Monday, May 2, 2016

CFP: AALS Section on Civil Procedure

AALS Section on Civil Procedure Call for Papers – 2017 AALS Annual Meeting

The AALS Section on Civil Procedure invites papers for its program on “The Roberts Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” at the AALS Annual Meeting, on January 3-7, 2017 in San Francisco. The selected paper will be presented on Thursday, January 5, and the panel will be held from 8.30AM to 10.15AM.

TOPIC DESCRIPTION:

This panel discussion will address jurisprudential developments related to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the Roberts Court. The topics will include judicial interpretation of the rules, recurrent doctrinal themes within the rules, recent and proposed amendments to the rules, and the rule making process.

ELIGIBILITY:

Full-time faculty members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit papers. Pursuant to AALS rules, faculty at fee-paid law schools, foreign faculty, adjunct and visiting faculty (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school), graduate students, fellows, and non-law school faculty are not eligible to submit. Please note that all faculty members presenting at the program are responsible for paying their own annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.

PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE:

One paper will be selected for presentation at the AALS annual meeting. There is no formal requirement as to the form or length of proposals. However, more complete drafts will be given priority over abstracts, and the presenter is expected to have a draft for commentators one month prior to the beginning of the AALS conference.

The paper will be selected by the Section’s Executive Committee. Please submit only anonymous papers by redacting from the submission the author’s name and any references to the identity of the author. The title of the email submission should read: “Submission – 2017 AALS Section on Civil Procedure.”

DEADLINE:

Please email submissions to the Section Chair Simona Grossi, Professor of Law at: simona.grossi@lls.edu on or before August 19, 2016.

May 2, 2016 in Conferences/Symposia | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Second Annual Civil Procedure Workshop: Seattle, Washington (July 14-15)

If you’re planning to attend the Second Annual Civil Procedure Workshop, you can register here. You’ll also find information about lodging, including a block of rooms that need to be reserved by June 14, 2016. 

Questions? Contact Liz Porter, Dave Marcus, or Brooke Coleman.

Looking forward to seeing folks in Seattle.

 

 

 

April 21, 2016 in Conferences/Symposia | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Now on JOTWELL: Thomas on Coleman on Efficiency

Today on the Courts Law section of JOTWELL is Suja Thomas’ essay, Redefining Efficiency In Civil Procedure. Suja reviews Brooke Coleman’s recent article, The Efficiency Norm, 56 B.C. L. Rev. 1777 (2015).

 

 

March 30, 2016 in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Recent Scholarship, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

The Rise and Fall of Plausibility Pleading?

My latest article, The Rise and Fall of Plausibility Pleading?, has just been published in the Vanderbilt Law Review. It builds on some of my earlier work on pleading (here and here), focusing on the Supreme Court’s post-Iqbal decisions on pleading standards (e.g., Johnson v. City of Shelby; Wood v. Moss; Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano). Here’s the abstract:

The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and its 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal unleashed a torrent of scholarly reaction. Commentators charged these decisions with adopting a new pleading regime, "plausibility pleading," that upended the notice-pleading approach that had long prevailed in federal court. Whether a complaint could survive a motion to dismiss — it was argued — now depends on whether the court found the complaint plausible, allowing courts to second-guess a complaint’s allegations without any opportunity for discovery or consideration of actual evidence. Lower courts began to cite Twombly and Iqbal at a remarkably high rate, and empirical work revealed their effect on both dismissal rates and litigant behavior.

Although Twombly and Iqbal were troubling on many levels, the rise of a newly restrictive form of plausibility pleading was not inevitable. There was — and still is — a path forward that would retain the notice-pleading approach set forth in the text of the Federal Rules themselves and confirmed by pre-Twombly case law. This Article describes this reading of Twombly and Iqbal, and explains how more recent Supreme Court pleading decisions are consistent with this understanding. It is crucial, however, that these post-Iqbal decisions and the approach to pleading they reflect receive the same attention that accompanied Twombly, Iqbal, and the rise of plausibility pleading. Otherwise the narrative that Twombly and Iqbal compel a more restrictive pleading standard may become further entrenched, compounding the adverse effects of those problematic decisions.

 

 

March 29, 2016 in Adam Steinman, Federal Courts, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Recent Decisions, Recent Scholarship, Supreme Court Cases, Twombly/Iqbal | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, March 25, 2016

SCOTUS Decision in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo: Another Important Case on Class Actions

This week the Supreme Court issued its decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, covered here, here, and here. Tyson Foods is one of several important class action cases on the Court’s docket this Term—and the second one decided so far. Like Campbell-Ewald back in January, the Tyson Foods decision is generally good news for proponents of class actions. By a 6-2 vote, the Court upheld class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion, which was joined in part by Justice Alito. Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justice Alito joined. All the opinions are worth a read, but below are a few highlights from Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion.

First, Justice Kennedy emphasized that the presence of some individualized issues is not fatal to Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement:

The predominance inquiry “asks whether the common, aggregation-enabling, issues in the case are more prevalent or important than the non-common, aggregation-defeating, individual issues.” [2 W. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions], §4:49, at 195–196. When “one or more of the central issues in the action are common to the class and can be said to predominate, the action may be considered proper under Rule 23(b)(3) even though other important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages or some affirmative defenses peculiar to some individual class members.” 7AA C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §1778, pp. 123–124 (3d ed. 2005) (footnotes omitted).

Justice Kennedy also provided some important guidance on the Supreme Court’s 2011 Wal-Mart decision, clarifying that “Wal-Mart does not stand for the broad proposition that a representative sample is an impermissible means of establishing class-wide liability.” He recognized the practical reality that “[i]n many cases, a representative sample is ‘the only practicable means to collect and present relevant data’ establishing a defendant’s liability. Manual of Complex Litigation §11.493, p. 102 (4th ed. 2004).” And:

In a case where representative evidence is relevant in proving a plaintiff’s individual claim, that evidence cannot be deemed improper merely because the claim is brought on behalf of a class. To so hold would ignore the Rules Enabling Act’s pellucid instruction that use of the class device cannot “abridge . . . any substantive right.” 28 U. S. C. §2072(b).

The Court ultimately did not resolve the second question in Tyson Foods, which was originally framed as “whether a class may be certified if it contains ‘members who were not injured and have no legal right to any damages.’” After noting that Tyson Foods had “reframe[d] this argument” in its merits brief, Justice Kennedy declined to address it “because the damages award has not yet been disbursed, nor does the record indicate how it will be disbursed.” The Court therefore remanded the case, recognizing that Tyson Foods “may raise a challenge to the proposed method of allocation when the case returns to the District Court for disbursal of the award.” In his final paragraph of analysis, however, Justice Kennedy noted that the potential for “uninjured class members” to recover from the class judgment appeared to be a problem “of [Tyson Foods’] own making,” because Tyson Foods had argued against having bifurcated liability and damages proceedings.

For additional coverage, check out:

 

March 25, 2016 in Class Actions, Federal Courts, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, March 21, 2016

Morley on De Facto Class Actions

Michael Morley (Barry) has posted De Facto Class Actions? Injunctive Relief in Election Law, Voting Rights, and Other Constitutional Cases to SSRN.

When a court holds that a legal provision is unconstitutional; inconsistent with, or preempted by, federal law; or invalid under an agency's organic statute or a framework statute such as the Administrative Procedures Act, the court must decide whether to grant injunctive relief and, if so, how broad that relief should be. In particular, the court must decide whether to issue a Plaintiff-Oriented Injunction or a Defendant-Oriented Injunction. A Plaintiff-Oriented Injunction bars the government defendants from enforcing the challenged provision only against the plaintiffs in the case or affected members of plaintiff organizations. A Defendant-Oriented Injunction, in contrast, completely bars the government defendant from enforcing the challenged provision against anyone in the state or nation.

Many courts tend to award Defendant-Oriented Injunctions in election law and voting rights cases, even when they are not brought as class actions, without recognizing or addressing most of the pertinent issues that choice implicates. Individual plaintiffs typically lack Article III standing to seek relief protecting the rights of third parties not before the court. And such third parties may neither fall within the court’s personal jurisdiction nor wish to challenge the provision at issue. Defendant-Oriented Injunctions in non-class cases also raise asymmetric preclusion concerns, undermine the policy considerations underlying Rule 23, and allow trial courts to enforce their rulings beyond the geographic limits of their jurisdiction.

This Article presents a new framework for determining the proper scope of injunctive relief in election law, voting rights, and other constitutional cases. First the court should assess whether granting the requested relief solely to the individual plaintiffs would create unconstitutional disparities concerning fundamental rights in violation of Equal Protection principles, although this seldom, if ever, should be the case. Second, after confirming that limiting relief solely to the individual plaintiffs would be constitutional, the court should then determine whether such a Plaintiff-Oriented Injunction would be proper under the challenged statute or regulation itself by applying traditional severability principles. If the challenged provision can be applied coherently, and the entity that enacted the provision still would have intended for it to be enforced, even with the plaintiffs excluded from its scope, then a Plaintiff-Oriented Injunction would be the proper remedy. Otherwise, a Defendant-Oriented Injunction is required.

This Article further contends that, when plaintiffs file a non-class case seeking to enjoin a legal provision, the court should determine at the outset whether a Plaintiff- or Defendant-Oriented Injunction would be necessary if the plaintiffs prevail. If a Defendant-Oriented Injunction would be required, the court should order that the case proceed as a Rule 23(b)(2) class action so that all right holders who stand to benefit from a favorable ruling are included as class members. Conducting such an analysis at the outset of the case eliminates most of the concerns implicated by Defendant-Oriented Injunctions.

March 21, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Judge Merrick Garland was "a repeat moderator for Federalist Society events"

If you have been gnashing your teeth over Senate Republicans' stated refusal to vote on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, here is some information that may make you feel a little better.

 

  • I cannot discover if Judge Garland actually is or has been a member of the conservative Federalist Society, but he has numerous links to the Society:
    • He listed in the "Experts" link of the website of the Federalist Society.  (It should be noted that the website states that a person’s listing on the Experts page does not imply any “endorsement or relationship between the person and the Federalist Society.”) 
    • Judge Garland moderated a panel called "Changing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Has the Time Come?" on Dec. 9, 2010 hosted by the Federalist Society at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.  One of the panelists argued that discovery costs should routinely be shifted to the party requesting the discovery (something that defense interests have lobbied for ever since, with partial success in the amendment to Rule 26(c)(1)(B)).  Another panelist argued that Rule 4(b), allowing a subpoena to issue against a defendant without a preliminary hearing, is unconstitutional.  A third panelist described Twombly and Iqbal as “perfectly sensible cases.”  Of course, merely by moderating the panel, Judge Garland cannot be understood to be endorsing any of these views.   
    • By my count, Judge Garland has also moderated about ten other panels hosted by The Federalist Society. See, e.g., here and here.  In fact, at the panel on the FRCP described above, the person who introduced Judge Garland as the moderator said to him, “You are a repeat moderator for Federalist Society events.”

President Obama’s political calculation in nominating Judge Garland may be even shrewder than anyone’s given him credit for. 

 

March 21, 2016 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday, March 18, 2016

Lammon on Appellate Jurisdiction

Bryan Lammon (Toledo) has posted Dizzying Gillespie: The Exaggerated Death of the Balancing Approach and the Inescapable Allure of Discretion in Appellate Jurisdiction to SSRN.

In Gillespie v. U.S. Steel Corp., the Supreme Court appeared to endorse a balancing approach to federal appellate jurisdiction, whereby courts could weigh the costs and benefits of an interlocutory appeal in any case. But the Court soon disavowed the balancing approach and today eschews case-by-case determinations of appellate jurisdiction. The common perception, then, is that Gillespie and the balancing approach are dead. But the balancing approach persists in the Courts of Appeals. In a variety of contexts, these courts have relied on the balancing approach to hear appeals. They’ve constructed doctrines based on the balancing approach. And they engage in case-by-case balancing in determining their jurisdiction. Contrary to popular belief, the balancing approach is alive and well in the Courts of Appeals.

The balancing approach’s persistence — seemingly in direct defiance of the Supreme Court’s mandate — suggests that appellate judges cannot resist wielding some discretion when defining their jurisdiction. This allure of discretion poses a challenge to the primary goal of the literature on interlocutory appeals: reform. If reform is to happen, it will likely take the form of categorical rules. But if what the balancing approach’s persistence suggests is true — if appellate judges cannot completely forego using discretion in defining their jurisdiction — that threatens to undermine the certainty, predictability, and ease of application of any rules that reform might develop. I thus propose a largely novel approach to interlocutory appeal reform: a combination of categorical rules and a discretionary catchall.

 

March 18, 2016 in Recent Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Seiner on Class Actions in the Technology Sector

Joe Seiner has posted on SSRN a draft of his essay, Tailoring Class Actions to the On-Demand Economy, which will be published in the Ohio State Law Journal. Here’s the abstract:

In O’Connor v. Uber, 2015 WL 5138097 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2015), a federal district court permitted a class-action case to proceed on the question of whether 160,000 drivers were misclassified by their employer as independent contractors rather than employees. The case has garnered widespread interest, making headlines across the country. Yet it represents only one of many class-action cases currently pending against technology companies in the modern economy. Indeed, similar systemic claims have already been brought against Yelp, GrubHub, Handy, Crowdflower, Amazon, and many others.

The courts have largely floundered in their efforts to address the proper scope of class cases brought against corporations in the on-demand economy. This is likely the result of a lack of clarity in this area as well as the unique fact patterns that often arise with technology-sector claims. Nothing has been written on this issue in the academic literature to date, and this paper seeks to fill that void in the scholarship.

Navigating the statutes, case law, and procedural rules, this Essay proposes a workable five-part framework for analyzing systemic claims brought in the technology sector. This paper sets forth a model for the courts and litigants to follow when evaluating the proper scope of these cases. The Essay seeks to spark a dialogue on this important — yet unexplored — area of the law.

 

March 18, 2016 in Class Actions, Recent Scholarship, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, March 17, 2016

SCOTUS Decision on Diversity Jurisdiction: Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods

There’s a lot of attention right now on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. But I wanted to quickly flag last week’s unanimous decision on diversity jurisdiction. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion in Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. begins:

This case asks how to determine the citizenship of a “real estate investment trust,” an inanimate creature of Maryland law. We answer: While humans and corporations can assert their own citizenship, other entities take the citizenship of their members.

The Court reaffirmed the “oft-repeated rule” that unincorporated entities take on the citizenship of all of their members (citing Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U. S. 185 (1990)), and held that the “members” of this sort of Maryland-law entity included all of its shareholders:

In Maryland, a real estate investment trust is an “unincorporated business trust or association” in which property is held and managed “for the benefit and profit of any person who may become a shareholder.” Md. Corp. & Assns. Code Ann. §§8–101(c), 8–102 (2014). As with joint-stock companies or partnerships, shareholders have “ownership interests” and votes in the trust by virtue of their “shares of beneficial interest.” §§8–704(b)(5), 8–101(d). These shareholders appear to be in the same position as the shareholders of a joint-stock company or the partners of a limited partnership—both of whom we viewed as members of their relevant entities. See Carden, 494 U. S., at 192–196; see also §8–705(a) (linking the term “beneficial interests” with “membership interests” and “partnership interests”). We therefore conclude that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Americold’s members include its shareholders.

Justice Sotomayor concluded by recognizing—but rejecting—the argument that the citizenship of an unincorporated entity should be determined the same way as a corporation:

We also decline an amicus’ invitation to apply the same rule to an unincorporated entity that applies to a corporation—namely, to consider it a citizen only of its State of establishment and its principal place of business. See Brief for National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts 11–21. When we last examined the “doctrinal wall” between corporate and unincorporated entities in 1990, we saw no reason to tear it down. Carden, 494 U. S., at 190. Then as now we reaffirm that it is up to Congress if it wishes to incorporate other entities into 28 U. S. C. §1332(c)’s special jurisdictional rule.

 

March 17, 2016 in Federal Courts, Recent Decisions, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Donald Trump Final Exam Generator

People clearly have very strong feelings about Donald Trump and his candidacy for President.  His supporters like that he tells it how it is, and his detractors like that he is exposing the Republican Party for what it really is.

But, really.  Both sides are missing a yuge upside to The Donald's campaign:  This guy is generating law school final exam fact patterns like nobody's business.

Teach contracts?  Maybe you want to test whether a court would enforce a promise to pay the legal fees of a rally attendee who roughs up a protester.  Or maybe you just want a good old-fashioned fraud question.

Teach federal courts? Maybe you want to test whether the Secret Service can be sued for assaulting a journalist at a Trump rally.

Teach con law?  Maybe you want to test the free speech rights of protesters vs. rally attendees.  

Teach crim law? Maybe you want to test whether Trump could go to jail for inciting a riot.  Bonus con law!

Teach property?  It's all takings, all the time.

But maybe you don't want an exam full of issue spotters.  No problem:  I have some nice policy issues for you:

Teach civ pro?  Discuss Donald Trump's claim that he doesn't settle lawsuits because he always wins in court.

Teach torts?  Discuss Donald Trump's plan to sue everyone for libel.  All the time.  More bonus con law!

Yes, The Donald pretty much has the whole first year covered.  He's practically teaching across the curriculum.

I haven't even started in the bonanza that he's given us for some upper level courses, like the obvious Election Law, Immigration Law, and International Trade issues.  Perhaps that will have to be for another post...

March 17, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Grossi on The Claim Prism

Simona Grossi (Loyola Los Angeles) has posted The Claim Prism to SSRN.

 

The years 1848 and 1938 were landmark years in the history of American procedural law. The first marked the advent of code pleading, and the second introduced the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both developments were a product of reform movements that addressed what the reformers believed to be a procedural crisis generated by the inefficacy of the procedural system under attack. The goal was to create a system of procedure that was both efficient and instrumental to the vindication of substantive rights. In part, each crisis reflected a tension between formalism—the need for rules—and pragmatism—the need for flexibility. Hence, the early codes offered a code-based system that was structured but significantly less so than the common law system it replaced. The Federal Rules aimed to do the same in response to the codes. The difficulty facing both sets of reformers was that their respective tasks of reform required the imposition of rules and at the same time required a pragmatic but principled approach to applying those rules. It seems though that a rule-based system eventually drifts toward the rules and away from pragmatism. Thus, at some point the rules of code pleading came to dominate the instrumental goals of that system. The same appears to be happening with the law of federal courts, including both the Federal Rules and doctrinal procedural law beyond those rules. I believe we are now in the midst of a procedural crisis, but it is not one that requires a new set of rules. Rather it is one that requires a readjustment of the way we think about the current rules and doctrines. This article invites a rethinking of the law of federal courts, including both the rules and the doctrines. It invites a return to the principles that originally animated the Federal Rules, and to the idea of natural lawyering and judging that inspired Charles Clark. The article builds upon the idea of a convenient litigation unit as central to the dispute resolution mission of federal courts, that is, saying what the law is, adhering to the rule of law, and enforcing the checks and balances of our constitutional system.

March 2, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Dodson on Opt-In Class Actions

Scott Dodson (Hastings) has posted An Opt-In Option for Class Actions

Federal class actions today follow an opt-out model: absent an affirmative request to opt out, a class member is in the class. Supporters defend the opt-out model as necessary to ensure the viability of class actions and the efficacy of substantive law. Critics argue the opt-out model is a poor proxy for class-member consent and promotes over broad and ill-defined classes; these critics favor an opt-in model. This bimodal debate — opt out vs. opt in — has obscured an overlooked middle ground that relies on litigant choice: Why not give the class the option to pursue certification on an opt-out or an opt-in basis? This article explores such an opt-in option. It considers the effects of opt-in classes’ enhanced cohesiveness and representational character on the ease of class certification, the logistical challenges of opt-in mechanisms and the technological advances that can mitigate those challenges, the doctrinal feasibility of allowing an opt-in option, and the potential pitfalls the option presents. The article concludes that the opt-in option has positive potential, and it offers specific proposals for rule makers to consider.

 

 

February 23, 2016 in Class Actions, Recent Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 22, 2016

House to Consider "Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act" This Week

The House of Representatives is to consider the so-called Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2016, H.R. 3624. this week.  The bill provides:

Section 1447 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(f) Fraudulent joinder
(1) This subsection shall apply to any case in which—
(A) a civil action is removed solely on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by section 1332(a);
(B) a motion to remand is made on the ground that—
(i) one or more defendants are citizens of the same State as one or more plaintiffs; or
(ii) one or more defendants properly joined and served are citizens of the State in which the action was brought; and
(C) the motion is opposed on the ground that the joinder of the defendant or defendants described in subparagraph (B) is fraudulent.
(2) The joinder of the defendant or defendants described in paragraph (1) (B) is fraudulent if the court finds that—
(A) there is actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts;
(B) based on the complaint and the materials submitted under paragraph (3), it is not plausible to conclude that applicable State law would impose liability on each defendant described in paragraph (1)(B);
(C) State or Federal law clearly bars all claims in the complaint against all defendants described in paragraph (1)(B); or
(D) objective evidence clearly demonstrates that there is no good faith intention to prosecute the action against all defendants described in paragraph (1)(B) or to seek a joint judgment.
(3) In determining whether to grant or deny a motion under paragraph (1)(B), the court may permit the pleadings to be amended, and shall consider the pleadings, affidavits, and other evidence submitted by the parties.
(4) If the court finds fraudulent joinder under paragraph (2), it shall dismiss without prejudice the claims against the defendant or defendants found to have been fraudulently joined and shall deny the motion described in paragraph (1)(B).

 

 

February 22, 2016 in Federal Courts, Subject Matter Jurisdiction | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, February 19, 2016

Nash on Summary Judgment's Standard of Review

Jonathan Remy Nash (Emory) has posted Unearthing Summary Judgment's Concealed Standard of Review to SSRN.

The common wisdom has it that the appellate standard of review for summary judgment is uniformly de novo. However, the general unreviewability of summary judgment denials renders as dicta most statements about the standard of review for summary judgment denials. This Paper argues that courts of appeals should accord district courts discretion to deny summary judgment in (i) close cases that (ii) turn at least in part on an issue of fact (at least where a jury trial right is available and has been exercised). This standard will have the greatest impact in the limited universe of summary judgment denials that are immediately appealable — those cases where summary judgment is sought by government officials on the basis of immunity from suit. An empirical study of such cases decided by the courts of appeals confirms that the proposed standard would have a substantial effect on the treatment by courts of appeals of summary judgment denials in qualified immunity cases. Beyond the courts of appeals, implementation of the standard would have an effect on the treatment of qualified-immunity-based summary judgment motions by district courts and the Supreme Court.

 

 

February 19, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 15, 2016

Macfarlane on Staff Attorney Adjudication of Prisoner Claims

Katherine Macfarlane (University of Idaho College of Law) has posted on SSRN a draft of her article "Shadow Judges: Staff Attorney Adjudication of Prisoner Claims."

Abstract:

Prisoners bring over twenty percent of the civil cases filed in federal district courts, predominantly seeking redress for violations of their civil rights, or release from prison under habeas corpus. Because most prisoners (around 93%) proceed pro se in their federal civil litigation, they are already at a disadvantage. The deck is stacked against prisoner plaintiffs in other systemic ways. Local rules, general orders, and even district courts’ job postings suggest that when a plaintiff is a pro se prisoner, the plaintiff is denied an Article III judge. Judicial tasks that must be performed in prisoners’ cases, from administration to adjudication, are delegated to non-judicial staff. As a result, in the very same court, prisoners’ cases are decided by a court employee who works as part of the court’s “pro se staff,” while all other plaintiffs get an Article III judge (or at least a magistrate judge, if they consent). The Supreme Court’s 2015 Wellness International Network v. Sharif decision drew attention to delegation of Article III claims to non-Article III judges in the bankruptcy realm. There, the Court rigorously considered the impact of the structural error caused by delegation to judges who do not enjoy fixed salaries or life tenure. But delegation of the judicial power in the prisoner litigation context is still hiding in plain sight.

This article is the first to investigate the scope of the delegation to pro se staff and to consider the separation of powers concerns caused by delegation of the judicial power to pro se staff. It argues that local procedure has enabled the delegation, and that it has gone too far. Local procedure crafts rules for prisoner litigation that conflict with federal law, effectively denying access to an Article III judge. When federal courts overreach in this manner, their rulemaking exceeds the limited rulemaking authority Congress has delegated to the judiciary. This local procedure also violates federal policy, which generally disfavors allowing non-judicial actors to perform judicial tasks.

This article concludes with recommendations about how to solve the delegation problem. The strongest solution would be to eliminate the local procedure in question, and the pro se staff it creates. Congress would be required to address the issue directly and nationwide by creating, or not, additional procedure for prisoner litigation. A more moderate approach would publicize the identity of pro se staff as well as the nature of the work the staff undertakes. Pro se staff would come out of the shadows and into public view.

February 15, 2016 in Federal Courts, Recent Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Morley on Injunctive Relief and De Facto Class Actions

Michael Morley has posted on SSRN a draft of his article, De Facto Class Actions? Injunctive Relief in Election Law, Voting Rights, and Other Constitutional Cases. Here’s the abstract:

When a court holds that a legal provision is unconstitutional; inconsistent with, or preempted by, federal law; or invalid under an agency's organic statute or a framework statute such as the Administrative Procedures Act, the court must decide whether to grant injunctive relief and, if so, how broad that relief should be. In particular, the court must decide whether to issue a Plaintiff-Oriented Injunction or a Defendant-Oriented Injunction. A Plaintiff-Oriented Injunction bars the government defendants from enforcing the challenged provision only against the plaintiffs in the case or affected members of plaintiff organizations. A Defendant-Oriented Injunction, in contrast, completely bars the government defendant from enforcing the challenged provision against anyone in the state or nation.

Many courts tend to award Defendant-Oriented Injunctions in election law and voting rights cases, even when they are not brought as class actions, without recognizing or addressing most of the pertinent issues that choice implicates. Individual plaintiffs typically lack Article III standing to seek relief protecting the rights of third parties not before the court. And such third parties may neither fall within the court’s personal jurisdiction nor wish to challenge the provision at issue. Defendant-Oriented Injunctions in non-class cases also raise asymmetric preclusion concerns, undermine the policy considerations underlying Rule 23, and allow trial courts to enforce their rulings beyond the geographic limits of their jurisdiction. 

Continue reading

February 11, 2016 in Class Actions, Recent Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Choi and Pritchard on SEC Investigations and Securities Class Actions

A new article by Professors Stephen J. Choi and A.C. Pritchard, SEC Investigations and Securities Class Actions: An Empirical Comparison, has been published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

Abstract:

Using actions with both an SEC investigation and a class action as our baseline, we compare the targeting of SEC-only investigations with class-action-only lawsuits. Looking at measures of information asymmetry, we find that investors in the market perceive greater information asymmetry following the public announcement of the underlying violation for class-action-only lawsuits compared with SEC-only investigations. Turning to sanctions, we find that the incidence of top officer resignation is greater for class-action-only lawsuits relative to SEC-only investigations. Our findings are consistent with the private enforcement targeting disclosure violations at least as precisely as (if not more so than) SEC enforcement.

February 9, 2016 in Class Actions, Recent Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Palmer on Partisan Appointments to Special Courts and Panels

A new article, Does the Chief Justice Make Partisan Appointments to Special Courts and Panels?, by political science professor Maxwell Palmer (Boston University), has been published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

Abstract:

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has the exclusive and independent power to appoint federal judges to various special courts and panels, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the court that oversees all domestic surveillance for national security, including domestic data collection by the National Security Agency (NSA). This article examines the propensity of Chief Justices to appoint co-partisan judges to these panels. Such appointments may serve to produce decisions and policies that align with the Chief Justice's preferences. I use computational simulations to model the appointment decisions made by Chief Justices. I find that there is less than a 1 percent chance that a neutral Chief Justice would appoint as many Republicans to the FISC as have been appointed in the last 36 years. I further show that the Chief Justice is not selecting appointees on other observable judicial characteristics, such as age, experience, gender, senior status, or caseload. These results have important implications for the creation of judicial institutions, the internal politics of the judiciary, legislative delegation, and the powers and oversight of the national security state.

February 9, 2016 in Class Actions, Federal Courts, Recent Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 8, 2016

Discovery Protocol Results in More Settlements, Fewer Motions to Compel

I don’t know how I missed this when it came out, but better late than never.  The Federal Judicial Center has published a brief empirical study of the pilot project on initial discovery protocols in employment cases.  Emery G. Lee & Jason A. Cantone, Report on Pilot Project Regarding Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action (Oct. 2015).

One of the ideas floated at the 2010 conference on civil litigation held at Duke Law School was that pattern discovery (set forms) in particular case types might reduce discovery battles (and hence, “cost and delay”).  Another, related idea expressed at the conference was that initial required disclosures under FRCP 26(a) were generally not helpful.  The Advisory Committee did not officially pursue these ideas (in fact, it abolished all the forms following the FRCP).  However, a group of plaintiffs’ and defendants’ attorneys experienced in employment cases negotiated and finalized discovery protocols for those cases that replace the standard initial disclosures.  Judge John G. Koeltl and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) facilitated the project.   

The protocols cover only cases alleging adverse employment action.  Certain cases are exempt from the protocols: class actions, and cases alleging only discrimination in hiring, harassment, or violations of FLSA, ADA, FMLA, or ERISA.

The protocols are posted on the FJC's website.  About 75 federal district court judges have adopted the protocols, and the FJC has now studied their effect.

As described by the FJC:

The Protocols create a new category of information exchange, replacing initial disclosures with initial discovery specific to employment cases alleging adverse action. This discovery is provided automatically by both sides within 30 days of the defendant’s responsive pleading or motion. While the parties’ subsequent right to discovery under the F.R.C.P. is not affected, the amount and type of information initially exchanged ought to focus the disputed issues, streamline the discovery process, and minimize opportunities for gamesmanship. The Protocols are accompanied by a standing order for their implementation by individual judges in the pilot project, as well as a model protective order that the attorneys and the judge can use [as] a basis for discussion.

For example, among the many items the plaintiff is required to produce to the defendant are “diary, journal, and calendar entries maintained by the plaintiff concerning the factual allegations or claims at issue in this lawsuit,” and “the plaintiff’s current resume(s).”  Among the many items the defendant is required to produce to the plaintiff are “the plaintiff’s personnel file, in any form, maintained by the defendant, including files concerning the plaintiff maintained by the plaintiff’s supervisor(s), manager(s), or the defendant’s human resources representative(s), irrespective of the relevant time period” and “the plaintiff’s performance evaluations and formal discipline.”  

So now to the FJC’s study of the effect of the pilot project.  The FJC constructed a sample of 477 cases in the pilot program and a comparison sample (random and nationwide) of 672 recently-terminated cases alleging employment discrimination not in the pilot program.  Here are some of the results.  Please note that I constructed the table below based on the text in the FJC’s report:

 

Pilot cases

Non-pilot

cases

p value

(if given)

Number of cases

477

672

 

Mean disposition time in days

312

328

.241

Median disposition time in days

275

286

 

Case outcomes:

     

o   Settlement

51%

30%

 

o   Voluntary dismissal (which could include

settlement, but not clear from docket)

27%

35%

 

o   Dismissed on Rule 12 motion

7%

13%

 

o   Resolved by summary judgment

7%

12%

 

o   Trial

<1%

2%

 

o   Other (DWP, failure to exhaust)

7%

8%

 

Motions to dismiss filed

23%

31%

 

Motions for summary judgment filed

11%

24%

 

One or more discovery motions filed*

12%

21%

<.001**

*Includes motions to compel and motions for protective order (apparently includes only contested, not stipulated, motions for protective order).

**Statistically significant.

Some of these findings are cause for celebration.  There were significantly fewer discovery motions filed in the pilot cases.  The pilot cases were more likely to result in settlement.  The pilot cases were less frequently dismissed on motion or resolved by summary judgment.  Fewer such motions were even filed in the pilot cases.   

As for case disposition time, the FJC seems almost apologetic that pilot cases were resolved faster than, but not statistically significantly faster than, non-pilot cases, stating, “The pilot does not, in short, appear to have an appreciable effect on reducing delay.”  But whether pilot or non-pilot, these cases last about nine or ten months from filing to disposition.  How much faster does anyone want?  Having practiced law in the 1980s and 1990s (including in Illinois state courts), I’d like to suggest that this is a rocket docket.  Once we account for the preliminary time periods allowed by the FRCP (up to 90 days to serve the complaint after filing and then up to 90 days to issue the scheduling order), and add a standard six months to complete discovery, that’s what we get – nine or ten months.  Where’s the “delay”?  (Not blaming the FJC for using this term: it’s the mantra used by discovery “reformers.”)

The FJC is, as always, careful to note the limitations of its study.  First, judges are free to adopt or not adopt the protocols, so the pilot cases came from only ten districts, and 75% of the pilot cases were in Connecticut or the Southern District of New York.  Second, because the initial disclosures were not usually docketed (and under FRCP 5, they would not be required to be), the FJC could not determine whether the parties “actually complied with the discovery protocols and exchanged the required initial disclosures.”  Finally, “this report makes no claim that the only factor differing between the pilot and comparison cases was the pattern discovery in the former,” and “caution is warranted before concluding that the pilot program caused the above described differences between the pilot and comparison cases.”

In my opinion, the pattern discovery approach should be pursued in more types of cases.  Having experienced attorneys on both sides negotiate protocols to produce the types of documents and information repeatedly sought in discovery in a particular kind of case represents a far more sensible, concrete, and helpful approach to improving discovery than the adoption of a vague “proportionality” standard. 

February 8, 2016 in Discovery, Federal Courts | Permalink | Comments (1)