The complexity of modern American civil litigation: Curse or cure?

Judicature

Volumn 91, Issue 4, 2008, Pages

  Burbank, Stephen B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 41949109734     PISSN: 00225800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. See, e.g., Stephen B. Burbank, Procedure, Politics and Power; The Role of Congress, 79 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1677 (2004).
2. See Stephen N. Subrin, How Equity Conquered Common Law: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Historical Perspective, 135 U. PA. L. REV. 909 (1987).
3. See FED. R. CIV. P. 18 ("JOINDER OF CLAIMS AND REMEDIES").
4. See FED. R. CIV. P. 20 (" PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES").
5. See FED. R. CIV. P. 13 ("COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS-CLAIM").
6. See FED. R. CIV. P. 14 ("THIRD- PARTY PRACTICE"), 19 ("JOINDER OF PERSONS NEEDED FOR JUST ADJUDICATION"), 22 ("INTERPLEADER"), 23 ("CLASS ACTIONS"), 24 ("INTERVENTION").
7. See FED. R. CIV. P. 21 ("MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES"), 42(b) ("SEPARATE TRIALS").
8. See Subrin, supra n. 2.
9. See Stephen B. Burbank, Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases: Drifting Toward Bethlehem or Gomorrah?, 1 J. EMP. LEG. STUD. 591, 624 (2004).
10. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3).
11. See Stephen B. Burbank, The Class Action in American Securities Regulation, ZZPINT 4, at 322-26 (1999).
12. See Samuel P. Baumgartner, Related Actions, ZZPINT 3, at 203 (1998).
13. See ROBERT A. KAGAN, ADVERSARIAL LEGALISM: THE AMERICAN WAY OF LAW (2001).
14. See Stephen B. Burbank, The Roles of Litigation, 80 WASH. U. L.Q. 705, 710 (2002);
15. Samuel P. Baumgartner, Human Rights and Civil Litigation in United States Courts, 80 WASH. U. L.Q. 835, 840, 851-52 (2002).
16. See Burbank, supra n. 9, at 620; Stephen B. Burbank & Linda J. Silberman, Civil Procedure Reform in Comparative Context: The United States of America, 45 AM. J. COMP. L. 675, 691-95 (1997).
17. See Stephen B. Burbank, furisdictional Conflict and Jurisdictional Equilibration: Paths to a Via Media?, 26 HOUSTON J. INT'L L. 385, 388-89 (2004).
18. See EDWARD A. PURCELL, LITIGATION AND INEQUALITY: FEDERAI. DRVERSITY JURISDICTION IN INDUSTRIAL AMERICA, 1870-1958 (1992).
19. A recent Federal Judicial Center study of class actions in the period July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2006 found that approximately "37% of class actions overlapped with or duplicated odier federal class actions." Thomas E. Willging & Emery G. Lee III, "The Impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 on the Federal Courts" 24 (Federal Judicial Center, April 2007).
20. See Council Regulation 44/2001, 2001 O.J. (L12) art. 27.
21. See id. art. 28; Baumgartner, supra n. 12.
22. See Stephen B. Burbank, Jurisdictional Equilibration, the Proposed Hague Convention, and Progress in National Law, 49 AM. J. COMP. L. 203, 213 (2001).
23. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (2000)
24. See Burbank, supra n. 21, at 213-14.
25. Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005) (codified in various sections of 28 U.S.C.).
26. See 28. U.S.C.A. §1332 (d)(3), (d)(4), (d)(5), & (d)(9) (West 2006).
27. See Stephen B. Burbank, The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 in Historical Perspective: A Preliminary View, 156 U. PA. L. REV._(2008).
28. See Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, 89 HARV. L. REV. 1281 (1976).
29. See, e.g., Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975) (presumption of reliance in securities fraud class action).
30. See Joseph A. Grundfest & A.C. Prtitchard, Statutes with Multiple Personality Disorders: The Value of Ambiguity in Statutory Design and Interpretation, 54 STAN. L. REV. 627(2002).
31. See Linda Mullenix, Discovery in Disarray: The Pervasive Myth of Pervasive Discovery Abuse and the Consequences of Unfounded Rulemaking, 46 STAN. L. REV. 1393 (1994).
32. See JAMES S. KAKALIK, et al., JUST SPEEDY AND INEXPENSIVE? AN EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT UNDER THE CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT (Rand Institute for Civil Justice, 1996).
33. See Kenneth W. Dam Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. LEGAL STUD. 47 (1975);
34. Stephen B. Burbank, Aggregation on the Couch: The Strategic Uses of Ambiguity and Hypocrisy, 106 COLUM. L. REV. 1924, 1926-31 (2006).
35. See Stephen B. Burbank, Federal Judgments Law: Sources of Authority and Sources of Rules, 70 TEXAS L. REV. 1551, 1585 (1992).
36. See Stephen B, Burbank, The Courtroom as Classroom: Independence, Imagination and Ideology in the Work of Jack Weinstein, 97 COLUM. L. REV. 1971, 1998 (1997).
37. See ROBERT W. MILLAR, CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE TRIAL COURT IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (1952).
38. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8 ("GENERAL RULES OF PLEADING").
39. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26-37 ("DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY"). In tightening pleading requirements under the Federal Rules, a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the close relationship of pleading policy to discovery.
40. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1967 (2007);
41. Editorial, The Devil in the Details, 91 JUDICATURE 52 (2007).
42. See Burbank, supra n. 9, at 597 n.20.
43. See id. at 597-98, 603.
44. See, e.g., Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003);
45. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
46. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
47. See Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. 681 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1982) (reversing preclusion orders).
48. See Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc. 782 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1986) (affirming partial class certification and trial plan calling for consolidated mini-trials).
49. See In re Fibreboard, 893 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1990) and Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 151 F.3d 297 (5th Cir. 1998) (disapproving two different trial plans relying on statistical sampling).
50. See Stephen B. Burbank, The Costs of Complexity, (book review), 85 MICH. L. REV. (1987).