MENU

Litigation

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

  • Class Actions
  • Federal Jurisdiction
  • Securities Litigation
  • Torts & Product Liability
  • Trial & Appellate

2017 National Lawyers Convention

Administrative Agencies and the Regulatory State
November 16, 2017

The 2017 National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 16 through Saturday, November 18 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The topic of this year's convention is: Administrative Agencies and the Regulatory State. More information will be posted soon!

Supreme Court Preview: What Is in Store for October Term 2017?

Co-Sponsored by the Faculty Division and the Practice Groups
Jan Crawford, Kyle Duncan, Samuel Estreicher, Orin S. Kerr, Andrew J. Pincus, Carrie Severino September 27, 2017

This event is being live-streamed.

October 2nd will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2017 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving Federal Courts, redistricting, the First Amendment, election law, business law, class actions, international and immigration issues, alien tort statutes, and the Fourth Amendment.

The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Samuel Estreicher, New York University School of Law
  • Prof. Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School
  • Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan, LLP
  • Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network
  • Andrew Pincus, Mayer Brown, LLP
  • Moderator: Ms. Jan Crawford, CBS News

ALI Civil Justice Update - Podcast

Litigation & Professional Responsibilities & Legal Education Practice Group Podcast
Victor E. Schwartz August 10, 2017

Since 1923, the  American Law Institute has exercised more influence on judge-made common law than any other private institution. The ALI’s most influential work has come in the form of periodic publications known as Restatements of the Law. These descriptions of existing law are relied on and trusted by judges, lawyers, legal scholars, and law students for thoughtfully objective analysis. In 2009, ALI published the first volume of “Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm.” For the first time in the institute’s history, its restatement went beyond reviewing existing law and recommended fundamental change: an unprecedented expansion of landowners’ duty of care to all visitors, including unwanted trespassers. This restatement was lauded by the trial bar and sent shockwaves through corporate legal circles. Although ALI has as much right as other interest groups to advocate for changes in the law, is it still entitled to special deference from judges? Justice Antonin Scalia raised concerns in a 2015 opinion. The authors of ALI restatements, he observed, have “over time . . . abandoned the mission of describing the law, and have chosen instead to set forth their aspirations for what the law ought to be.” Victor Schwartz, Partner at Shook Hardy & Bacon, joined us for a discussion on the American Law Institute's evolving position on civil liability reform.

Featuring:

  • Victor E. Schwartz, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP

ALI Civil Justice Update

Litigation Practice Group Teleforum
Victor E. Schwartz August 09, 2017

Since 1923, the  American Law Institute has exercised more influence on judge-made common law than any other private institution. The ALI’s most influential work has come in the form of periodic publications known as Restatements of the Law. These descriptions of existing law are relied on and trusted by judges, lawyers, legal scholars, and law students for thoughtfully objective analysis. In 2009, ALI published the first volume of “Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm.” For the first time in the institute’s history, its restatement went beyond reviewing existing law and recommended fundamental change: an unprecedented expansion of landowners’ duty of care to all visitors, including unwanted trespassers. This restatement was lauded by the trial bar and sent shockwaves through corporate legal circles. Although ALI has as much right as other interest groups to advocate for changes in the law, is it still entitled to special deference from judges? Justice Antonin Scalia raised concerns in a 2015 opinion. The authors of ALI restatements, he observed, have “over time . . . abandoned the mission of describing the law, and have chosen instead to set forth their aspirations for what the law ought to be.” Please join us for a discussion on the American Law Institute's evolving position on civil liability reform with Victor Schwartz, Partner at Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Featuring:

  • Victor E. Schwartz, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP

2017 Annual Supreme Court Round Up - Event Audio/Video

Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter
Miguel Estrada, Douglas R. Cox July 28, 2017

On July 13, 2017, Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Miguel Estrada, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Introduction: Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Courthouse Steps: California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Mark Chenoweth June 28, 2017

On April 17, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities. Between July 2007 and January 2008, Lehman Brothers raised over $31 billion through debt offerings. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest pension fund in the country, purchased millions of dollars of these securities. CalPERS sued Lehman Brothers in 2011, and their case was merged with another retirement fund’s putative class action suit against Lehman Brothers and transferred to a New York district court. Later that year, the other parties settled, but CalPERS decided to pursue its claims individually. The district court dismissed for untimely filing, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the filing of a putative class action serves, under the American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah rule, to satisfy the three-year time limitation in Section 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members. On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals dismissal of the lawsuit. Mark Chenoweth of the Washington Legal Foundation joined us to discuss the decision and its significance.

Featuring:

  • Mark Chenoweth, General Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation

Courthouse Steps: California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities

Litigation Practice Group Teleforum
Mark Chenoweth June 27, 2017

On April 17, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities. Between July 2007 and January 2008, Lehman Brothers raised over $31 billion through debt offerings. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest pension fund in the country, purchased millions of dollars of these securities. CalPERS sued Lehman Brothers in 2011, and their case was merged with another retirement fund’s putative class action suit against Lehman Brothers and transferred to a New York district court. Later that year, the other parties settled, but CalPERS decided to pursue its claims individually. The district court dismissed for untimely filing, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the filing of a putative class action serves, under the American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah rule, to satisfy the three-year time limitation in Section 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members. On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals dismissal of the lawsuit. Mark Chenoweth of the Washington Legal Foundation will join us to discuss the decision and its significance.

Featuring:

  • Mark Chenoweth, General Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation

 

Microsoft v. Baker Decided - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Theodore H. Frank June 19, 2017

Microsoft v. Baker involved a class action lawsuit against the Microsoft Company by plaintiffs who alleged that during games on their Xbox video game console, the game disc would come loose and scratch the internal components of the device, permanently damaging the Xbox. Since only .4% of Xbox consoles experienced this issue, the district court determined that "a class action suit could not be certified and individuals in the suit would have to come forward on their own." The named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the court overturned the lower court's decision and held that the district court misapplied the law and abused its discretion in removing the class action allegations.

On Monday, June 12 the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the decision. Ted Frank of the Competitive Enterprise Institute joined us to discuss the holding and its significance.

Featuring:

  • Theodore H. Frank, Senior Attorney, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Microsoft v. Baker Decided

Litigation Practice Group Teleforum
Theodore H. Frank June 16, 2017

Microsoft v. Baker involved a class action lawsuit against the Microsoft Company by plaintiffs who alleged that during games on their Xbox video game console, the game disc would come loose and scratch the internal components of the device, permanently damaging the Xbox. Since only .4% of Xbox consoles experienced this issue, the district court determined that "a class action suit could not be certified and individuals in the suit would have to come forward on their own." The named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the court overturned the lower court's decision and held that the district court misapplied the law and abused its discretion in removing the class action allegations.

On Monday, June 12 the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the decision. Ted Frank of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will join us to discuss the holding and its significance.

Featuring:

  • Theodore H. Frank, Senior Attorney, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Competitive Enterprise Institute

A Modest Proposal for the Reduction of the Size of the Federal Judiciary by Two-Thirds

Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
Brian M. Cogan June 05, 2017

This is the first article in a new Commentary section in the Federalist Society Review. In this section, we will feature interesting ideas and provocative proposals related to the legal profession. Here, a federal district judge tells us from his point of view of a few simple things Congress could do to dramatically reduce federal judges’ caseloads—largely by moving more state law-based cases into state court. [Read Now]