Civil Procedure

In 2021, Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA). Notably, the EFAA assigns courts, rather than an arbitrator, the responsibility for determining the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s allegations. This has led to disagreements between federal district courts over the appropriate pleading standard when determining whether the EFAA applies. This Essay argues that courts should adopt the “nonfrivolous” pleading standard because it better ensures access to justice for victims of sexual misconduct.

The latest development in class action litigation is the “future stakes settlement.” Under this novel mechanism, unveiled in the settlement proposal to end a privacy law class action lawsuit against the startup Clearview AI, a defendant grants a privately traded equity stake to the class in exchange for a release of all claims.

Future stakes settlements, though similar to existing mechanisms in class action and bankruptcy law, offer distinct benefits and costs. Through a future stakes settlement, the class may recover against a cashless defendant and receive a larger payout than would be possible through a traditional cash damages fund. But this recovery is uncertain, as the value of a future stake can fluctuate. Furthermore, by transforming injured parties into shareholders, future stakes settlements pose serious moral quandaries.

Existing guidance for settlement agreements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) is insufficient to handle the high degree of risk associated with future stakes settlements. This Comment recommends additional standards that courts should apply when evaluating these settlements. Through these additions, courts can prevent defendant gamesmanship, ensure future stakes settlements are fair to the class, and fulfill the dual purposes of compensation and regulation in class actions.

Professor Monica Haymond’s Intervention and Universal Remedies article invites scholars to focus on the distinctive ways that public law litigation plays out in practice. This Essay takes up her challenge. By questioning common assumptions at the core of structural-reform litigation, this Essay explains the dangers of consent decrees, settlements, and broad precedents. It then goes on to argue that intervention is an important check on these risks, and should be much more freely available in structural reform cases.

The Florida defendant files a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)—asserting that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Should the court grant it? More specifically, does having an anonymous John Doe as a defendant categorically preclude diversity jurisdiction?

In April of 2022, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, handed down the latest decision in its “packaged tuna antitrust saga,” with implications that have the potential to usher in a sea change to class action practice.

After Ricardo Saldana suffered a stroke in 2014, his family moved him into Elms Convalescent Hospital, a skilled nursing facility in Glendale, California, so he could receive the care he needed.

For decades, veterans were one of the few groups that could not bring class actions when the federal government systematically mishandled their disability benefits.

The morning of July 9th, American Indian tribal citizens and non-Indian residents of eastern Oklahoma woke up and experienced a similar shock.

Qualified immunity is awful. It inhibits government accountability and precludes recovery for victims of government misconduct. But it’s not just the substantive defense that’s a problem.

Picture this: the Department of Justice (DOJ) plans to open a criminal grand jury investigation into the business conduct of a foreign corporation.