FRCP Issue/Topic

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
holdencaulfield
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:12 pm

FRCP Issue/Topic

Postby holdencaulfield » Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:56 am

I need a current issue involving the FRCP to write about. I'm having a hard time coming up with many good open or unsettled issues. I'm leaning towards new developments regarding motions to transfer venue. I don't want to do electronic discovery.


Any ideas would be much, much appreciated...especially from the 1L's currently in civ pro.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: FRCP Issue/Topic

Postby kalvano » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:06 am

The pleading standard established in Iqbal and Twombly.

Our professor said that such a marked shift will have far-reaching implications and it's up in the air what it will mean.

User avatar
holdencaulfield
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: FRCP Issue/Topic

Postby holdencaulfield » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:18 am

kalvano wrote:The pleading standard established in Iqbal and Twombly.

Our professor said that such a marked shift will have far-reaching implications and it's up in the air what it will mean.


I was considering Twombly and possibly examining situations where Limited discovery is required to prove plausibility.

I'm also considering writing about the home-state exceptions in CAFA.

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm

Re: FRCP Issue/Topic

Postby ggocat » Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:05 am

betasteve wrote:Twombly/Iqbal has been fucking destroyed with scholarship.

+1.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: FRCP Issue/Topic

Postby bjsesq » Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:08 am

ggocat wrote:
betasteve wrote:Twombly/Iqbal has been fucking destroyed with scholarship.

+1.

Am I an idiot for still agreeing with much of Twombly?

Iqbal is a goatfuck, i got nothing for that.

zay
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:21 pm

Re: FRCP Issue/Topic

Postby zay » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:41 pm

holdencaulfield wrote:I need a current issue involving the FRCP to write about. I'm having a hard time coming up with many good open or unsettled issues. I'm leaning towards new developments regarding motions to transfer venue. I don't want to do electronic discovery.


Any ideas would be much, much appreciated...especially from the 1L's currently in civ pro.


Do a comparison of the various circuits and their respective approaches to venue transfer requests. Lately, EDTX has gotten smacked down by the Fed. Cir. for not transferring venue (because patent lit plaintiffs will file in EDTX in hopes of getting some plaintiff-friendly love). But (I think), the 3rd cir. puts a lot more emphasis on plaintiff's forum choice as being a heavily-weighed factor.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: FRCP Issue/Topic

Postby bjsesq » Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:09 pm

betasteve wrote:
bjsesq wrote:
ggocat wrote:
betasteve wrote:Twombly/Iqbal has been fucking destroyed with scholarship.

+1.

Am I an idiot for still agreeing with much of Twombly?

Iqbal is a goatfuck, i got nothing for that.

I think twombly was rightly decided after taking antitrust.

Awwwwww, sweet relief. The silence was deafening.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: FRCP Issue/Topic

Postby Helmholtz » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:58 pm

ggocat wrote:
betasteve wrote:Twombly/Iqbal has been fucking destroyed with scholarship.

+1.


agreed

And looking at all the articles that have been published so far on it, you would have one hell of job before you stretching to approach it from a fresh perspective.

User avatar
holdencaulfield
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: FRCP Issue/Topic

Postby holdencaulfield » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:29 pm

betasteve wrote: Malack v. BDO Seidman was a recent COA case that had to do with class certification in SEC 10b-5 actions. Malack held that a fraud-created-the-market theory of reliance (an element required for a 10b5 action) could not be used to meet the predominance reliance for class certification (Part of FRCP 23, I think).


It's 23(b)(3), and it's not a bad idea for a topic.

Any other suggestions?

missinglink
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:49 am

Re: FRCP Issue/Topic

Postby missinglink » Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:58 am

Talk about Rule 23 reminded me of the Walmart Class action, and similar class actions, where the plaintiffs are asking for significant monetary relief under rule 23(b)(2), which is primarily for injunctive relief. Right now there is a Circuit split as to how to deal with plaintiffs who ask for monetary relief under a 23(b)(2) certification. Part of the reason I imagine the Supreme Court granted review.

Not sure if the issue hasn't been flogged to death in the academic literature though.

It also might be premature to weigh in on the issue, at least until the Supremes have their say. I'm reminded of a story one of my academic advisors told me about a doctoral candidate he had advised. She wrote her dissertation in 1988 about how the Soviet Union would likely endure for another decade or two. Events have a funny way of getting in the way of things sometimes.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests