Civil Procedure Commons^™

Summary Of Jed Prop. V. Coastline Re Holdings Nv Corp., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 11, Katherine Frank

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that NRS 107.082(2) does not require a trustee to give notice of a sale pursuant to NRS 107.080 that has been postponed by oral proclamation three times “unless, after the third oral postponement has been given, the sale's date, time, or place is later changed.”

Summary Of Breeden V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 12, Erik Foley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that an appellant who voluntarily dismisses a non-frivolous writ petition, after an answer has been filed, cannot be required to pay the appellee’s attorney’s fees as a condition of the dismissal.

Digging Up The Corp(Ses): Holston Investments V. Lanlogistics Corp. And The Continuing Struggle To Determine The Citizenship Of Dissolved And Inactive Corporations For The Purposes Of Diversity Jurisdiction, Nicholas W. Roosevelt

Northwestern University Law Review

Since the early 1990s, the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have been divided on how to determine the citizenship of dissolved or inactive corporations for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, courts of appeals addressing the issue had settled on one of three conclusions: (1) citizenship should be determined only by the corporation’s state of incorporation; (2) citizenship should be determined both by the corporation’s state of incorporation and its last principal place of business; or (3) citizenship should always be determined by the corporation’s state of incorporation, but only be determined by principal …

Determining When Extrinsic Evidence Not Attached To Or Incorporated By Reference In A Pleading May Be Considered On A Rule 12 Dismissal Motion, Laurence A. Steckman, Rita D. Turner

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Revisiting Claim And Issue Preclusion In Washington, Kathleen M. Mcginnis

Washington Law Review

When it comes to the law of claim and issue preclusion, Washington courts and practitioners encounter rules and precedent that tend to be unnecessarily complicated, overly broad, and even—in some instances—simply wrong. Three decades ago, Professor Philip Trautman urged Washington courts to clarify and modernize the doctrine. A fresh look at the topic suggests that while courts have been receptive to the professor’s advice, the goal of a clear and usable body of preclusion law will require more work. Specifically, Washington courts should address three problems. First, they should simplify the test for claim preclusion, eliminating redundant and confusing elements …

Removal Jurisdiction Over Mass Actions, Mallory A. Gitt

Washington Law Review

The mass action provision in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 provides a federal forum for certain state court litigation that resembles class actions but otherwise could not be removed. The provision is triggered when state court plaintiffs propose a joint trial of common legal or factual issues. But defining what constitutes that triggering event has proved difficult for federal courts. They have not used a uniform framework to determine when they have subject matter jurisdiction over the purported mass action, and have lacked a common interpretation of the statutory language to begin the inquiry. That lack of coherence …

At The Fontier Of The Younger Doctrine: Reflections On Google V. Hood, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

On December 19, 2014, long-simmering tensions between Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and the search engine giant Google boiled over into federal court when Google filed suit against the Attorney General to enjoin him from bringing civil or criminal charges against it for alleged violations of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. Hood had been investigating and threatening legal action against Google for over a year for its alleged failure to do enough to prevent its search engine, advertisements, and YouTube website from facilitating public access to illegal, dangerous, or copyright protected goods. The case has garnered a great deal of …

Solving The Puzzle Of Transnational Class Actions, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

How should a U.S. class action treat proposed foreign class members in a circumstance where any resulting judgment will likely not bind those absentees abroad? The dominant approach has been an exclusionary one, dropping the absentees from the class. This essay instead recommends an inclusionary approach, so that all the foreigners would remain members of the class in transnational class actions. But the court should create a subclass in damages actions for the foreign claimants who might have an incentive to sue again; the subclass would proceed by the accepted technique of claims-made recovery, so that the subclass members could …

Taboo Procedural Tradeoffs: Examining How The Public Experiences Tradeoffs Between Procedural Justice And Cost, Victor D. Quintanilla

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Summary Of Martinorellan V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 6, Gil Kahn

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a district court's failure to instruct the jury to restart deliberations when an alternate juror replaces an original juror is an error of constitutional dimension; (2) unpreserved errors are reviewed for plain error regardless of whether they are of constitutional dimension; (3) A prejudicial error can result if most of the jury’s deliberation time takes place before the error related to the replacement of an original juror occurs.

Newsroom: A Farewell To Professor Kent, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

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.