April 2013
New York University Law Review;Apr2013, Vol. 88 Issue 1, p286
Academic Journal
When the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were promulgated in 1938, they reflected a policy of citizen access for civil disputes and sought to promote their resolution on the merits rather than on the basis of the technicalities that characterized earlier procedural systems.The federal courts applied that philosophy of procedure for many years. However, the last quarter century has seen a dramatic contrary shift in the way the federal courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, have interpreted and applied the Federal Rules and other procedural matters. This shift has produced the increasingly early procedural disposition of cases prior to trial. Indeed, civil trials, especially jury trials, are very few and far between today. The author examines the significant manifestations of this dramatic change, and traces the shift in judicial attitude back to the three pro-summary judgment decisions by the Supreme Court in 1986. Furthermore, he goes on to discuss the judicial gatekeeping that has emerged regarding (1) expert testimony, (2) the constriction of class action certification, (3) the enforcement of arbitration clauses in an extraordinary array of contracts (many adhesive in character), (4) the Court's abandonment of notice pleading in favor of plausibility pleading (which, in effect, is a return to fact pleading), (5) the intimations of a potential narrowing of the reach of in personam jurisdiction, and (6) a number of limitations on pretrial discovery that have resulted from Rule amendments during the last twenty-five years. All of these changes restrict the ability of plaintiffs to reach a determination of their claims' merits, which has resulted in a narrowing effect on citizen access to a meaningful day in court. Beyond that, these restrictive procedural developments work against the effectiveness of private litigation to enforce various public policies involving such matters as civil rights, antitrust, employment discrimination, and securities regulation. Concerns about abusive and frivolous litigation, threats of extortionate settlements, and the high cost of today's large-scale lawsuits motivate these deviations from the original philosophy of the Federal Rules, but these concerns fail to take proper account of other systemic values. The author argues that these assertions are speculative and not empirically justified, are overstated, and simply reflect the self-interest of various groups that seek to terminate claims asserted against them as early as possible to avoid both discovery and a trial. Indeed, they simply may reflect a strong pro-business and pro-government orientation of today's federal judiciary. The author cautions that some restoration of the earlier underlying philosophy of the Federal Rules is necessary if we are to preserve the procedural principles that should underlie our civil justice system and maintain the viability of private litigation as an adjunct to government regulation for the enforcement of important societal policies and values.


Related Articles

  • Class Actions and Access to Justice. Trangsrud, Roger H. // George Washington Law Review;May2014, Vol. 82 Issue 3, p595 

    An introduction is presented in which the author discusses various reports within the journal on topics including American class action lawsuits, access to justice in the U.S., and the use of evidence and expert testimony at class action certification hearings.

  • AN OPT-IN OPTION FOR CLASS ACTIONS. Dodson, Scott // Michigan Law Review;Nov2016, Vol. 115 Issue 2, p171 

    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...

  • DEATH BY DAUBERT: THE CONTINUED ATTACK ON PRIVATE ANTITRUST. Bartholomew, Christine P. // Cardozo Law Review;Aug2014, Vol. 35 Issue 6, p2147 

    In 2011, with five words of dicta, the Supreme Court opened Pandora's Box for private antitrust enforcements By suggesting trial courts must evaluate the admissibility of expert testimony at class certification, the Court placed a significant obstacle in the path of antitrust class actions....

  • What Goes Around, Comes Around: From the Rector of Barkway to Knowles. Vairo, Georgene // Review of Litigation;Symposium2013, Vol. 32 Issue 4, p721 

    No abstract available.

  • Address exposure and discovery challenges early in class action litigation. Fisher, Eric S.; Grelecki, Ryan C. // Inside Counsel (SyndiGate Media Inc.);10/22/2015, p1 

    The article reports on the cost of class action litigation and pre-certification discovery process in the U.S. Topics discussed include the criteria that a plaintiff must meet before requesting for class action certification from the court, the results of a 2010 study conducted by the California...

  • DISCRETION IN CLASS CERTIFICATION. BARRINGTON WOLFF, TOBIAS // University of Pennsylvania Law Review;Jun2014, Vol. 162 Issue 7, p1897 

    The article discusses an abuse of discretion standard in class certification in America, focusing on the class action-related jurisprudence of various U.S. federal and district courts, as well as information about Rule 23 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which deals with class action...

  • CFPB Eyeing Arbitration Clauses.  // Pratt's Letter;12/16/2013, p2 

    The article discusses the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) focus on clauses of arbitration in consumer financial products and services in the U.S. It mentions its report referenced by its Director Richard Cordray highlighting the inclusion of the clauses in contracts, their...

  • CFPB Plan Would All But Ban Arbitration Clauses. Adler, Joe // American Banker;10/8/2015, Vol. 180 Issue 157, p0 

    The article focuses on the plans of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) regarding class-action lawsuits. Topics discussed include elimination of arbitration clauses from product agreements, need of arbitration clauses only in an individual claims, and views of Richard Cordray,...

  • CFPB Arbitration Plan Provokes Dubious Industry Claims. Sovern, Jeff // American Banker;11/16/2015, Vol. 180 Issue 175, p0 

    The article focuses on the proposed restrictions on arbitration clauses by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Topics discussed include views of CFPB Director Richard Cordray on customers accountability with arbitration clauses, solving customer disputes with class actions thereby...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics