Litigation Commons^™

The (Surprisingly) Prevalent Role Of States In An Era Of Federalized Class Actions, Linda S. Mullenix

BYU Law Review

In enacting the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Congress intended to expand access to the federal courts for interstate class actions by creating minimal diversity and removal jurisdiction. In Section 2 of the Act, “Findings and Purposes,” Congress stated that class action abuses undermined “the concept of diversity jurisdiction as intended by the Framers of the United States Constitution” in that state courts kept cases of national importance out of federal court and sometimes demonstrated bias against out-of-state defendants. Congress stated that a purpose of CAFA was to “restore the intent of the framers of the United States …

Mapping The Iceberg: The Impact Of Data Sources On The Study Of District Courts, Christina L. Boyd, Pauline T. Kim, Margo Schlanger

Articles

Three decades ago, Siegelman and Donohue aptly characterized research about courts and litigation that relied only on published opinions as “studying the iceberg from its tip.” They implored researchers to view published district court opinions “with greater sensitivity to the ways in which such cases are unrepresentative of all cases”. The dynamic, multistage nature of trial court litigation makes a focus solely on published opinions particularly ill-suited to the study of federal district courts. Expanded electronic access to court documents now allows more pre-cise analysis of the ways in which published cases are unrepresentative and what differences that makes for …

Federal Forum Provisions And The Internal Affairs Doctrine, Dhruv Aggarwal, Albert H. Choi

Law & Economics Working Papers

A key question at the intersection of state and federal law is whether corporations can use their charters or bylaws to restrict securities litigation to federal court. In December 2018, the Delaware Chancery Court answered this question in the negative in the landmark decision Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg. The court invalidated “federal forum provisions” (“FFPs”) that allow companies to select federal district courts as the exclusive venue for claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”). The decision held that the internal affairs doctrine, which is the bedrock of U.S. corporate law, does not permit charter and bylaw provisions …

Recent Developments, Peyton Hildebrand

Arkansas Law Review

The Eighth Circuit upheld preliminary injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiffs who challenged Arkansas's anti-loitering law for violating their free speech rights. Though Arkansas claimed that it would not enforce the anti-loitering statute against "'polite' and 'courteous' beggars like [plaintiffs]," because the law's plain language applied to the plaintiffs' intended activities, they had an objectively reasonable fear of prosecution.' Thus, they had a constitutional injury as required for standing.

Incrementalist Vs. Maximalist Reform: Solitary Confinement Case Studies, Margo Schlanger

Articles

Among criminal justice reformers, it has long been hotly contested whether moderate reform helps or harms more efforts to achieve more thoroughgoing change. With respect to solitary confinement, do partial and ameliorative measures undermine the goal of solitary confinement abolition? Or do reformist campaigns advance—albeit incrementally—that ultimate goal? Call this a debate between “incrementalists” and “maximalists.” I offer this Essay as an appeal for empirical rather than aesthetic inquiry into the question. After summarizing nationwide reform litigation efforts that began in the 1970s, I try to shed some factual light by examining solitary reform efforts in two states, Massachusetts and …

Federal Forum Provisions And The Internal Affairs Doctrine, Dhruv Aggarwal, Albert H. Choi, Ofer Eldar

Articles

A key question at the intersection of state and federal law is whether corpo- rations can use their charters or bylaws to restrict securities litigation to federal court. In December 2018, the Delaware Chancery Court answered this question in the negative in the landmark decision Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg. The court invalidated “federal forum provisions” (“FFPs”) that allow companies to select federal district courts as the exclusive venue for claims brought under the Secur- ities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”). The decision held that the internal affairs doc- trine, which is the bedrock of U.S. corporate law, does not permit charter …

Working Hard Or Making Work? Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees In Securities Fraud Class Actions, Stephen J. Choi, Jessica Erickson, A. C. Pritchard

Articles

In this article, we study attorney fees awarded in the largest securities class actions: “mega- settlements.” Consistent with prior work, we find larger fee awards but lower percentages in these cases. We also find that courts are more likely to reject or modify fee requests made in connection with the largest settlements. We conjecture that this scrutiny provides an incentive for law firms to bill more hours, not to advance the case, but to help justify large fee awards—“make work.” The results of our empirical tests are consistent with plaintiffs’ attorneys investing more time in litigation against larger companies, with …

Solving The First Mile/ Last Mile Problem: Electric Scooter And Dockless Bicycles Are Positioned To Provide Relief To Commuters Struggling With A Daily Commute, Kelly Grosshuesch

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

Commuters in cities across the United States struggle to find ease in their daily commute. Public transportation no longer provides residents with an adequate and reliable source of transportation.1 For many commuters, getting to and from nodes of public transportation is difficult and a deterrent from using public or shared transportation instead of driving.2 This, therefore, increases vehicle congestion and car emissions in cities. While multiple new technologies and innovations have emerged to attempt to help commuters with the trip to and from public transportation, most have fallen short.3 But two new innovations that have gained major popularity among consumers, …

United States V. Lozoya: The Turbulence Of Establishing Venue For In-Flight Offenses, Daeja Pemberton

Texas A&M Law Review

The U.S. Constitution protects one’s right to a fair trial in a proper venue. Typically, venue is proper in whatever territorial jurisdiction a defendant commits an offense. But this rule is not as clear-cut when the offense takes place in a special jurisdiction, such as American airspace. A court must then determine whether the offense continued into the venue of arrival, making it proper under the Constitution. This issue was reexamined when Monique Lozoya assaulted another passenger on an airplane during a domestic flight. In United States v. Lozoya, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to correctly identify …

Flipping The Script On Brady, Ion Meyn

Indiana Law Journal

Brady v. Maryland imposes a disclosure obligation on the prosecutor and, for this

reason, is understood to burden the prosecutor. This Article asks whether Brady also

benefits the prosecutor, and if so, how and to what extent does it accomplish this?

This Article first considers Brady’s structural impact—how the case influenced

broader dynamics of litigation. Before Brady, legislative reform transformed civil

and criminal litigation by providing pretrial information to civil defendants but not

to criminal defendants. Did this disparate treatment comport with due process?

Brady arguably answered this question by brokering a compromise: in exchange for

imposing minor obligations on …

The Lost Lessons Of Shareholder Derivative Suits, Jessica Erickson

Washington and Lee Law Review

Merger litigation has changed dramatically. Today, nearly every announcement of a significant merger sparks litigation, and these cases look quite different from merger cases in the past. These cases are now filed primarily outside of Delaware, they typically settle without shareholders receiving any financial consideration, and corporate boards now have far more ex ante power to shape these cases. Although these changes are often heralded as unprecedented, they are not. Over the past several decades, derivative suits experienced many of the same changes. This Article explores the similarities between the recent changes in merger litigation and the longer history of …

No Injury? No Class: Proof Of Injury In Federal Antitrust Class Actions Post-Wal-Mart, Rami Abdallah Elias Rashmawi

Washington and Lee Law Review

Over the past twenty years the Supreme Court of the United States has systematically limited the scope of federal class actions brought under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Importantly, in two landmark decisions, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, the Supreme Court cemented a heightened level of inquiry demanded by Rule 23, a stringent, “rigorous analysis.”

This Note analyses the effects of this heightened inquiry on federal antitrust class actions, particularly in situations where the plaintiffs’ method of proving antitrust injury fails to do so for some of the putative class …

In A Class Of Its Own: Bristol-Myers Squibb'S Worrisome Application To Class Actions, Grant Mcleod

Akron Law Review

The Supreme Court’s holding in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court has far-reaching implications for federally filed class actions. While the case concerned a mass action in the California state courts, the opinion contained strong dicta to suggest its principles of specific jurisdiction could be applied to federal class—an entirely different procedural tool with its own host of complexities and problems. In the three years following the decision, federal district courts are split on how to apply the Bristol-Myers Squibb analysis to class actions. A distinct category of courts have applied the analysis to dismiss absent class members’ claims when …

Appellate Jurisdiction And The Emoluments Litigation, Adam N. Steinman

Akron Law Review

This article—part of a symposium on federal appellate procedure—addresses questions of appellate jurisdiction that have played an important role in litigation challenging Donald Trump’s conduct under the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses. When federal trial judges in the District of Columbia and Maryland rejected Trump’s early attempts to dismiss two of these cases, Trump sought immediate relief from the federal courts of appeals rather than allowing the litigation to proceed in the district courts. The lack of a traditional final judgment, however, prompted difficult jurisdictional issues for the D.C. Circuit and the Fourth Circuit.

In both cases, the relationship between appellate mandamus …

Three Ideas For Discretionary Appeals, Bryan Lammon

Akron Law Review

Discretionary appeals currently play a limited role in federal appellate jurisdiction. But reformers have long argued for a larger role. And any wholesale reform of the current appellate-jurisdiction system will likely involve additional or expanded opportunities for discretionary appeals. In this essay, I offer three ideas for the future of discretionary appeals—what form they might take in a reformed system of federal appellate jurisdiction and how we might learn about their function. First, remove any limits on the types of decisions that can be certified for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Second, give parties one opportunity in a …

The Renaissance Of Permissive Interlocutory Appeals And The Demise Of The Collateral Order Doctrine, Michael E. Solimine

Akron Law Review

Reserving appeals to final judgments has a long history in the federal courts, as do exceptions to that rule. The problem has less been the existence of the exceptions, but rather their scope and application. This article addresses two of those exceptions. One is permissive interlocutory appeals codified in section 1292(b) of the Judicial Code. That exception, requiring the permission of both the trial and appellate courts, has numerous advantages over other exceptions, has been frequently touted as such by the Supreme Court, and has been applied in several recent high-profile cases. In contrast, the collateral order doctrine, an ostensible …

Judicial Disqualification On Appeal, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Gregory Hilbert

Akron Law Review

Adjudication by an impartial decision maker is one of the cornerstones of due process. The interest is so fundamental that constitutional due process guards against even the appearance of partiality, and federal judges are statutorily required to disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Courts and scholars alike have struggled with what it means to “reasonably question” a judge’s impartiality. That question has taken on greater salience in recent years, as deepening partisan divisions have increasingly led parties to express skepticism of judicial neutrality.

When a party files a motion to disqualify a judge …

Signed Opinions, Concurrences, Dissents, And Vote Counts In The U.S. Supreme Court: Boon Or Bane? (A Response To Professors Penrose And Sherry), Joan Steinman

Akron Law Review

Some commentators recently have argued for changes in how United States Supreme Court Justices communicate with everyone except perhaps other Justices of the Supreme Court and the Justices' assistants. Specifically, some commentators have urged that signed opinions and separate opinions, such as concurrences and dissents, stop being published in the official reports. One commentator also has advocated non‑publication of the vote count in Supreme Court decisions. Another has demanded unanimity, as required by due process.

In this piece, I offer my thoughts in response to these proposals.

I argue several reasons to doubt that a prohibition on publication of concurring …

Fixing The Broken System Of Assessing Criminal Appeals For Frivolousness, Andrew S. Pollis

Akron Law Review

This article seeks to end fifty years of confusion over how to proceed when a criminal defendant wants to appeal but appointed counsel sees no basis for doing so.

Practices vary among jurisdictions, but most require counsel to explain the predicament to the court—often at a level of detail that compromises the duty of loyalty to the client. Most also require the court to double-check counsel’s conclusion by conducting its own independent review of the record, thus burdening judges and blurring the important line between judge and advocate. And at no point in this process does the defendant have a …

Protecting The Social Utility Of Appraisal Arbitrage: A Case For Amending Delaware Law To Strengthen The Appraisal Remedy After Dell, Thomas J. Meriam

Brooklyn Law Review

The landscape of M&A litigation in Delaware has undergone a substantial transformation within the last decade. Almost every transaction involving the acquisition of a publicly traded company has attracted stockholder litigation. This note considers Delaware’s attempt to strike the right balance between deterring frivolous litigation and ensuring adequate stockholder protections. In particular, this note considers the social utility of Delaware’s appraisal remedy and the practice of “appraisal arbitrage.” This note puts forth reasons as to why a healthy market of appraisal arbitrage benefits all stockholders: a meaningful threat of appraisal litigation encourages better sales practices in the market for corporate …