Civil Procedure Commons^™

I Could Have Been A Contender: Summary Jury Trial As A Means To Overcome Iqbal's Negative Effects Upon Pre-Litigation Communication, Negotiation And Early, Consensual Dispute Resolution, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

With its recent decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Supreme Court may be intentionally or unintentionally “throwing the fight,” at least in the legal contests between many civil rights claimants and institutional defendants. The most obvious feared effect is reduction of civil rights claimants’ access to the expressive and coercive power of the courts. Less obviously, the Supreme Court may be effectively undermining institutions’ motivation to negotiate, mediate - or even communicate with and listen to - such claimants before they initiate legal action. Thus, the Supreme Court’s recent decisions have the potential to deprive …

Class Dismissed: Contemporary Judicial Hostility To Small-Claims Consumer Class Actions, Myriam E. Gilles

Articles

I start from the view that small-value consumer claims are a primary reason that class actions exist, and that without class actions many - if not most - of the wrongs perpetrated upon small-claims consumers would not be capable of redress. It would then seem to follow that the class action device should be readily available in small-claims consumer cases. And yet, over the past decade, federal district courts have repeatedly declined to certify class actions on grounds that are specific to small-claims consumer cases. Foremost among those grounds is the notion that the federal class action rule carries within …

Issue Preclusion In Complex Litigation, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In an era of multiparty, multijurisdictional, multidistrict litigation, federal cases have grown increasingly complex. As judges struggle to manage complicated cases, a new litigation paradigm has emerged. Rather than attempting to try all cases in one action, federal judges are now breaking the litigation down into smaller pieces, using "fast tracks" or "bellwether" cases, hoping that resolution of one or two cases will lead to settlement of the rest. Inevitably, because the cases involve identical fact issues and identical defendants, the doctrine of prior adjudication comes into play. This Article identifies and analyzes significant issues that arise in the …

Law, Facts, And Power, Elizabeth G. Thornburg

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal is wrong in many ways. This essay is about only one of them: the Court’s single-handed return to a pleading system that requires lawyers and judges to distinguish between pleading facts and pleading law. This move not only resuscitates a distinction purposely abandoned by the generation that drafted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also serves as an example of the very difficulties created by the distinction. The chinks in the law-fact divide are evident in Iqbal itself - both in the already notorious pleading section of the opinion, and in …

Civil Procedure Reform In Switzerland And The Role Of Legal Transplants, Samuel P. Baumgartner

Akron Law Faculty Publications

On January 1, 2011, Swiss courts will begin operating under a unified federal code of civil procedure for the first time in the country’s history. This code has been exceedingly long in the making. In this chapter, I use the new code and its history to engage the editors’ claim that the old categories of common law and civil law procedure are crumbling, thus making differences among countries within the common law or civil law world more important than differences across the divide.

First, the new Swiss code of civil procedure includes a number of features that may look like …

Piped In: The Tenth Circuit Weighs In On Extending American Pipe Tolling In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. V. Boellstorff, Caleb Brown

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Direct Examination: Lawyer As Director, Maureen A. Howard

Articles

A trial lawyer presenting her case in chief through direct examination is somewhat like a film director: the lawyer thoroughly analyzes the case and develops a plan for the most effective way to present the case to the jury to best advance her theme and theory. Just as no script would play out on film the exact same way in the hands of different directors, no case would be presented in exactly the same way by different trial lawyers. Yet there are constants to be found in the steps effective trial lawyers take during their case in chief when presenting …

Rethinking Summary Judgment: Revamp Required?., Mak Mun Luan

Student Works (2010-2019)

Summary judgment has been touted as an effective tool for disposing of litigations in timely and cost effective manners, as disputes between litigants may be resolved without the need of full trials and the usual pre-trial processes associated with civil litigation. However, the tension between the potential for this procedure to produce a final judgment versus the litigants' entitlements to full trials, illustrates how reform in this procedure may be crucial. This paper sought to outline the current laws with regards to summary judgment in Malaysia and explore ways in which it may be revamped. For comparison, summary judgment procedures …

Civil Rights And Federal Courts: Creating A Two-Course Sequence, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

How States Can Protect Their Policies In Federal Class Actions, Lucas Watkins

Campbell Law Review

The role of the states in our constitutional system is to protect their citizens and supply tort liability. Where federal law does not preempt state systems of liability, state law supplies the tort- and contract-based rules that govern the vast majority of the relationships in our society and economy. Some think that national rules of liability, or new national choice-of-law rules, should supplant today's state-by-state regulation. But until Congress enacts a comprehensive regulatory scheme, state law will control the causes of action that plaintiffs can bring. And the state law that controls the cause should control the way that the …

Reasonableness In E-Discovery, Debra Lyn Bassett

Campbell Law Review

Issues of reasonableness arise regularly throughout American law. Reasonableness is a concept central to tort law, which imposes a reasonable person standard in ascertaining duty. Criminal guilt turns on a reasonable doubt standard. And in civil discovery, the concept of reasonableness features prominently: discovery's scope reaches information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and discovery cannot be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. Reasonableness standards require judges to undertake an objective, rather than subjective, evaluation. E-discovery specifically has two significant overarching reasonableness components: reasonable accessibility for production and reasonable care in preservation and disclosure. The interpretation …

The Tao Of Pleading: Do Twombly And Iqbal Matter Empirically?, Patricia W. Hatamyar

American University Law Review

This article is an empirical study of the effect of Bell Atlantic Corp. vs. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft vs. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), two recent Supreme Court cases that portend the decline of “notice pleading” in federal civil practice. The article analyzes how Twombly and Iqbal have begun to dismantle the regime of notice pleading by not only discarding the “no set of facts” standard of Conley vs. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), but by changing or ignoring other principles that federal courts have followed for decades on 12(b)(6) motions. The statistical study then examines …

The Bankruptcy Hegemon: Section 524(A) And Its Effect On State And Federal Comity, Benjamin Margulis

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tremors Of Things To Come: The Great Split Between Federal And State Pleading Standards, Roger Michalski

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

The Easy Case For Products Liability: A Response To Polinsky & Shavell, Benjamin C. Zipursky, John C.P. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

In their article “The Uneasy Case for Product Liability,” Professors Polinsky and Shavell assert the extraordinary claim that there should be no tort liability - none at all - for injuries caused by widely-sold products. In particular, they claim to have found convincing evidence that the threat of tort liability creates no additional incentives to safety beyond those already provided by regulatory agencies and market forces, and that tort compensation adds little or no benefit to injury victims beyond the compensation already provided by various forms of insurance. In this response, we explain that, even on its own narrow terms, …

Close Enough For Government Work: The Committee Rulemaking Game, Paul Stancil

Faculty Scholarship

Procedural rules in U.S. courts often have predictable and systemic substantive consequences. Yet the vast majority of procedural rules are drafted, debated, and ultimately enacted by a committee rulemaking process substantially removed from significant legislative or executive supervision. This Article explores the dynamics of the committee rulemaking process through a game-theoretical lens. The model reveals that inferior players in the committee rulemaking game - advisory committees, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court - are sometimes able to arbitrage Congressional transaction costs to obtain results at odds with the results Congress …

Torts As Wrongs, John C.P. Goldberg, Benjamin C. Zipursky

Faculty Scholarship

Torts scholars hold different views on why tort law shifts costs from plaintiffs to defendants. Some invoke notions of justice, some efficiency, and some compensation. Nearly all seem to agree, however, that tort law is about the allocation of losses. This Article challenges the widespread embrace of loss-based accounts as fundamentally misguided. It is wrongs not losses that lie at the foundation of tort law. Tort suits are about affording plaintiffs an avenue of civil recourse against those who have wronged them. Although torts were once routinely understood as wrongs, since Holmes’s time, tort scholars have tended to suppose that …

New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson

Michigan Law Review

Pleading in federal court has a new narrative. The old narrative was one of notice, with the goal of broad access to the civil justice system. New Pleading, after the landmark Supreme Court cases of Twombly and Iqbal, is focused on factual sufficiency, with the purpose of screening out meritless cases that otherwise might impose discovery costs on defendants. The problem with New Pleading is that factual insufficiency often is a poor proxy for meritlessness. Some plaintifs lack sufficient factual knowledge of the elements of their claims not because the claims lack merit but because the information they need is …

Process, People, Power And Policy: Empirical Studies Of Civil Procedure And Courts, Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Bryant Garth

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This review essay, by Professor Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Dean Bryant Garth, reports on the history and deployment of empirical studies of civil procedure rules, court policies, and legal developments for reforms of court procedures and practices in both the United States and England and Wales. It traces the influence of particular individuals (e.g., Charles Clark in the United States, and Harry Woolf in England) in the use of empirical studies of litigation patterns and court rules to effectuate legal reforms. The essay reviews some particularly contentious issues over time, such as whether there is/was too much or too little litigation, …

All Rise! Standing In Judge Betty Fletcher’S Court, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

In this essay, based on a talk given at the Washington Law Review’s March 2009 symposium in honor of Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher and her three decades of service on that court, I selectively survey her opinions on justiciability issues: standing, ripeness, mootness, and political questions. A significant starting point for this survey is Professor Richard Pierce’s 1999 law review article, Is Standing Law or Politics?, arguing that many Supreme Court votes in standing cases generally, and appellate judges’ votes in environmental-standing cases specifically, can be explained better on the basis of politics than by reference to …