Civil Procedure Commons^™

Collaborative Practice's Radical Possibilities For The Legal Profession:"[Two Lawyers And Two Clients] For The Situation" , Robert F. Cochran Jr.

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article will consider the two dramatic changes that collaborative practice [CP] brings to law practice: a change in the mental attitude of lawyers and clients toward the conflict and a change in lawyers' counseling techniques. Part II defines CP and compares it to traditional negotiation-pending-litigation. Part III considers the change in attorney and client mental attitudes wrought by CP, where both lawyers and clients take responsibility for identifying a resolution that will meet the needs of all of the parties. Part IV considers the type of client-counseling that is often generated by CP-lawyers in CP may strongly encourage clients …

The Twombly Revolution?, Douglas G.. Smith

Pepperdine Law Review

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court issued a decision that has been described as nothing less than "startling". In a 7-2 decision, the Court provided an interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that has significantly increased the level of scrutiny that federal courts must apply in determining the sufficiency of the pleadings. While some have characterized the Court's decision as "vague" or poorly-reasoned, this article defends the Twombly decision as both a correct and welcome development in the law regarding the appropriate pleading standard under Rule 8(a). The article argues that the Court's decision is …

The Class Action (Un)Fairness Act Of 2005: Could It Spell The End Of The Multi-State Consumer Class Action?, Michael Isaac Miller

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Another Jackpot (In)Justice: Verdict Variability And Issue Preclusion In Mass Torts, Byron G. Stier

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Discovery Stays, Gideon Mark

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In federal civil litigation, unless a discretionary stay is granted, discovery often proceeds while motions to dismiss are pending. Plaintiffs with non-meritorious cases can compel defendants to spend massively on electronic discovery before courts ever rule on such motions. Defendants who are unable or unwilling to incur the huge up-front expense of electronic discovery may be forced to settle non-meritorious claims. To address multiple electronic discovery issues, Congress amended the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2006 and the Federal Rules of Evidence in 2008. However, the amendments failed to significantly reduce costs and failed to address the critical issue …

In Defense Of Plausibility: Ashcroft V. Iqbal And What The Plausibility Standard Really Means , Daniel W. Robertson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Why Agencies Punish, Max Minzner

William & Mary Law Review

In addition to promulgating regulations, federal administrative agencies penalize entities that violate their rules. In 2010 alone, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration imposed a statutory maximum $16.4 million penalty on Toyota, and the Securities and Exchange Commission recovered $535 million from Goldman Sachs, the largest civil penalty a financial services firm has ever paid. The academic literature proposes two major theories explaining why agencies might seek these monetary penalties. First, agencies might seek to deter misconduct by using civil penalties to raise the expected cost of regulatory violations above the cost of compliance. Alternatively, agencies might use civil penalties …

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 …

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 …

(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.

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.