precedent in the area of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. In this article, I will first provide an overview of the procedure for making a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings and give a brief history of this procedure as used since the Board’s seminal decision in Matter …

Race, Class, And Access To Civil Justice, Sara Sternberg Greene

Faculty Scholarship

After many years of inattention, policymakers are now focused on troubling statistics indicating that members of poor and minority groups are less likely than their higher-income counterparts to seek help when they experience a civil justice problem. Indeed, roughly three-quarters of the poor do not seek legal help when they experience a civil justice problem, and inaction is even more pronounced among poor blacks. Past work on access to civil justice largely relies on unconfirmed assumptions about the behavior patterns and needs of those experiencing civil justice problems. At a time when increased attention and resources are being devoted to …

A Servile Copy: Text Reuse And Medium Data In American Civil Procedure, Kellen R. Funk, Lincoln A. Mullen

Faculty Scholarship

At the opening of the first Nevada legislature in 1861, Territorial Governor James W. Nye, a former New York lawyer, warned the assembly that it had the burden to erect a functioning government within a short legislative session. »Happily for us, a neighboring State whose interests are similar to ours, has established a code of laws« that Nye argued could »be made applicable« to Nevada. That neighboring state was California, and the California mining lawyer William Morris Stewart followed Nye’s instructions to the letter. Stewart literally cut and pasted the California Practice Act into the session bill, crossing out state …

Restoring The Civil Jury In A World Without Trials, Dmitry Bam

Faculty Publications

Early in this nation’s history, the civil jury was the most important institutional check on biased and corrupt judges. Recently, concerns about judicial bias, especially in elected state judiciaries, have intensified as new studies demonstrate the extent of that bias. But the jury of Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson is nowhere to be found. In fact, the civil jury is virtually dead. It is used in less than 1% of all civil cases, and even when it makes a rare appearance, the jury’s powers have been significantly curtailed.

This article argues that we must reimagine the civil jury to match the …

Tort Reform: Blocking The Courthouse Door And Denying Access To Justice, Joanne Doroshow

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Colorado Rule Of Evidence 502: Preserving Privilege And Work Product Protection In Discovery, Christopher B. Mueller, Ronald J. Hedges, Lino S. Lipinsky

Publications

No abstract provided.

Saving The Public Interest Class Action By Unpacking Theory And Doctrinal Functionality, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.

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 …

The End Of An Era? Federal Civil Procedure After The 2015 Amendments, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

The recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were the most controversial in decades. The biggest criticisms concerned pleading standards and access to discovery. Many feared that the amendments would undermine the simplified, merits-driven approach that the original drafters of the Federal Rules envisioned and would weaken access to justice and the enforcement of substantive rights and obligations.

This Article argues that the amendments that came into effect on December 1, 2015, do not mandate a more restrictive approach to pleading or discovery. Although there was legitimate cause for alarm given the advisory committee’s earlier proposals and supporting …

Meeting The Challenges Of High-Volume Civil Dockets, Hannah E. M. Lieberman, Paula Hannaford-Agor

Faculty Publications

Consumer-debt-collection, landlord/tenant, small-claims, and contract cases involving relatively small amounts comprise almost 80 percent of civil caseloads. This essay examines the challenges associated with high-volume civil dockets and summarizes recommendations to address these challenges and strengthen the integrity of the civil justice system.

The Law And Economics Of Proportionality In Discovery, Jonah B. Gelbach, Bruce H. Kobayashi

Georgia Law Review

This Article analyzes the proportionality standard in discovery. Many believe the renewed emphasis on this standard contained in the 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has the potential to infuse litigation practice with considerably more attention to questions related to the costs and benefits of discovery. We discuss the history and rationale of proportionality's inclusion in Rule 26, adopting an analytical framework that focuses on how costs and benefits can diverge in litigation generally, and discovery in particular. Finally, we use this framework to understand the mechanics and challenges involved in deploying the six factors included in …

The Preliminary Injunction Standard In Diversity: A Typical Unguided Erie Choice, David E. Shipley

Georgia Law Review

The standard for granting preliminary injunctions in some states is not the same as the preliminary injunction standard that is followed in the federal district courts in the federal circuit where the state is located. For example, the interlocutory injunction standard in Georgia's superior courts is not as demanding as the preliminary injunction standard in Georgia's federal courts. Although state and federal courts in Georgia consider four similar factors in deciding whether to grant or deny provisional injunctive relief, a balancing or sliding scale approach can be used in Georgia's courts; the moving party need not prove all four of …

Gonzalez V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 99 (Dec. 31, 2015), Chelsea Stacey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court, sitting en banc, determined that by failing to answer questions from the jury that suggested confusion on a significant element of the law, failing to give an accomplice-distrust instruction, and by not bifurcating the guilt phase from the gang enhancement phase the district court violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Scott V. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 101 (Dec. 31, 2015), Adrian Viesca

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that Carson City Municipal Code (“CCMC”) 8.04.050(1) is (1) unconstitutionally overbroad because it “is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words” and (2) vague because it lacked sufficient guidelines and gave the police too much discretion in its enforcement.

Fergason V. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 31, 2015), Lena Rieke

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined (1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the State because the State failed to present evidence demonstrating no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the funds it seized from petitioner’s bank accounts were subject to forfeiture as proceeds attributable to the petitioner’s commission of a felony; (2) the State’s forfeiture of funds seized from a bank account will not stand without evidence connecting the funds to criminal activity; and (3) NRS § 179.1173(4) requires the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence the property is subject to forfeiture.

The Court …