Civil Procedure Commons^™

Confidentiality Of Ai Conversations: Protecting Self-Represented Litigants Who Use Chatgpt For Legal Advice, Anoo D. Vyas

Duke Law & Technology Review

When a layperson uses ChatGPT to obtain feedback on a legal matter, attorney-client privilege may not apply, as ChatGPT is not a lawyer, much less a human. Further, while lawyers are entitled to protection for their opinion work-product, it is not clear whether self-represented litigants are entitled to the same protection. Additionally, the broader duty of confidentiality binds only attorneys, not AI systems like ChatGPT. The public increasingly uses AI tools such as ChatGPT. If a layperson employs ChatGPT for legal advice, particularly in a civil matter, such communications may be discoverable and potentially admissible. This presents an access to …

Lennar Communities Nevada, Llc, And Greystone Nevada, Llc V. Pamela Whalen, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (Apr. 16, 2026), Christianne White

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Courts should employ a totality of the circumstances test when determining if a party acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate.

Who Wins? The Challenges And Potential Impacts Of State Courts’ Holdings In Fsu V. Acc, In Florida, And Acc V. Fsu, In North Carolina, Ethan Nickolaus Anagnos

University of Miami Business Law Review

Over the years, grant of rights (GOR) agreements have continually been the foundation for the transfer of exclusive rights between parties. In the ultra-competitive arena of the college football industry, these agreements have played an instrumental role in preserving and financing conferences and universities. Despite the prevalence of these GOR agreements, no university nor conference had ever attempted to challenge their validity before a court. That was until December 2023, when Florida State University (FSU) and the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) entered into a grueling and highly debated legal dispute regarding their GOR agreement, which is supposed to continue until …

Racial Bias In Jury Selection: The Fundamental And Pragmatic Issues With Batson Challenges, Abigail Lindsey

Arkansas Law Review

In April of 2024, the District Attorney of Alameda County in California revealed evidence of “serious misconduct” by several prosecutors who oversaw a murder trial in 1993, in which the jury found a Black man guilty and sentenced him to death. The evidence of misconduct included the prosecutors’ trial notes. The notes that have been released suggest the prosecutors struck potential jurors from the jury pool because they were Jewish—the notes include: “I liked him better than any other Jew but no way.” The District Attorney is now looking into the county’s other death penalty cases, some of which took …

The Ex Parte Young Cause Of Action: A Riddle, Wrapped In A Mystery, Inside An Enigma, Andrew S. Oldham, Adam I. Steene, John W. Tienken

Northwestern University Law Review

Ex parte Young ushered in a new era of the American judicial system. Most famously, the decision allowed plaintiffs, in certain circumstances, to sue state officials without having to worry about sovereign immunity. Young’s other holding, though perhaps lesser known, is no less important: individuals, the Supreme Court held, have an equitable cause of action to sue government officials for injunctive relief.

Even today, that second holding remains something of a riddle. Did this cause of action always exist in American law? Or was it an invention of the Young Court? And, at any rate, does the Ex parte …

“Conditional” Class Certification Under The Flsa: Violation Of Rule 23 And The Rules Enabling Act, Markham R. Leventhal

University of Miami Law Review

So-called “collective” actions under § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) are nothing more than “opt-in” class actions. This Article exposes the unjustifiable failure to apply Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to these actions, the erroneous conclusion by several circuit courts that these actions are not “representative” actions but rather some kind of “mass joinder,” and the resulting violation of the Rules Enabling Act when courts allow these “collective” actions to proceed without satisfying the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b). The author explains why the vast majority of federal courts, using an …

Leeds V. Norfolk Southern Railway Company—In Undoing Late Removal, District Court Gives Guidance On Evaluating Whether Defendants Were Joined In “Bad Faith”, Geoffrey D. Kearney

SLU Law Journal Online

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, defendants typically have one year to remove to federal court a case filed in state court. The landscape for removal changed somewhat with a 2011 amendment to this statute, which extends that one-year deadline upon a showing “that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.”

But the question of what sort of conduct satisfies this provision persists. Since its passage, courts—primarily district courts—have grappled with just what it means for a plaintiff to act in bad faith to thwart removal. Leeds v. Norfolk Southern …

The Hidden Power Of Citizenship: Political Identity In The Twilight Zone Of Equal Protection, Charles J. Anderson

Indiana Law Journal

More than half a century ago, in the landmark case of Graham v. Richardson, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state-level blanket exclusions of noncitizens. That case ushered in a new rule: State classifications based on alienage are “inherently suspect” and subject to strict scrutiny. But Graham’s rule has a major exception. Just a few years after Graham was decided, the Court upheld several state laws excluding noncitizens from working as police officers, public school teachers, and probation officers. So was created what would later be termed “political function” doctrine. …

Order And Orthodox: The Influence Of Ecclesiastical Courts On The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure And A Biblical Worldview, Rachel Auld

Senior Honors Theses

When analyzing the English history of American civil procedure, one could stop at the common law; however, England had two distinct courts at the time of the American Revolution: King’s courts and Ecclesiastical courts. At this time, the Ecclesiastical courts governed religious and moral issues including divorce, defamation, and probate. As a result, the Ecclesiastical courts had separate procedures from the common law King’s courts. America adopted the Ecclesiastical courts’ legal fields, and in turn, aspects of the Ecclesiastical court procedure. This thesis addresses the influence of the Ecclesiastical courts on the modern American Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by …

The Vanishing Enforcer: Consumer Protection In An Era Of Dual Retrenchment, Alisher Juzgenbayev

Northwestern University Law Review

Recent developments, including reductions in the federal workforce, effective suspension of certain enforcement activities, and attempted centralization of independent agency rulemaking in the White House, have significantly weakened administrative agencies. This administrative retrenchment is concerning as private enforcement of a number of consumer protection statutes has been simultaneously curtailed through the Supreme Court’s decisions in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which dramatically narrowed plaintiffs’ standing. These decisions rely in part on a vision of strong executive authority, positing that broad private standing conflicts with an Article II framework where a politically accountable President faithfully implements laws …

Vegas Aqua, Llc Vs. Jupitor Corp., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Mar. 05, 2026), Miranda Romero

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The plain language of Nevada Short Trial Rules (NSTR) Rule 3(d) requires a district court judge to adjudicate objections to proposed judgments rather than a short trial judge, and public policy requires adjudication of any proposed NRCP 59 motions.

Behind Every Case Is A Conversation, Donna Shestowsky

Nevada Law Journal

Lawyers play a central role in guiding clients through critical decisions that shape the trajectory of litigation. Among the most consequential of these is the choice of procedures by which disputes will be resolved—whether through trial, mediation, arbitration, or other mechanisms. Despite the weight of these decisions, legal scholarship offers little guidance on how lawyers might structure conversations about procedural options. This Article seeks to address that gap by drawing on empirical research from psychology and related disciplines to develop recommendations for educating and counseling clients—particularly those with little or no prior exposure to the civil justice system—so that they …

By Fair Means: The Inapplicability Of Bristol-Myers Squibb To Flsa Collective Action Lawsuits, Paige Maxa

Washington Law Review

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), passed by Congress in 1938, sets federal workplace standards and protects over 100 million workers in the United States. The FLSA also includes a collective action provision, which allows workers to privately sue their employers for FLSA violations in a unique way. A collective action lawsuit is a distinct form of aggregate litigation that allows an employee to sue their employer for FLSA violations on behalf of other similarly situated employees in one action. Similarly situated employees who wish to join a collective action must affirmatively opt in and consent to participate in the …

All The King’S Lawyers, Rebecca Aviel

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Article Iii Standing And The Public Interest Class Action, Sharon Brett

Cardozo Law Review

This Article suggests a new focus for Article III standing in public interest class actions brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) is a vital tool for protecting communities from civil rights abuses. It is also receiving new attention in the wake of Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court’s decision in June 2025 that severely restricted the use of nationwide injunctions. Rule 23(b)(2) cases seek only injunctive relief and are designed to permit individuals to pool their adjudicative power to prevent constitutional violations by government officials. A complicated web of doctrinal entanglements, including a heightened requirement for …

Section 302(A)'S "Arising From" Nexus Element: Need For A Tune-Up In The Aftermath Of Ford Motor?, Michael J. Hutter

Pace Law Review

This article traces the historical development of the “arising out of” and “relate to” nexus requirements, examines the evolution of state long- arm statutes following International Shoe Co., and analyzes the origins and judicial interpretation of C.P.L.R. § 302(a). It argues that New York’s statutory scheme no longer fully reflects the constitutional scope of specific jurisdiction as articulated by the Supreme Court. The article concludes by proposing a legislative amendment to C.P.L.R. 302(a) to add the phrase “relate to,” thereby aligning New York’s long-arm statute with Due Process and better effectuating the statute’s underlying purpose of affording New York residents …

Our Nev. Judges, Inc. V. Dist. Ct., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Feb. 26, 2026), Michael Martinelli

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A Writ of Mandamus cannot join claims from separate and distinct cases except in rare circumstances.

City Of Reno V. Dist. Ct. (Conrad) (Civil) [State Of Nevada], 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 13 (Feb. 26, 2026), Nathan Mackay

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Before issuing an ex parte writ of mandamus, a district court must address why regular inter partes procedure is inadequate. A district court that does not consider whether ex parte practice is appropriate abuses its discretion in issuing the writ.

Unleash The “Potential” Of The Collective Action Mechanism In Flsa Suits, Anthony Decaprio

Catholic University Law Review

Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to provide relief to low-income workers at risk of being taken advantage of by their larger, more sophisticated employer. The FLSA provides a collective action mechanism that allows similarly situated workers to bring suits together against a common employer outside the strictures of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To ensure all potentially similarly situated workers have sufficient notice of the suit in order to affirmatively opt-in, the Supreme Court authorized the district courts to facilitate notice to all “potential plaintiffs.”

The circuits are currently split regarding the standard …

Standing In The Shadows: Member Anonymity In Associational Standing Cases, Mitchell Brost

Pepperdine Law Review

Associational standing serves several benefits for plaintiff members: associations often have expertise in a certain field that guides the representation of their members, they have greater resources that allow them to bring lawsuits in the first place, and they can serve as the public face of the lawsuit to shield the plaintiff member from serious retaliation that may result from bringing the claim. But due to some imprecise language in Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, circuit courts are divided over whether associational members can remain anonymous at all. Thus, individuals who have legitimate legal claims, …