Civil Procedure Commons^™

The Problem With The “Non-Class” Class: An Urgent Call For Improved Gatekeepers In Merger Objection Litigation, Josh Molder

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Until recently, class actions dominated merger objection litigation. However, plaintiff’s lawyers have constructed a “non-class” class where an individual suit can benefit from the leverage of a certified class without ever meeting the stringent class certification requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. This new development has initiated a shift in merger objection litigation where plaintiffs are increasingly filing individual suits instead of class actions. However, this shift has left shareholders vulnerable to collusive settlements because plaintiff’s attorneys have significant control over these suits and a strong incentive to settle quickly for a substantial fee. Additionally, corporate defendants are …

Federal Common Law, Climate Torts, And Preclusion, Tom Boss

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Municipalities have been trying for decades to hold energy companies accountable for their role in the climate change crisis. In an effort to prevent suits, these companies are pushing the novel legal theory that federal common law provides a basis for jurisdiction in federal court over these claims. Once in federal court, the defendants argue that the very federal common law that served as the basis for removal has been displaced by the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. This would then justify dismissal of the entire case for failure to state a claim. Luckily for the plaintiffs, nearly all …

Converse-Osborn: State Sovereign Immunity, Standing, And The Dog-Wagging Effect Of Article Iii, Carlos M. Vázquez

Notre Dame Law Review

“[T]he legislative, executive, and judicial powers, of every well constructed government, are co-extensive with each other . . . . [T]he judicial department may receive from the Legislature the power of construing every . . . law [which the Legislature may constitutionally make].” Chief Justice Marshall relied on this axiom in Osborn v. Bank of the United States to stress the breadth of the federal judicial power: the federal courts must have the potential power to adjudicate any claim based on any law Congress has the power to enact. In recent years, however, the axiom has sometimes operated in the …

The Administrative State's Jury Problem, Richard Lorren Jolly

Washington Law Review

This Article argues that the administrative state’s most acute constitutional fault is its routine failure to comply with the Seventh Amendment. Properly understood, that Amendment establishes an independent limitation on congressional authority to designate jurisdiction to juryless tribunals, and its dictate as to “Suits at common law” refers to all federal legal rights regardless of forum. Agencies’ use of binding, juryless adjudication fails these requirements and must be reformed. But this does not mean dismantling the administrative state; it is possible (indeed, necessary) to solve the jury problem while maintaining modern government. To that end, this Article advances a structural …

Civil Practice And Procedure, Christopher S. Dadak

University of Richmond Law Review

This Article discusses Supreme Court of Virginia and, for the first time, Court of Appeals of Virginia analysis of procedural issues. The Article further discusses revisions to civil procedure provisions of the Code of Virginia and Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia in the last year.

The Article first addresses opinions of the supreme court and court of appeals, then new legislation enacted during the 2023 General Assembly Session, and finally revisions to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Rule 4 And Personal Jurisdiction, Scott Dodson

Notre Dame Law Review

State-court personal jurisdiction is regulated intensely by the Fourteenth Amend-ment’s Due Process Clause, which the Court has famously used to tie state-court personal jurisdiction to state borders. Although the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to federal courts, the prevailing wisdom is that federal courts nevertheless are largely confined to the same personal-jurisdiction limits as state courts because of Rule 4(k), which provides that service “establishes personal jurisdiction” in federal court only upon specified conditions, including when the state courts would have personal jurisdiction. Some commentators have further argued that Rule 4(k) sets a limit on federal-court personal jurisdiction independent of service …

A $53m Settlement That Will Improve Conditions In Ny Prisons And Jails, Alexander A. Reinert

Cardozo News 2023

This article appeared in the 2023 edition of Cardozo Life magazine.

Professor Alexander Reinert has seen his work bring about major changes in prison and jail conditions in New York City and New York State many times. In April 2023, he was co-counsel with lawyers of Cuti Hecker Wang LLP in a historic settlement in Miller v. City of New York, which involved detainees held in restrictive isolation at two jails on Rikers Island and one unit at what was then the Manhattan Detention Complex.

Civil Rights Clinic Wins Historic Louisiana Case Ending Solitary Confinement Of Individuals Awaiting Death Sentences, Betsy Ginsberg, Cardozo Civil Rights Clinic

Cardozo News 2023

This article appeared in the 2023 edition of Cardozo Life magazine.

Should an incarcerated person who has been sentenced to death be required to live out the rest of his or her life in solitary confinement? Not according to the Cardozo Civil Rights Clinic, which recently won a historic settlement changing policy in Louisiana prisons.

Law School News: A Courtroom Drama Worth Watching 10-22-2023, Suzi Morales

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

America’S Two Pastimes: Baseball And Constitutional Law; Review Of Adrian Vermeule, Common Good Constitutionalism, Paul J. Larkin

Catholic University Law Review

For the last 50 years, the two prevailing constitutional interpretation methodologies have been Originalism and Living Constitutionalism. The former treats the Constitution almost like a contract and demands that interpreters focus on the ordinary contemporary understanding its terms would have received when they became law. The latter treats the Constitution as a charter for the structure of a new government that would survive and mature as needed to protect both the nation and its people as new threats to government and civil liberties arise. Professor Adrian Vermeule’s book Common Good Constitutionalism offers a new approach to constitutional interpretation, one that …

Unpuzzling Complete Preemption: Beneficial National Bank V. Anderson After Two Decades In The Circuit Courts, Anthony Salzetta

Pace Law Review

Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003), established the modern complete preemption doctrine—a method of finding removal jurisdiction by way of federal defense. The decision was met immediately with a great degree of confusion and critique by scholars concerned with the doctrine’s theoretical foundation (or lack thereof) and the potential disarray in its prospective execution by lower courts.

This twenty-year retrospective tackles whether clarity has emerged in the lower courts. By analyzing all 164 circuit court cases citing to Beneficial National Bank, I find minimal moments of disagreement between circuits as to application of the doctrine. Courts …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

The Real World: Iqbal/Twombly The Plausibility Pleading Standard’S Effect On Federal Court Civil Practice, Matthew Cook, Kate Cook

Mercer Law Review Symposium

Several publications already exist detailing the evolution of American civil pleading standards, the personalities involved throughout, as well as the differing iterations’ theoretical and philosophical underpinnings. This Article is written not from the viewpoint of a scholar, but a practitioner. It is the practitioner who drafts, files, and defends against these pleadings. It is the practitioner who provides the “boots on the ground” execution of legislative and judicial directives. It is the practitioner who experiences the aspects of litigation that are not ultimately published in a reporter. And it is the practitioner who must explain to his or her clients …

Bending The Rules Of Evidence, Edward K. Cheng, G. Alexander Nunn, Julia Simon-Kerr

Faculty Scholarship

The evidence rules have well-established, standard textual meanings—meanings that evidence professors teach their law students every year. Yet, despite the rules’ clarity, courts misapply them across a wide array of cases: Judges allow past acts to bypass the propensity prohibition, squeeze hearsay into facially inapplicable exceptions, and poke holes in supposedly ironclad privileges. And that’s just the beginning.

The evidence literature sees these misapplications as mistakes by inept trial judges. This Article takes a very different view. These “mistakes” are often not mistakes at all, but rather instances in which courts are intentionally bending the rules of evidence. Codified evidentiary …

Twenty Years After Krieger V Law Society Of Alberta: Law Society Discipline Of Crown Prosecutors And Government Lawyers, Andrew Flavelle Martin

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta held that provincial and territorial law societies have disciplinary jurisdiction over Crown prosecutors for conduct outside of prosecutorial discretion. The reasoning in Krieger would also apply to government lawyers. The apparent consensus is that law societies rarely exercise that jurisdiction. But in those rare instances, what conduct do Canadian law societies discipline Crown prosecutors and government lawyers for? In this article, I canvass reported disciplinary decisions to demonstrate that, while law societies sometimes discipline Crown prosecutors for violations unique to those lawyers, they often do so for violations applicable to all lawyers — particularly …

Tying Parallel Proceedings To Judgment Recognition: Harmonizing Cross-Border Dispute Resolution, Louise Ellen Teitz

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Misunderstanding Meriwether, Brian Soucek, Ryan Chen

Fordham Law Review

Meriwether v. Hartop is widely seen as one of the most important academic freedom and transgender rights cases of recent years. Whether praising it as a victory for free speech or condemning it as a threat to educational equality, commentators across the political spectrum have agreed on one thing: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did something big when it held that professors at public universities have a First Amendment right to misgender their students in class. But contrary to popular belief, Meriwether held no such thing. In fact, the Sixth Circuit could not have held what …

Between Scylla And Charybdis: Addressing Software Patent Eligibility In Early-Stage Litigation, Pooja Krishnan

Fordham Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International established a two-step inquiry for determining the eligibility of a patent claim for protection. The test has faced criticism for its inconsistency, particularly when evaluating software-related patents. These inconsistencies are exacerbated when the test is applied during the early stages of litigation to address motions made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c), as the test often requires an in-depth technical analysis of the claims.

First, this Note examines the current approach to software patent eligibility and the various points of inconsistencies and tension. This Note …

Bringing "Civil"Ity Into Immigration Law: Using The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure To Fix Immigration Adjudication, Richard Frankel

Vanderbilt Law Review

Government lawyers frequently argue, and courts have frequently held, that noncitizens in removal proceedings do not have the same rights as defendants in criminal proceedings. A common argument made to support this position is that removal proceedings are civil matters. Accordingly, a noncitizen facing deportation has fewer due process protections than a criminal defendant, and deportation proceedings similarly provide fewer protections than criminal proceedings.

In many ways, however, the rules governing immigration proceedings differ markedly from those governing civil actions in court. Immigration proceedings suffer from arcane and hypertechnical procedures that impede immigrants from having their claims reviewed on the …

Kompetensi Mutlak Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen Dalam Sengketa Lelang Barang Gadai: Studi Putusan Nomor 16 Pk/Pdt.Sus-Bpsk/2020, Barus Mario Ari Leonard, Sri Laksmi Anindita

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

The authority of Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) in settling consumer dispute is regulated in a limited cause. In the Verdict No. 16 PK/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2020, Judges verdict that BPSK has no authority in giving verdict for settling dispute between pawn giver and pawn taker in the case of pawn auction. This happen though the verdict of BPSK has been approved by Judges of first degree court and appellate court. The verdict was analyzed in this writing with the qualitative method. BPSK is alternative dispute resolution board between consumer and business industry. Agreement with pawn company and pawn giver was mainly debt …