Search

I. Introduction According to Blacks Law Dictionary, in rem [Latin for "against a thing"] is jurisdiction "involving or determining the status of the thing, and therefore the rights of persons [...]

The article focuses on the works of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). Topics include hearing has evolved into a uniquely efficient centralization mechanism designed to afford logistical due process, percentage of centralization petitions that the Panel grants has decreased, and COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation.

As part of a symposium addressing what the next 50 years might hold for class actions, mass torts, and MDLs, this Article examines a recent amendment to Rule 23 that offers a new solution to the persistent problem of strategic objections. Most significantly, Rule 23 now requires the district judge to approve any payments made to class members in exchange for withdrawing or forgoing challenges to a class action settlement. Although the new provision is still in its infancy, it has already been deployed to thwart improper objector behavior and to bring for-pay objection practice out of the shadows. The 2018 changes--along with other on-the-ground developments--are important steps toward improving the class action settlement process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The class action has emerged as the settlement instrument of choice in mass harm cases such as the Volkswagen emissions scandal or the Deepwater Horizon aftermath. But the class action has also reemerged in the mass tort context, most notably in the NFL Concussion litigation. After seemingly collapsing following the Amchem and Ortiz Supreme Court decisions of the 1990s, the class action device is getting an important second life in courts today. This Article argues that the new class action has a feature that should increase its doctrinal acceptability: forms of active class member participation. What we term the "participatory class action" emerges from two developments. The first is the technological transformation in the means of communication with class members and among the class members themselves. The second is that the current class action almost invariably arises from the initial aggregation and centralization of large numbers of individual suits and putative class actions in the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) process. As a result, classes are comprised not simply of lawyers and absent class members, but of hundreds or even thousands of individual claims, with individuals capable of monitoring the class and represented by independent counsel. With over forty percent of the actively litigated civil cases in federal courts now in the MDL dockets, the transformation in mass resolution is well underway. In these new consolidations, the assumptions of older law about absent class member passivity break down. In the popular typology in academic examination of class actions, class action law should insist on the loyalty of agents and the importance of individual ability to exit as guarantors of systemic legitimacy. In the participatory class action, voice emerges as a critical element, with the capacity of the normally silent class members to assert their interests and their views. As with the need for class action law to move from first-class mail to Twitter, so too must the law embrace the implications of real participation by those represented in the assessment of representational propriety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the prosecution and defense of various class action claims under Rule 23 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure during the first 10 years of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure as the head of the nation's top court, and it mentions the concept of class action exceptionalism and a cy pres legal doctrine. Several class action litigation matters are examined, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

"Modern society seems increasingly to expose men to ... group injuries for which individually they are in a poor position to seek legal redress, either because they do not know enough or because such redress is disproportionately expensive. If each is left to assert his rights alone if and when he can, there will at best be a random and fragmentary enforcement, if there is any at all. This result is not only unfortunate in the particular case, but it will operate seriously to impair the deterrent effect of the sanctions which underlie much contemporary law. The problem of fashioning an effective and inclusive group remedy is thus a major one." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author pays tribute to judge Mark R. Kravitz. Topics discussed include the role of Kravitz as the district judge for the U.S District Court for the District of Connecticut, his decision in case Mitchell v. City of New Haven brought by members of the Occupy movement, and his opinion based on the rule of law. He also mentions his decisions in lawsuits based on different legal issues.

The article pays tribute to Harvard Law School professor Arthur Miller.