Friday, August 8, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Blum v. General Electric contains an interesting blend of procedure and contract law. There, some class members had earlier entered into a "Stipulation of Dismissal of Certain Plaintiffs' Claims Without Prejudice." In that earlier litigation, the parties agreed to the following stipulation:"In the event that the Court should deny the motion for class certification ... Plaintiffs may refile their claims against Defendants . . . within thirty days after such a ruling, or be barred from doing so." The Court did deny certification, and the dismissed plaintiffs refiled -- but more than thirty days after the denial. After the plaintiffs refiled, Defendants moved to dismiss because the refiling was late under the stipulation. The Court held the stipulation unenforceable for lack of consideration. Download Blum.pdf For more class-action reading, click here to download a recent SSRN piece advocating against cost-benefit analyses in class-certification decisions. --RR
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Chase College of Law
Northern Kentucky University Law Review
Call for Papers and Panelists
E-discovery Symposium – Saturday, February 28, 2009
Chase College of Law’s Northern Kentucky University Law Review welcomes proposals of both articles and panel presentations for its spring 2009 symposium on E-discovery. The symposium will be held Saturday, February 28, 2009. CLE approval will be sought for Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana. Drafts of the articles would need to be submitted by January 1, 2009, with an expected publication date of spring 2009. Travel expenses for panelists will be covered. Please complete the below form and submit it by Friday, September 26, 2008 to Associate Professor Jennifer Anglim Kreder at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Law School or Office Affiliation: __________________________________________________________
E-mail & Phone: ______________________________________________________________________
Title of Submission: ___________________________________________________________________
Submitting: ____ Article Only (approx. ____ pages in Word format); ____ Presentation Only; ____ Both
Description or abstract (max 250 words):
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Two recent Seventh Circuit cases involving sanctions deserve a read:
In de Manez v. Bridgeston, in the context of forum non conveniens, the parties fought about whether Mexican courts were an available alternative forum. "The evidence showed that plaintiffs' U.S. lawyers ... had hired Mexican lawyers on a contingent-fee basis ... for the express purpose of filing a deficient complaint in an improper Mexican court." The idea, of course, was to use the dismissal to convince the federal court that Mexico was not an available adequate forum. Despite this evidence, the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded because the party being sanctioned did not receive constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Download manez.pdf
In Banco Del Atlantico v. Woods, the sanction of dismissal stuck. The court held:
The question before us on the plaintiffs’ appeal is whether Judge McKinney abused his discretion in putting an end to this case. We have cautioned that a sanction of dismissal is a last resort which can only be employed in rare cases. It is a “draconian” remedy which should be applied only in extreme situations, when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, or when other less drastic sanctions have proven unavailing. That doesn’t mean, however, that it can never be used. Even Draco got it right every once in awhile, and today, when district courts have several hundred cases on their dockets, there are times when the “draconian” remedy is appropos. And that time was reached in this case.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argue, among other things, that“there was no finding or record of delay, contumacious conduct, willfulness, bad faith or fault . . . .” The argument is—if nothing else—audacious. There is, in fact, little else in the record. (citations omitted).