Civil Procedure Commons^™

Holding Supporters Of Terrorism Accountable: The Exercise Of General Jurisdiction Over The Pa And Plo In A Post-Daimler Framework, Mark D. Christopher

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Bd. Of Review V. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (June 22, 2017), Skyler Sullivan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Naming all relevant parties as defendants, pursuant to NRS 612.530(1), is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. Failure to follow this statutory requirement deprives the district court of its jurisdiction to hear a petition for judicial review.

Mandating Rule 11 Sanctions? Here We Go Again!, Edward D. Cavanagh

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The House of Representatives has passed H.R. 720, a bill that would amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by re‑instituting mandatory sanctions for Rule 11 violations and essentially restoring Rule 11 to its contents under the 1983 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The legislation would mandate imposition of monetary sanctions and eliminate any restrictions on when a Rule 11 motion could be filed. The bill would thus scuttle the 1993 Amendments, which (1) entrusted the sanctions decision to the sound discretion of the trial court; (2) provided a 21‑day safe harbor period that …

Class Conflicts, Morris A. Ratner

Washington Law Review

The approach of the twentieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor provides the opportunity to reflect on the collapse of the framework it announced for managing intra-class conflicts. That framework, reinforced two years later in Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., was bold, in that it broadly defined actionable conflicts to include divergent interests with regard to settlement allocation; market-based, in that it sought to regulate such conflicts by harnessing competing subclass counsel’s financial incentives; and committed to intrinsic process values, insofar as, to assure structural fairness, the Court was willing to upend a …

Sargeant V. Henderson Taxi, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (June 1, 2017), Ping Chang

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a summary judgment is proper when the opposing party did not file a substantive opposition to the motion for summary judgment and (2) a class certification is inappropriate when the plaintiff/appellant did not meet the burden of demonstrating “numerosity, commonality, and typicality,” and the ability to “fairly and adequately” represent the class members when an earlier-filed grievance between the union and taxi company resolved the minimum wage back-pay dispute at issue.

O'Neal V. Hudson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (June 1, 2017), Kristopher Kalkowski

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

If a party timely sends a motion for new trial directly to the presiding judge in an email, then that motion is properly filed and will toll the time available to file a notice of appeal so long as: (1) the presiding judge allows the motion to be filed with that judge; and, (2) the presiding judge accepts the motion within the required time-period.

Civil Rules Interpretive Theory, Lumen N. Mulligan, Glen Staszewski

Faculty Works

We claim that the proper method of interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — civil rules interpretive theory — should be recognized as a distinct field of scholarly inquiry and judicial practice. Fundamentally, the Rules are not statutes. Yet the theories of statutory interpretation that are typically imported into Rules cases by the courts rely upon a principle of legislative supremacy that is inapplicable in this context. That said, we recognize the Rules as authoritative law that is generally amenable to a form of jurisprudential purposivism. Working from this newly elucidated normative foundation, we reject the Rules-as-statutes interpretive approach …

Class Action Settlements, Cy Pres Awards, And The Erie Doctrine, Andrew Rodheim

Northwestern University Law Review

As class action settlement funds become more and more prevalent, cy pres awards have become a more common means of providing relief to absent class members. The primary purpose of cy pres awards is to provide a second-best form of relief when it is deemed impossible to directly compensate individual plaintiffs. Most often, these cy pres awards are given to some kind of charitable organization. Under federal law, class action settlements and cy pres awards are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Rule 23(e)(2) requires all class action settlements to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” but provides no …

In Re Davis Family Heritage Trust, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (May 25, 2017)., Ping Chang

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Dueling Grants: Reimagining Cafa’S Jurisdictional Provisions, Tanya Pierce

Georgia State University Law Review

More than a decade after Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), courts continue to disagree as to its application and meaning in a variety of situations, many of which have wide-ranging effects. This article considers a fundamental issue that arises after a certification decision is reached: whether a court’s subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA depends on a class being certified. Specifically, the article considers what happens when a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction derives solely from CAFA’s minimal diversity jurisdiction provision and a request for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Rule 23) …

Forty-Eight States Are Probably Not Wrong: An Argument For Modernizing Georgia’S Legal Malpractice Statute Of Limitations, Ben Rosichan

Georgia State University Law Review

The legal profession is largely self-regulated, and each state has a bar association charged with creating and enforcing basic standards of professionalism and competence for attorneys. Unfortunately, attorneys do not always adhere to these standards. In Georgia, the State Bar can address attorney misconduct through remedial measures up to and including disbarment. The State Bar cannot, however, compensate wronged clients through monetary damages.Thus, some wronged clients must resort to a lawsuit for legal malpractice where a financial recovery is necessary to make the client whole again.

The statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims should not be so restrictive that …

The Virtue Of Process: Finding The Legitimacy Of Judicial Fact-Finding In Personal Injury Litigation, Nayha Acharya

PhD Dissertations

This thesis is an inquiry into the legitimacy of judicial fact-finding in civil litigation. Judges make authoritative factual findings in conditions of uncertainty and the decision-making process cannot, and does not, guarantee the accuracy of those outcomes. Given the inevitable risk of error, on what basis is the authority of judicial fact-finding legitimate? This project provides a framework of procedural legitimacy that bridges two unavoidable aspects of adjudication: factual indeterminacy and the need for justifiably authoritative dispute resolution. This work draws of the legal theories of Lon Fuller and Jurgen Habermas to substantiate the notion of procedural legitimacy in the …

The Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act Of 2016: Moving The Law In The Wrong Direction, E. Farish Percy

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

In Re Parental Rights As To M.M.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (May 11, 2017), Hayley Cummings

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) when a parent is deemed incompetent to stand a criminal trial, there is no statutory authority requiring the district court to continue a parallel parental rights termination trial so that the parent can regain competence; and (2) when a litigant fails to object to the State’s method of service in initial pleadings or during trial, the litigant waives all challenges to the service of a parental rights termination by publication.

Selling The Footlong Short: How Consumers Inch Toward Satisfaction In Costly Food Class Action Litigation, Erica A. Burgos

Seventh Circuit Review

Food and beverage class action litigation has increased tremendously over the last five years. While many have ridiculed these lawsuits as ploys to extort money from wealthy food producers, plaintiff consumers maintain that the surge of food litigation suits evidence their growing desire for transparency. Many food-based class actions allege companies are purposefully deceiving consumers with misleading marketing campaigns. Defendants argue that a reasonable consumer should know better than to take their advertising at face value. Even still, defendants are often eager to resolve conflicts without admitting liability and, in turn, rush to settle the matter. Courts are then faced …

Georgia Anti Slapp Research Guide, Rachael Reed

Law Library Student-Authored Works

No abstract provided.

The Legality Of Class Action Waivers In Employment Contracts, Benjamin M. Redgrave

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note attempts to bring clarity to the questionable legality of class action waivers in employment contracts by examining the two competing statutes at issue—the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)—the Supreme Court’s cases on the issue, and the arguments for and against such waivers advanced by the Second, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, which have all directly addressed the question. After providing an overview of these two statutes, the agency that administers the NLRA, and the evolution of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the topic, this Note discusses the Supreme Court’s most recent …

The Brazilian Appellate Procedure Through Common Law Lenses: How American Standards Of Review May Help Improve Brazilian Civil Procedure, Cesar Zucatti Pritsch

University of Miami Inter-American Law Review

In this article, I discuss a flaw in Brazilian civil procedure observed in my practice as a Federal Labor Judge in Brazil, an issue that may be addressed by limiting appellate review in a similar fashion as the American courts do, using standards of appellate review. In Brazil, appellate courts tend to ignore the lower court’s decisions, replacing them for the ruling they would have made had they been the original decision makers. A simple disagreement with the lower court’s findings of fact or discretionary rulings, no matter how reasonable, is sufficient grounds for reversal. The lack of standards of …

Dueling Grants: Reimagining Cafa's Jurisdictional Provisions, Tanya Pierce

Faculty Scholarship

Part I of the article discusses the relevant policies underlying CAFA and Rule 23. Part II briefly outlines the more straightforward operation of CAFA jurisdiction in pre-certification and post-successful certification situations before explaining the provisions in CAFA that have given rise to considerable confusion after courts deny class certification. Part III critiques the arguments made by courts and scholars in support of and against continuing jurisdiction. It then suggests an approach that is most consistent with the statute, in light of all of its relevant provisions and their corresponding limitations, and that furthers prudential concerns underlying Rule 23 and CAFA …

When Is It Necessary For Corporations To Be Essentially At Home?: An Exploration Of Exceptional Cases, Priscilla Heinz

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.