Civil Procedure Commons^™

Excessive Or Warranted? The Unshackling Of Discovery Sanctions In Lee V. Max International, Llc, Daniel S. Mehr Iii

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

De-Frauding The System: Sham Plaintiffs And The Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, Matthew C. Monahan

Michigan Law Review

Playing off the strict requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction, plaintiffs can structure their suits to prevent removal to federal court. A common way to preclude removability is to join a nondiverse party. Although plaintiffs have a great deal of flexibility, they may include only those parties that have a stake in the lawsuit. Put another way, a court will not permit a plaintiff to join a party to a lawsuit when that party is being joined solely to prevent removal. The most useful tool federal courts employ to prevent this form of jurisdictional manipulation is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure …

Introducing A ‘Presumption Of Adr’ For Civil Matters In The Subordinate Courts, Joyce Low, Dorcas Quek Anderson

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

This article traces the development of court ADR programmes in the SubordinateCourts for civil disputes. It also discusses the implications of a recent PracticeDirection introducing a “Presumption of ADR”.

Summary Of Jones V. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 18, Rami Hernandez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An appeal from a district court order denying judicial review in a foreclosure mediation matter.

Redefining Summary Judgment By Statute: Has The General Assembly Overruled The Tennessee Supreme Court’S Decision In Hannan?, Matthew Lyon, Judy Cornett

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Addressing The "Elephantine Mass" Of Asbestos Cases: Consolidation Versus Inactive Dockets (Pleural Registries) And Case Management Plans That Defer Claims Filed By The Non-Sick, Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A, Behrens, Rochelle M. Tedesco

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Merging Roles: Mass Tort Lawyers As Agents And Trustees, Charles Silver

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Asbestos Litigation And Bankruptcy: A Case Study For Ad Hoc Public Policy Limitations On Joint And Several Liability, Richard L. Cupp Jr

Pepperdine Law Review

Over a decade ago, the Federal Judicial Conference warned of an asbestos litigation “disaster of major proportions.” The Supreme Court of the United States has described the litigation as a “crisis.” According the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, by the end of 2000, more than 600,000 asbestos claims were filed. RAND estimates that as many as three million more plaintiffs may eventually file claims. Most new claimants are not sick. The flood of claims has forced almost sixty companies into bankruptcy; many of these bankruptcies are very recent. As a result, defendants with only remote connections to asbestos – known …

Lawyer Ethics On The Lunar Landscape Of Asbestos Litigation, Roger C. Cramton

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judicial Efficiency In Asbestos Litigation, Alfred Chiantelli

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The State Of Arbitral Fees After Green Tree Financial: Uncertainty And Contradiction Demands Further Guidance From The Supreme Court, Kevin C. Clark

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

There are millions of employees in America who work every day without regard to the technical and seemingly mundane matters that govern their employment. What they don't realize however, is that their employment may be governed by an arbitration agreement. The terms of the arbitration agreement may be unclear until a dispute arises. This is particularly applicable in the area of arbitral fees, where there is a split among United States Courts of Appeals when addressing the issue of who should pay the fees arising from the arbitration of employment disputes. This fissure in American jurisprudence is the subject of …

Reframing The Dilemma Of Contractually Expanded Judicial Review: Arbitral Appeal Vs. Vacatur , Eric Van Ginkel

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") of 1925 was created to ensure enforceability of agreements to arbitrate. The FAA is the centerpiece of the federal arbitration policy as construed by the Supreme Court. Section 10(a) FAA enumerates grounds on which an arbitral award can be set aside. The central issue discussed herein is whether parties can agree by contract to allow one of the parties to initiate review of the arbitral award by a court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over those parties, or whether the court's powers are somehow limited to the grounds for vacatur enumerated in Section 10(a) FAA. …

Summary Of Mountain View Hospital V. Dist. Ct., 128 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 17, Kendra Kisling

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered petitions for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a medical malpractice action for the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with NRS 41A.071.

Modern Odysseus Or Classic Fraud - Fourteen Years In Prison For Civil Contempt Without A Jury Trial, Judicial Power Without Limitation, And An Examination Of The Failure Of Due Process, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Remodeling The Multi-Door Courthouse To "Fit The Forum To The Folks": How Screening And Preparation Will Enhance Adr, Tim Hedeen

Faculty Articles

The article offers information on remodeling of multi-door courthouse to enhance Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) efficiency. It informs that symposium, The Future of Court ADR: Mediation and Beyond that was held in September 2011 featured scholars and practitioners to discuss the past and future of ADR. It informs that research and practice in mediation have deepened the understanding in engaging with prospective clients.

Twombly And Iqbal Reconsidered, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to permit judges to dismiss claims at the very outset of a case whenever they think the claims are implausible. The decisions have been extremely controversial, and they are already on track to become the most cited Supreme Court decisions of all time. Critics contend that the decisions are prime examples of the “conservative judicial activism” widely attributed to the Roberts Court. In particular, critics contend that the decisions circumvented the usual process for promulgating amendments to the Federal Rules …

Is Spam The Rock Of Sisyphus?: Whether The Can-Spam Act And Its Global Counterparts Will Delete Your E-Mail, Amy G. Marino

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law Day Fifth District Court Of Appeal Oral Arguments At Florida A&M University College Of Law, 2012, Honorable Richard B. Orfinger, Chief Judge, Honorable William D. Palmer Chief Judge, Honorable Jay P. Cohen

Law Day Presentations

As part of Law Day activities, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal is holding a session in the FAMU College of Law Ceremonial Moot Courtroom. A three judge panel is hearing oral arguments from attorneys representing their clients in cases involving appellant's fraud on the trial court, public records questions, attorney's fees, and jurisdiction. A question-and-answer session follows each set of arguments during which the justices and attorneys entertain questions about the appellate process and organization of the court.

Georgia's New Evidence Code - An Overview, Paul S. Milich

Georgia State University Law Review

On May 3, 2011, Governor Nathan Deal signed into law House Bill 24 (HB 24) bringing a new set of evidence rules to the State of Georgia.

The new rules went into effect on January 1, 2013. The author of this article was the Reporter for the State Bar Evidence Study Committee when new rules were first proposed back in the mid-1980s, and again throughout the recent, successful effort to reform the rules.

Part I of this article will give a brief history of the twenty-six-year effort to bring new evidence rules to Georgia. Part II will provide a structural …

"Expanded" Judicial Review Revisited: Kyocera Overturns Lapine, Eric Van Ginkel

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Just when you thought you could validly add a clause to your client's arbitration agreement providing that the losing party may take an appeal from the award to the district court having jurisdiction over the parties, think again. What was the law of the Ninth Circuit since December 1997, when a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided LaPine Technology Corporation v. Kyocera Corporation ("LaPine I"), has just been reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc. In its decision, on a rehearing of what the court refers to as " …