Civil Procedure Commons^™

Constitutional Venue, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay C. Nash

Florida Law Review

A foundational concept of American jurisprudence is the principle that it is unfair to allow litigants to be haled into far away tribunals when the litigants and the litigation have little or nothing to do with the location of such courts. Historically, both personal jurisdiction and venue each served this purpose in related, but distinct ways. Personal jurisdiction is, at base, a limit on the authority of the sovereign. Venue, in contrast, aims to protect parties from being forced to litigate in a location where they would be unfairly disadvantaged. The constitutional boundaries of these early principles came to be …

Summary Of Fulbright & Jaworski Llp V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 5, Chelsea Lancaster

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) “a general jurisdiction inquiry calls for an appraisal of a defendant’s activities in their entirety, nationwide and worldwide”; and (2) “an out-of-state law firm that is solicited by a Nevada client to represent the client on an out-of-state matter does not subject itself to [specific] personal jurisdiction in Nevada simply by virtue of agreeing to represent the client.” Additionally, the Court reaffirmed that “[p]urposeful availment requires that the cause of action arise from the consequences in the forum state of the defendant’s activities.”

The Universal Remedy For Attorney Abandonment: Why Holland V. Florida And Maples V. Thomas Give All Courts The Power To Vacate Civil Judgments Against Abandoned Clients By Way Of Rule 60(B)(6), Stephen White

Pepperdine Law Review

This Article argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is the only remedy that courts can always rely on to enforce this power. The universal availability of this statutory rule, which states that courts can vacate judgments against parties “for any . . . reason that justifies relief,” ensures that courts can safeguard clients from the conduct of attorneys who have abandoned them. Part II of this Comment provides an overview of the distinct models the Supreme Court has utilized to evaluate attorney misconduct and the circumstances that bind clients to that misconduct. Part II also describes in detail …

Rule 60(B)(4): When The Courts Of Limited Jurisdiction Yield To Finality, Stephen E. Ludovici

Florida Law Review

It is basic hornbook law—affirmed by courts across time and space repeatedly and unequivocally—that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. However, in the context of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion seeking relief from a void final judgment after the time for appeal has expired, the onerous standard of review used by courts causes subject-matter jurisdiction to be practically—and frequently—waived in favor of the finality of the judgment. While an onerous standard is tolerable where the court issuing the judgment explicitly found subject-matter jurisdiction, an onerous standard is unacceptable where the court did not do so in light of the federal courts’ limited …

The Lock-In Effect Of Preliminary Injunctions, Kevin J. Lynch

Florida Law Review

Judges suffer from the same cognitive biases that afflict the rest of us. They use shortcuts to help them deal with the uncertainty and time pressure inherent in the judicial process. Judges should be aware of the conditions when those shortcuts lead to systemic biases in decision-making, and adjust legal standards to reduce or avoid such bias altogether.

One important bias economists and psychologists have identified is the lock-in effect. The lock-in effect causes a decision maker who must revisit an earlier decision to be locked in to that earlier decision. The effect is particularly pronounced where the earlier decision …

Introspection Through Litigation, Joanna C. Schwartz

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article contends that there is a bright side to being sued: organizational defendants can learn valuable information about their own behavior from lawsuits brought against them. Complaints describe allegations of wrongdoing. The discovery process unearths documents and testimony regarding plaintiffs’ allegations. And in summary judgment briefs, expert reports, pretrial orders, and trial, parties marshal the evidence to support their claims. Each of these aspects of civil litigation can bring to the surface information that an organization does not have or has not previously identified, collected, or recognized as valuable. This information, placed in the hands of an organization’s leaders …

The Breaking Of A Wave: Jacobsen V. Allstate Ins. Co. And Class Certification, Lucas Hamilton

Montana Law Review

No abstract provided.

Conflicting Requirements Of Notice: The Incorporation Of Rule 9(B) Into The False Claims Act's First-To-File Bar, Brian D. Howe

Michigan Law Review

Intended to prevent fraud against the government, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) contains a qui tam provision allowing private individuals, known as relators, to bring suits on behalf of the government and receive a portion of the damages. At the heart of the qui tam provision lies the first-to-file bar, which provides that, once a first relator has filed a complaint, subsequent relators are prohibited from coming forward with complaints based on the facts underlying the first relator’s pending action. A circuit split has recently emerged regarding the incorporation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard into …

"New Wine In An Old Bottle": The Advent Of Social Media Discovery In Pennsylvania Civil Litigation Matters, Daniel E. Cummins

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

International Mass Tort Litigation: Forum Non Conveniens And The Adequate Alternative Forum In Light Of The Bhopal Disaster, Stephen L. Cummings

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Reflections On Judicial Jurisdiction In International Cases, Gary B. Born

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Erie's International Effect, Michael Steven Green

Northwestern University Law Review

To what extent does the Erie doctrine apply in an international context? In his article When Erie Goes International, Professor Childress argues that a federal court choosing between state law and the law of a foreign nation should often (or perhaps always) ignore Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. and use federal choice of law rules rather than the rules of the state where the federal court is located. In this Essay, I have three points to make in response. The first is that Childress’s article, even if successful, leaves the bulk of the Erie doctrine unchanged in …

Jury Certification Of Federal Securities Fraud Class Actions, Thomas Kayes

Northwestern University Law Review

The rough equivalence of certification and ultimate outcome is class action dogma. If certification is granted, then the plaintiff “wins” by settlement because the risk of incurring class-wide liability by going to trial is too great. If certification is denied, the defendant “wins” because the case may not be worth litigating without the possibility of a class-wide recovery. This Note is about where the dogma is wrong. There are now cases where a denial of certification, just like a grant, presents to the defendant the risk of incurring class-wide liability at trial. This is because those cases are capable of …

Recognizing Discrimination: Lessons From White Plaintiffs, Wendy Parker

Florida Law Review

The Supreme Court has developed a robust equal protection jurisprudence to recognize the rights of whites complaining of race conscious governmental activity. This was particularly reflected in the Court’s opinion in Parents Involved, where the Roberts Court radically repositioned the meaning of Brown v. Board of Education. That opinion all but guarantees that eventually Abigail Noel Fisher will win her case against the University of Texas. In the meantime, however, the case also holds promise for minority plaintiffs. While many have lamented Parents Involved and its use of Brown, we have missed the promise of the Roberts …

Retroactive Application Of State Long-Arm Statutes, Dane Reed Ullian

Florida Law Review

A precondition to a court’s exercising any measure of authority over an individual or an entity is the court’s establishment of personal jurisdiction. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if the forum state provides a statutory basis for exercising jurisdiction over the nonresident and the exercise of jurisdiction satisfies the constitutional due process standard. Personal jurisdiction is one of the most commonly litigated issues today, due primarily to confusion over the constitutional standard.

Commentators and courts write extensively about the constitutional prerequisites for personal jurisdiction, but say little about state long-arm statutes. Perhaps this should …

Linking Rule 9(B) Pleading And The First-To-File Rule To Advance The Goals Of The False Claims Act, Karin Lee

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Congress Should Fix Personal Jurisdiction, Stephen E. Sachs

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Other Side Of The Rabbit Hole: Reconciling Recent Supreme Court Personal Jurisdiction Jurisprudence With Jurisdiction To Terminate Parental Rights, Joan M. Shaughnessy

Scholarly Articles

This Essay contrasts the jurisdictional regime followed in termination of parental rights and other child custody cases with the regime that has dominated recent Supreme Court personal jurisdiction cases. Jurisdiction in child custody cases has long been based upon the connection of the child, not the defendant parent, to the jurisdiction. Recent Supreme Court cases, on the other hand, have focused nearly exclusively on the defendant’s connection to the forum state. This Essay argues that the Supreme Court cases betray a failure of the Court to provide a consistent constitutional justification for the jurisdictional limitations it has imposed. The Essay …

Personal Jurisdiction And The "Interwebs", Alan M. Trammell, Derek E. Bambauer

Scholarly Articles

For nearly twenty years, lower courts and scholars have struggled to figure out how personal jurisdiction doctrine should apply in the Internet age. When does virtual conduct make someone amenable to jurisdiction in any particular forum? The classic but largely discredited response by courts has been to give primary consideration to a commercial Web site’s interactivity. That approach distorts the current doctrine and is divorced from coherent jurisdictional principles. Moreover, scholars have not yielded satisfying answers. They typically have argued either that the Internet is thoroughly exceptional and requires its own rules, or that it is largely unexceptional and can …

A Tale Of Two Jurisdictions, Alan M. Trammell

Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court has recently clarified one corner of personal jurisdiction—a court’s power to hale a defendant into court—and pointed the way toward a coherent theory of the rest of the doctrine. For nearly seventy years, the Court has embraced two theories of when jurisdiction over a defendant is permissible. The traditional theory, general jurisdiction, authorizes jurisdiction when there is a tight connection between the defendant and the forum. The modern theory, specific jurisdiction, focuses more on the connection between the lawsuit itself and the forum. Although the two theories should have developed in tandem, the doctrine has become a …