Civil Procedure Commons^™

Reversing Course: A Critique Of The Court Of Appeals New Rules For Unjust Enrichment And Criminal Legal Malpractice Actions, Jay C. Carlisle Ii

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article will discuss recent developments by the New York Court of Appeals on the doctrine of unjust enrichment and on the elimination of non-pecuniary damages in criminal legal malpractice actions. Specifically, the article will examine the cases of Georgia Malone & Co. v. Ralph Rieder and Dombrowski v. Bulson.

Joinder Under The Aia: Shifting Non-Practicing Entity Patent Assertions Away From Small Businesses, Xun Liu

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

When the America Invents Act ("AIA ") was signed in September 2011, many feared the law might benefit larger corporations at the expense of small businesses. This Note examines how one portion of the AIA, governing joinder in patent cases, might actually benefit small businesses by reducing patent assertions from non-practicing entities ("NPEs"). NPE assertions disproportionately affect small businesses, both because NPEs target small businesses more frequently and because patent assertions have a greater impact on individual companies. Prior to the AIA, joining multiple defendants in a single lawsuit offered important advantages for patent holders and allowed NPEs to achieve …

Voir Dire In The #Lol Society: Jury Selection Needs Drastic Updates To Remain Relevant In The Digital Age, 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 459 (2013), Zachary Mesenbourg

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protecting The Right Of Citizens To Aggregate Small Claims Against Businesses, Paul D. Carrington

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Two years ago I ranted against the Supreme Court's subversion of the Rules Enabling Act and its opposition to the benign aims of the twentieth-century progressive law reformers expressed summarily in Rule 1 of our Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I observed then that the majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court appeared to have joined the Chamber of Commerce, aligning themselves also with Vice President Dan Quayle's 1989 Council on Competitiveness that denounced effective civil procedure as an enemy of economic development. I was then commenting adversely on what the Court had done to transform Rule 8. I …

They Were Meant For Each Other: Professor Edward Cooper And The Rules Enabling Act, Mark R. Kravitz, David F. Levi, Lee H. Rosenthal, Anthony J. Scirica

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This introduction to the essays in this Symposium illuminates Professor Ed Cooper's years as Reporter to the Civil Rules Committee by first briefly describing those who preceded him in the position and his own background. We then describe some of Ed Cooper's many contributions to the Civil Rules Committee, the Federal Rules, rulemaking, and civil procedure by examining the present state of the Rules Committees' work under the Rules Enabling Act. We conclude that after almost eighty years of experience under that Act, it is working well in large part because of the sound leadership provided by Ed Cooper over …

Ed Cooper, Rule 56, And Charles E. Clark's Fountain Of Youth, Steven S. Gensler

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Nobody had a greater impact on the formulation of the original Civil Rules than Clark. His role as both the principal architect2 and the principal draftsman3 of the Civil Rules is well known. As Professor Wright once put it, although the Civil Rules were a joint effort, "the end product bears the unmistakable Clark stamp."4 But Clark started shaping the Civil Rules even before drafting began.5 Initially, Chief Justice Hughes thought the civil rules project should be limited to creating rules for actions at law (leaving in place-and separate-the existing equity rules).6 A passionate advocate for merging law and equity …

Edward Cooper As Curator Of The Civil Rules, Goeffrey C. Hazard Jr.

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Ed Cooper has had a salient role in maintaining the Rules Committee process as a highly competent and stable element of lawmaking in this country. He is a consummate master of civil procedure and acutely understands the constitutional and political milieu in which the Rules process functions. Along with other similarly competent and observant Reporters, including the senior serving Reporter, Dan Coquillette, he has helped keep the Rules process and product as evenhanded as can be expected in our complicated legal system.

Iron Man Of The Rules, Patrick E. Higginbotham

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

To grasp Professor Cooper's contribution to rulemaking, it is helpful to review issues that the Advisory Committee confronted during his tenure. I will focus on the first four of his twenty years of service.

Some Very Personal Reflections On The Rules, Rulemaking, And Reporters, Arthur R. Miller

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

My entry into the world of federal rulemaking was one of those unpredictable but welcome fortuities of life. In early 1961, more than a half century ago, I was a happy and progressing associate in a prominent medium-sized, Wall Street, New York City law firm. Columbia Law School approached me to be the Associate Director of its newly formed Project on International Procedure. They dangled several attractive incentives: I could try my hand at teaching some civil procedure; hobnob with the giants of the Columbia faculty, like Herb Wechsler, Walter Gellhorn, Maury Rosenberg, and Jack Weinstein; and take my first …

Harmonization Of Procedure: Theory And Practice, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

Review of Kramer & Rhee, Civil Litigation in a Globalizing World (2012).

Rule 37(A)'S Loser-Pays "Mandate": More Bark Than Bite, Lindsey D. Blanchard

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Patent Prudential Standing, Xuan-Thao Nguyen

Articles

This Article is the first to focus on patent prudential standing. Patent prudential standing, a creation of the Federal Circuit, wastes precious resources and serves no sound policy goal. Under patent prudential standing, after many resources have been expended on the merits of a patent infringement case, parties face a reversal of course by the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the plaintiff, typically the exclusive licensee in a patent transaction, lacked standing to bring the case in the first place. Regardless that the plaintiff satisfies constitutional standing, the Federal Circuit propounds that the plaintiff must still meet patent prudential standing. The …

Relation Back Of Amendments Adding Plaintiffs Under Rule 15(C), Michelle L. Nabors

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discovery Under 28 U.S.C. §1782: Distinguishing International Commercial Arbitration And International Investment Arbitration, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

For many years, courts, commentators and counsel agreed that 28 U.S.C. §1782 – a somewhat extraordinary procedural device that allows U.S. courts to order discovery in the United States “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal” – did not apply to disputes involving international arbitration. However, that presumption has come under challenge in recent years, particularly in the realm of investment arbitration, where the Chevron-Ecuador dispute has made Section 1782 requests a commonplace procedure. This Article takes a rigorous look at both the history and the future of Section 1782 in international arbitration, taking care to …

Cross-Border Collective Redress And Individual Participatory Rights: Quo Vadis?, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

This article fills a critical gap in the commentary by undertaking a rights-based analysis of the various issues that arise in cases involving large-scale international litigation, focusing in particular on the Brussels I Regulation and what may be called ‘individual participatory rights’. In so doing, the discussion considers the nature and scope of individual participatory rights in collective litigation as well the ways in which these rights should be weighed and considered. Although the analysis is set in the context of European procedural law, this discussion is of equal relevance to parties outside the European Union, either because they will …

The Costs Of Consistency: Precedent In Investment Treaty Arbitration, Irene M. Ten Cate

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Surviving Medical Device Preemption Under 21 U.S.C. 360k: Clarifying Pleading Standards For Parallel Claims Following Twombly And Iqbal., Ashley Abraham Williams

Student Works

No abstract provided.

Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf

Faculty Scholarship

Concurrent jurisdiction frequently allows attorneys the choice of filing a complaint in state or federal court. State courts presumptively have jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal law. At times, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. Similarly, federal courts have authority over state claims because of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction. Many claims are rooted in both state and federal law, such as antitrust, civil rights, environmental, consumer protection, and civil liberties. Confronted with the choice of state or federal court, the attorney must evaluate a variety of factors before deciding in which court to file.

In a …

Due Process And The Future Of Class Actions, Alexandra Lahav

Faculty Articles and Papers

No abstract provided.

Solving A Pleading Plague: Why Federal Courts Should Strike Insufficient Affirmative Defenses Under The Twombly-Iqbal Plausibility Standard, Nathan A. Leber

Cleveland State Law Review

The plausibility standard is the remedy to the rampant pleading of meritless affirmative defenses in federal courts. Set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, and later clarified in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the plausibility standard requires pleadings to contain sufficient factual allegations that give rise to a plausible claim for relief. In both Twombly and Iqbal, the Supreme Court used the plausibility approach to dismiss factually-deficient complaints. Applying the plausibility test to insufficient affirmative defenses produces the same result. The central proposition of this Note is that federal courts should analyze affirmative defenses under the Twombly-Iqbal plausibility standard. In order …