Friday, February 15, 2008
On SSRN, Duke Prof. Thomas Rowe recently posted an article titled State and Foreign Class-Action Rules and Statutes: Differences from--and Lessons For?-- Federal Rule 23. The full link follows the abstract:
This article looks at significant differences between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on class actions and the class-action rules or statutes of some states and foreign nations. A large number of American states have class-action rules based on and often identical with Federal Rule 23, at least in its 1966 version before amendments of the last ten years. But important variations exist and might provide a source of ideas for revisions of the federal rule and other state rules. Three of the most noteworthy are: First, a few states do not have the typicality requirement of Federal Rule 23(a)(3). Second and more significantly, several states and foreign jurisdictions do not apply the requirement of Federal Rule 23(b)(3) that common issues predominate over individual ones with the zeal of some federal courts, or lack the requirement to begin with. Third, in a considerable variety of ways several states water down the rigorous requirement of Federal Rule 23(c)(2)(B) that for Rule 23(b)(3) common-question class actions "the court must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort."
Download the full article here. --RR
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Over at Drug and Device Law, Beck and Herrmann note that, while Defendants are generally thought to hate E-Discovery, "Defendants shouldn’t let their dislike of e-discovery blind them to its
potential advantages in a world where more and more people – and thus
more and more plaintiffs – have their own electronic footprint on the
Internet." Read the post here for some interesting ideas about Myspace, Facebook, and other potential discovery targets. --RR
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion recently you might want to read. In AST Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distrub. Ltd (10th Cir. Jan 28, 2008), the Court reversed the district court's decision to dismiss a Colorado lawsuit against a British company for lack of personal jurisdiction where the company had solicited business in Colorado and purchased products from the American plaintiff for sale in Europe over the course of several years.--Counseller
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
We posted here about Howard Wasserman's piece over at the Sports Law Blog about WVU's breach of contract suit against former football coach (Now Michigan football coach) Rich Rodriguez because it involved an interesting removal issue. You can check out Howard's follow-up to his earlier piece here. Howard goes into more and better detail, but the long and short of it is that the federal district court remanded the lawsuit to the West Virginia state court. Rodriguez had removed the case claiming he was a Michigan citizen and, thus, diversity of citizenship existed between him and the West Virginia Plaintiff.
The purpose of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is to protect the out-of-state defendant from local prejudice. The district court here did not end up determining Rodriguez's citizenship (remanding on other grounds, as Howard explains), but, after reading this piece, I suspect Rodriguez is going to feel some local prejudice in West Virginia no matter what his citizenship happens to be.--Counseller
Monday, February 11, 2008
Click here to read abut Merck's decision to pay $670 million to settle claims it overcharged Medicaid programs and bribed doctors to prescribe its drugs. This settlement comes on the heels of Merck's agreement to settle the Vioxx claims for $4.85 billion.--Counseller