Civil Procedure Commons^™

Plausibility Beyond The Complaint, Joseph A. Seiner

William & Mary Law Review

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court announced a new plausibility standard for a plaintiff’s allegations. The decisions may have even broader implications, however, as many federal district courts have already applied this pleading standard to a defendant’s affirmative defenses. This Article makes sense of Twombly and Iqbal in the context of the affirmative defense.

This Article addresses the two possible readings of Twombly and Iqbal: first, that the decisions are limited to a plaintiff’s civil complaint, and second, that a defendant must also comply with the Supreme Court’s plausibility standard by pleading enough …

Contested Elections As Secret Weapon: Legislative Control Over Judicial Decisionmaking, Matthew Lyon, Judy Cornett

College of Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Evidence-Based Litigation Reform, Emily Spottswood

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Judge Posner’S 'Practical' Theory Of Standing: Closer To Justice Breyer’S Approach To Standing Than Justice Scalia’S, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In American Bottom Conservancy v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit questioned three different grounds articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court for the constitutional doctrine of standing in federal courts and instead argued that the “solidest grounds” for the doctrine of standing are “practical.” In part because of his self-described “pragmatic” approach to legal reasoning, Judge Posner’s maverick views may have led Republican presidents to pass him over for being nominated to the Supreme Court in favor of less brilliant but more predictable conservative judges. Judge Posner’s pragmatic or practical approach to standing …

Standing For Private Parties In Global Warming Cases: Traceable Standing Causation Does Not Require Proximate Causation, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Article argues courts should apply a relatively liberal approach in deciding standing issues for private plaintiffs pursuing climate change suits even if courts ultimately conclude that it is inappropriate to grant relief on the merits to those same plaintiffs because the Supreme Court has clearly declared that standing is a preliminary question that should be treated separately from decisions on the merits and standing causation requires less proof than proximate causation on the merits. The Supreme Court in its 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA held that a state had standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to …

Standing In Monsanto Co. V. Geertson Seed Farms: Using Economic Injury As A Basis For Standing When Environmental Harm Is Difficult To Prove, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Many of the Supreme Court’s important standing cases have involved environmental disputes. Most recently, in 2010, the Court again addressed standing in an environmental dispute, Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms. In Monsanto, the Court did not announce a new standing doctrine. Nevertheless, the Court recognized that an environmental plaintiff may sue without proof of actual environmental harm if it can demonstrate that he or she may suffer economic losses from testing and mitigation measures related to a threatened harm. During the oral argument in Monsanto, Justice Scalia expressed skepticism that the plaintiffs could prove that the …

Mass Torts And Due Process, Sergio J. Campos

Articles

No abstract provided.

Getting Nowhere: Florida's Failed Choice Of Law Approach To Torts And A Proposal For Change, Shirley A. Wiegand

Florida A & M University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reading The Standing Tea Leaves In American Electric Power V. Connecticut, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP), the U.S. Supreme Court by an equally divided vote of four to four affirmed the Second Circuit’s decision finding standing and jurisdiction in the case. Even though it did not announce the identities of the justices who voted for standing and against standing, the AEP decision took the unusual step of providing some explanation for how the Court divided on the standing question, and, as a result, provided important information about the positions of the justices on the issue. While it is not binding as a decision for the lower courts except …

Informational Standing After Summers, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In its recent The Wilderness Society v. Rey decision, the Ninth Circuit addressed the difficult question of when a statute may establish a right to informational standing. The D.C. Circuit and the Sixth Circuit had previously reached different conclusions about whether environmental statutes promoting public participation or requiring environmental assessments in certain circumstances create a right to informational standing. The Ninth Circuit in its The Wilderness Society decision interpreted the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, which explicitly narrowed procedural rights standing, as implicitly narrowing standing rights in general and concluded that general notice and …

The Promise Of A Cooperative And Proportional Discovery Process In North Carolina: House Bill 380 And The New State Electronic Discovery Rules, Brian C. Vick, Neil C. Magnuson

Campbell Law Review

Using the experience of the federal courts under the 2006 Amendments as a guide, this Article examines H.B. 380 and the effect it will have on the discovery process in the state courts. Part I of this Article describes the litigation challenges created by the proliferation of ESI. Part II describes the history, structure and substance of the 2006 Amendments, and discusses their impact in the areas of cooperation and the use of proportionality principles in the federal courts. Part III describes the substance and structure of the rules changes encompassed by H.B. 380, and analyzes the effect that they …

Intent And Consent In The Tort Of Battery: Confusion And Controversy, Nancy J. Moore

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

(Dis)Service Of Process: The Need To Amend Rule 4 To Comply With Modern Usage Of Technology, 45 J. Marshall L. Rev. 459 (2012), Svetlana Gitman

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Flawed Nexus Between Contract Law And The Rules Of Procedure: Why Rules 8 And 9 Must Be Changed, William V. Dorsaneo Iii, C. Paul Rogers Iii.

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The primary purpose of this Article is to examine the relationship between basic contract principles and procedural rules that are generally applicable to contract litigation. The evolution of claims and defenses in contract cases has produced contradictions in burdens of pleading and proof in garden-variety contract cases,particularly with respect to the important issue of the plaintiffs performance. The continued evolution of substantive contract law and terminology, and the failure of the rule-making process to take these developments into account has exacerbated the problem. As a result, the federal pleading rules adopted in 1938 and many state procedural rules and statutes …

Electronic Discovery And Sanctions For Spoliation: Perspectives From The Classroom, Robert A. Weninger

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Professionalism And Advocacy At Trial – Real Jurors Speak In Detail About The Performance Of Their Advocates, Mitchell J. Frank, Osvaldo F. Morera

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Creating Diversity Jurisdiction In Removal Actions Through The Improper Use Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 21: Procedural Blackjack Or Judicial Bust, Anthony Andricks

Cleveland State Law Review

Recently, federal district courts have held that Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 21 bestows upon them the power to sever nondiverse parties or claims to create diversity jurisdiction without first finding that a party or claim is improperly joined. Severance may mean that a plaintiff who brings a state court action against multiple parties, one or more of which is not diverse, runs the risk of a federal court severing the action in a removal analysis, even where the plaintiff has committed no improper joinder of parties. Severance may leave a plaintiff with the need to conduct simultaneous suits--one in …

Judges! Stop Deferring To Class-Action Lawyers, Brian Wolfman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

I represent a national non-profit consumer rights organization, as an amicus, in a federal appeal challenging a district court’s approval of a class-action settlement of claims under the federal Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA). My client maintains that the district court erred in finding that the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” which is the standard for class-action settlement approval under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, we argue that the district court committed a reversible legal error when it deferred to the class-action lawyers’ recommendation to approve the settlement because, in those lawyers’ view, it was fair, …

Erie As A Choice Of Enforcement Defaults, Sergio J. Campos

Articles

The Erie doctrine governs, among other things, when a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction may use a federal procedure that differs from the procedure a state court would use. Displacing the state procedure with the federal procedure (or not) may impact the substantive objectives of either state or federal law, but the current Erie doctrine provides little guidance. This Article argues that the Erie doctrine is best understood as governing a choice of enforcement defaults. As argued below, the primary function of civil liability is to protect a substantive entitlement to avoid the legal violation, either directly through specific …

A Political Show Trial In The Northern District: Oberlin-Wellington Fugitive Slave Rescue Case, Paul Finkelman

Faculty Scholarship

This chapter from Justice and Legal Change on the Shores of Lake Erie, examines the first important cases ever heard by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The cases, known as the Oberlin-Wellington Fugitive Slave Cases -- stemmed out of the rescue of a fugitive slave from the custody of a professional slave catcher. The fugitive was seized in Oberlin, and taken to nearby Wellington, and held in hotel while the slave catchers waiting for a train to take them to Columbus. Meanwhile, a mob -- consisting mostly of Oberlin residents, including many Oberlin College …