In the several years since the Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, scholars and litigators have argued back and forth about the appropriate pleading standard for various kinds of lawsuits. One of the most vociferous parts of that debate is over whether class actions should be subject to
Revisiting “Aggregation and Its Discontents”
By The Editors on
Posted in Certification, Settlement
On Monday, I reported on the passing of Vanderbilt Professor Richard Nagareda. Given the widespread recognition of his contributions to studying aggregated litigation, it seemed appropriate to revisit one of his better articles: Aggregation and Its Discontents: Class Settlement Pressure, Class-Wide Arbitration, and CAFA, which originally appeared in the Columbia Law Review in…
The Value of Early Challenges: Richard Nagareda’s 1938 All Over Again
By The Editors on
Posted in Motions Practice
Vanderbilt law professor Richard Nagareda has written an essay for the DePaul Law Review entitled "1938 All Over Again?: Pre-trial as Trial in Complex Litigation." For the most part, this essay is a 30,000-foot view of litigation that emphasizes “cost imposition” (academic-speak for the idea that each party might try to drive up the other…
The Cost of Complex Litigation: Preliminary Rhetoric for the Motion to Dismiss
By The Editors on
Posted in Motions Practice
Since the Supreme court set out its “plausible claim” pleading standard in Ashcroft v. Iqbal last year, there has been a flurry of commentary – in law reviews and online – about the wisdom and the policy implications of the decision and its immediate predecessor, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly. The latest entry into that…