Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Battle Lines Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 8(A)(2) And The Effects On A Pro Se Litigant's Ability To Survive A Motion To Dismiss, Melodee C. Rhodes

St. Thomas Law Review

Part II of this Comment discusses the development of pro se litigation from its historical roots to modern day concepts. Part III addresses the transformation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) through the Court's interpretation in Conley v. Gibson, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Part IV explains the unique relationship between pro se litigation and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Part V examines the tremendous effect of pro se litigation on the court system and highlights areas of the law in which pro se litigants find it extremely difficult to survive a motion to …

The Changing Shape Of Federal Civil Pretrial Practice: The Disparate Impact On Civil Rights And Employment Discrimination Cases, Elizabeth M. Schneider

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Everyone Knows Medellin; Has Anyone Heard Of O'Brien? Reconciling The United States And The International Community By Amending The Vccr, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 817 (2010), Steven M. Novak

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is Ashcroft V. Iqbal The Death (Finally) Of The “Historical Test” For Interpreting The Seventh Amendment?, Kenneth S. Klein

Faculty Scholarship

There is the possibility that the recent Supreme Court decision of Ashcroft v. Iqbal finally will be the necessary impetus to revisit one of the more bizarre but enduring canards of American jurisprudence -- the way we interpret the Seventh Amendment's preservation of a right to a jury trial in federal civil litigation. The Seventh Amendment provides that "[i]n suits at common law ... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." To this day, the way we apply the Seventh Amendment-in other words, what we interpret to be the constitutional intent and mandate of our Founders-is to postulate …

It's The Law! Applying The Law Is The Missing Measure Of Civil Law / Common Law Convergence, James Maxeiner

All Faculty Scholarship

It’s the Law! The application of law to facts is a measure of convergence of common and civil law systems of civil procedure that is missing from our program. The previous session addressed “Getting Straight to the Facts” and “Getting Results.” Facts and results are fine, but what of the law and of its application? Should not applying law have pride of place in systems of civil justice? Should not it be the measure of convergence?

The measure of convergence that I propose is whether methods of applying law to facts are converging. Applying law to facts is the principal …

Iqbal, Twombly, And The Expected Cost Of False Positive Error, Mark Anderson

Articles

Iqbal and Twombly introduced a new standard for pleading federal claims by overruling five-decades old language from Conley v. Gibson. Instead of plaintiffs being entitled to discovery unless the complaint affirmatively forecloses the possibility of recovery, Iqbal and Twombly require a more searching evaluation of the complaint under an ambiguous "plausibility" standard. The policy behind this increased burden on plaintiffs is to prevent the false positive error that burdensome discovery creates. How the plausibility standard from Iqbal and Twombly should operate in the real world is poorly understood. There is general acknowledgement that no clear guidance exists about how to …

Proportionality In Discovery: A Cautionary Tale, John L. Carroll

Campbell Law Review

"There has been widespread criticism of the abuse of discovery."' That statement comes not from a recent edition of the Defense Research Institute newsletter but from the Advisory Committee notes to the 1980 amendment that gave us the Rule 26(f) conference. Discovery abuse and the increase in the cost of litigation that flows from such abuse has been a constant theme emerging from analysis of the civil justice system.

Iqbal, Procedural Mismatches, And Civil Rights Litigation, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

Understanding the twin pleading cases of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal from the vantage point of only a few months (or even years) requires as much prediction as explanation. Early confusion is a product of the long-heralded link between substance and procedure. What we are seeing now may be less about Court-imposed changes to procedure as about changes to substantive law and a "mismatch " between new substance and the old procedure of the Federal Rules. Much of the current business of federal courts involves constitutional litigation under 42 U.S. C. §S 1983 and Bivens, …

Removing The Blindfold And Tipping The Scales: The Unintended Lesson Of Ashcroft V. Iqbal Is That Frivolous Lawsuits May Be Important To Our Nation, Kenneth S. Klein

Faculty Scholarship

This Article questions whether the gain of curbing perceived frivolous litigation is worth the cost of undermining the core civic value of neutrality of justice. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court weighed in on the public debate about frivolous litigation. The lqbal opinion is essentially a memorandum by the Supreme Court written to the trial judges of America, encouraging these judges to aggressively, indeed very aggressively, identify and dismiss potentially frivolous civil complaints. That leeway-wrapped mandate comes at a cost. A cornerstone of our civic philosophy is that the judicial branch, as a general proposition, is a neutral …

Hydrogen Peroxide: The Third Circuit Comes Clean About The Rule 23 Class Action Certification Standard, Amy Dudash

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Procedural Foundation Of Substantive Law, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

The substance-procedure dichotomy is a popular target of scholarly criticism because procedural law is inherently substantive. This article argues that substantive law is also inherently procedural. I suggest that the construction of substantive law entails assumptions about the procedures that will apply when that substantive law is ultimately enforced. Those procedures are embedded in the substantive law and, if not applied, will lead to over- or under-enforcement of the substantive mandate. Yet the substance-procedure dichotomy encourages us to treat procedural systems as essentially fungible-leading to a problem of mismatches between substantive law and unanticipated procedures. I locate this argument about …

Facilitating Wage Theft: How Court Use Procedural Rules To Undermine Substantive Rights Of Low-Wage Workers, Nantiya Ruan

Scholarly Works

In race and sex discrimination class actions, if a defendant employer makes a Rule 68 offer of judgment to the named plaintiffs, courts routinely refuse to dismiss the class claims. In stark contrast, in collective actions for failure to pay lawful wages, if a defendant employer makes a Rule 68 offer of judgment, courts will often dismiss the entire collective action as having been mooted by the named plaintiffs’ recovery. The outcome of such a dichotomy is that low-wage workers are increasingly unable to challenge unlawful wage violations successfully because the aggregation mechanism is too easily defeated. Without an ability …

Setting Foot On Enemy Ground: Cease-And-Desist Letters, Dmca Notifications And Personal Jurisdiction In Declaratory Judgment Actions, Marketa Trimble

Scholarly Works

In declaratory judgment actions brought by alleged infringers against rights holders, such as actions for declaration of invalidity or non-infringement of intellectual property rights, U.S. courts have long maintained that sending a cease-and-desist letter alone, absent other acts in an alleged infringer's forum, is not a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over the rights holder who mailed them to the alleged infringer's forum. Notwithstanding the similarities between cease-and-desist letters and notifications under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided that sending a notification alone does establish a basis for personal jurisdiction over the …

Catching The Waive: The Third Circuit Joins The Growing Trend Of Circuit Courts In Voiding A Class-Arbitration Waiver In Homa V. American Express Co., Steven D. Millman

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction For Our Federal Courts, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits the territorial jurisdiction of federal district courts to that of the courts of their host states.T his limitation is a voluntary rather than obligatory restriction, given district courts' status as courts of the national sovereign. Although there are sound policy reasons for limiting the jurisdictional reach of our federal courts in this manner, the limitation delivers little benefit from a judicial administration or even a fairness perspective, and ultimately costs more to implement than is gained in return. The rule should be amended to provide that district courts have personal …

What The Federal Circuit Can Learn From The Supreme Court-And Vice Versa, Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Six Decrees Of Separation: Settlement Agreements And Consent Orders In Federal Civil Litigation, Anthony Disarro

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pleading In Ohio After Bell Atlantic V. Twombly And Ashcroft V. Iqbal: Why Ohio Shouldn't Notice A Change, Alana C. Jochum

Cleveland State Law Review

Ohio has only briefly addressed the entrance of Bell Atlantic onto the pleading stage, and, thus far, Ohio state courts have mostly retained the Conley standard for determining pleadings. However, multiple pleading standards are emerging, making the issue ripe for a determination by the Supreme Court of Ohio as to what the true pleading standard is for Ohio. This Note will explain why Ohio should preserve Conley, even if doing so diverges from the original intent of federal-state uniformity embodied by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Colon Santos V. Cooperativa De Seguros Multiples Y El Aparente Conflicto Entre Las Doctrinas De La Solidaridad Y La Inmunidad, 79 Rev. Jur. U.P.R. 1091 (2010), Alberto Bernabe

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Plaintiff's Motion To Remand Denied: Arguing For Pre-Service Removal Under The Plain Language Of The Forum-Defendant Rule, Matthew Curry

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note will examine all sides of the district court split and ultimately argue in favor of the plain language of the forum-defendant rule to permit pre-service removal.