所有争端必须带到这里:大西洋海洋和未来的多地区诉讼

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW California Law Review Pub Date : 2018-01-01 DOI:10.15779/Z38BG2H979
Jordan F. Bock
{"title":"所有争端必须带到这里:大西洋海洋和未来的多地区诉讼","authors":"Jordan F. Bock","doi":"10.15779/Z38BG2H979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) is an immensely powerful tool. In an MDL, cases that share a common question of fact are consolidated in a single district for pretrial proceedings. MDLs abide by the general principle that governs all transfers within the federal system: because transfer is no more than a “housekeeping measure,” an action retains the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it was filed. If a case filed in California is transferred to an MDL pending in Iowa, the transferee court in Iowa applies California’s choice-of-law rules. As a result, the cases maintain their identities through the retention of their individual home state’s choice-of-law rules. It is thus a critical feature of MDLs—which have far fewer procedural protections than class actions—that transfer to an MDL does not change the applicable law for any individual action. In non-aggregate litigation, this general transfer rule no longer applies, however, when a case is transferred pursuant to a forum-selection clause. Under the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court, the transferee court applies its own choice-oflaw rules instead. Thus, if a case filed in California is transferred to Iowa in accordance with a forum-selection clause, the transferee court in Iowa applies Iowa’s choice-of-law rules. Although Atlantic Marine involved a non-aggregate proceeding, courts have begun to consider whether this principle should control choice of law in complex litigation governed by a forum-selection clause. This Note argues that it should not. To begin, extending Atlantic Marine to the MDL context might allow the fact of consolidation to change the outcome in a case. Doing so would also expand due process concerns already inherent in aggregate proceedings, and MDL is not an appropriate forum in which to allow parties discretion to craft their own rules of dispute resolution. Accordingly, to preserve the integrity of the MDL process, MDL courts should consistently apply the choice-of-law rules of the transferor court, even when an action is governed by a valid forumselection clause. 1658 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 106:1657 Abstract ................................................................................................. 1657 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1658 I. Prioritization of Vertical Uniformity ................................................. 1661 A. The Accident of Diversity Jurisdiction .............................. 1662 B. Transfer as a “Housekeeping” Measure ............................. 1664................................................................................................ 1657 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1658 I. Prioritization of Vertical Uniformity ................................................. 1661 A. The Accident of Diversity Jurisdiction .............................. 1662 B. Transfer as a “Housekeeping” Measure ............................. 1664 C. The Shift in Atlantic Marine .............................................. 1666 II. The Impact of Aggregation .............................................................. 1669 A. Consolidation and Choice of Law ..................................... 1670 B. Not Whether, But Where ................................................... 1672 C. Forum-Selection Clauses and Multidistrict Litigation ....... 1675 III. Multidistrict Litigation Following Atlantic Marine ........................ 1677 A. The Reach of Atlantic Marine ........................................... 1678 B. Maintaining Choice of Law Particularity .......................... 1679 1. Creation of Different Outcomes .................................. 1680 2. Due Process and the Pressure of Aggregation ............. 1684 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 1687","PeriodicalId":51452,"journal":{"name":"California Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"All Disputes Must Be Brought Here: Atlantic Marine and the Future of Multidistrict Litigation\",\"authors\":\"Jordan F. Bock\",\"doi\":\"10.15779/Z38BG2H979\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) is an immensely powerful tool. In an MDL, cases that share a common question of fact are consolidated in a single district for pretrial proceedings. MDLs abide by the general principle that governs all transfers within the federal system: because transfer is no more than a “housekeeping measure,” an action retains the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it was filed. If a case filed in California is transferred to an MDL pending in Iowa, the transferee court in Iowa applies California’s choice-of-law rules. As a result, the cases maintain their identities through the retention of their individual home state’s choice-of-law rules. It is thus a critical feature of MDLs—which have far fewer procedural protections than class actions—that transfer to an MDL does not change the applicable law for any individual action. In non-aggregate litigation, this general transfer rule no longer applies, however, when a case is transferred pursuant to a forum-selection clause. Under the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court, the transferee court applies its own choice-oflaw rules instead. Thus, if a case filed in California is transferred to Iowa in accordance with a forum-selection clause, the transferee court in Iowa applies Iowa’s choice-of-law rules. Although Atlantic Marine involved a non-aggregate proceeding, courts have begun to consider whether this principle should control choice of law in complex litigation governed by a forum-selection clause. This Note argues that it should not. To begin, extending Atlantic Marine to the MDL context might allow the fact of consolidation to change the outcome in a case. Doing so would also expand due process concerns already inherent in aggregate proceedings, and MDL is not an appropriate forum in which to allow parties discretion to craft their own rules of dispute resolution. Accordingly, to preserve the integrity of the MDL process, MDL courts should consistently apply the choice-of-law rules of the transferor court, even when an action is governed by a valid forumselection clause. 1658 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 106:1657 Abstract ................................................................................................. 1657 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1658 I. Prioritization of Vertical Uniformity ................................................. 1661 A. The Accident of Diversity Jurisdiction .............................. 1662 B. Transfer as a “Housekeeping” Measure ............................. 1664................................................................................................ 1657 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1658 I. Prioritization of Vertical Uniformity ................................................. 1661 A. The Accident of Diversity Jurisdiction .............................. 1662 B. Transfer as a “Housekeeping” Measure ............................. 1664 C. The Shift in Atlantic Marine .............................................. 1666 II. The Impact of Aggregation .............................................................. 1669 A. Consolidation and Choice of Law ..................................... 1670 B. Not Whether, But Where ................................................... 1672 C. Forum-Selection Clauses and Multidistrict Litigation ....... 1675 III. Multidistrict Litigation Following Atlantic Marine ........................ 1677 A. The Reach of Atlantic Marine ........................................... 1678 B. Maintaining Choice of Law Particularity .......................... 1679 1. Creation of Different Outcomes .................................. 1680 2. Due Process and the Pressure of Aggregation ............. 1684 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 1687\",\"PeriodicalId\":51452,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"California Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"California Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG2H979\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"California Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG2H979","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多地区诉讼(MDL)是一个非常强大的工具。在多边审判中,具有共同事实问题的案件被合并到一个地区进行审前程序。mdl遵守管理联邦系统内所有转移的一般原则:因为转移只不过是一项“内务措施”,一项诉讼保留了其提起诉讼的州的法律选择规则。如果在加州提起的案件被转移到爱荷华州悬而未决的MDL,爱荷华州的受让法院适用加州的法律选择规则。因此,这些案件通过保留各自所在州的法律选择规则来保持其身份。因此,与集体诉讼相比,MDL的程序性保护要少得多,这是MDL的一个关键特征,即转移到MDL不会改变任何个人诉讼的适用法律。但是,在非累计诉讼中,如果案件根据法院选择条款进行转移,则这一一般转移规则不再适用。根据最高法院2013年对大西洋海洋建设公司诉美国地方法院的判决,受让方法院适用自己的选择规则。因此,如果在加利福尼亚州提起的案件根据法院选择条款被转移到爱荷华州,爱荷华州的受让法院就适用爱荷华州的法律选择规则。虽然大西洋海事案涉及的是一项非集体诉讼,但法院已开始考虑这一原则是否应控制由法院选择条款管辖的复杂诉讼中的法律选择。本说明认为不应该这样做。首先,将大西洋海事扩展到MDL的背景下,可能会允许合并的事实改变案件的结果。这样做还会扩大综合诉讼中固有的正当程序问题,而多边军事法庭并不是一个适当的论坛,不允许当事方自行制定解决争端的规则。因此,为了维护MDL程序的完整性,MDL法院应始终适用转让方法院的法律选择规则,即使诉讼受有效的法庭选择条款管辖。1658年加利福尼亚法律评论》(卷。106:1657抽象 .................................................................................................1657年引入 ...........................................................................................1658年即优先级的垂直均匀性 .................................................1661 A。多样性的事故管辖 ..............................1662 b .转移作为“管家”措施 .............................1664年 ................................................................................................1657年引入 ...........................................................................................1658年即优先级的垂直均匀性 .................................................1661 A。多样性的事故管辖 ..............................1662 b .转移作为“管家”措施 .............................1664年大西洋海洋的转变 ..............................................1666二世。聚合的影响 ..............................................................1669 A。整合和法律的选择 .....................................1670 b .是否,但是 ...................................................1672 C.法院选择条款和多地区诉讼.......1675 III。Multidistrict诉讼后,大西洋的海洋 ........................1677 A。大西洋的海洋 ...........................................1678 b .维护法律的选择特殊性 ..........................1679年1。创建不同的结果 ..................................1680 2。正当程序和聚合压力.............1684年的结论 ............................................................................................1687
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
All Disputes Must Be Brought Here: Atlantic Marine and the Future of Multidistrict Litigation
Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) is an immensely powerful tool. In an MDL, cases that share a common question of fact are consolidated in a single district for pretrial proceedings. MDLs abide by the general principle that governs all transfers within the federal system: because transfer is no more than a “housekeeping measure,” an action retains the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it was filed. If a case filed in California is transferred to an MDL pending in Iowa, the transferee court in Iowa applies California’s choice-of-law rules. As a result, the cases maintain their identities through the retention of their individual home state’s choice-of-law rules. It is thus a critical feature of MDLs—which have far fewer procedural protections than class actions—that transfer to an MDL does not change the applicable law for any individual action. In non-aggregate litigation, this general transfer rule no longer applies, however, when a case is transferred pursuant to a forum-selection clause. Under the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court, the transferee court applies its own choice-oflaw rules instead. Thus, if a case filed in California is transferred to Iowa in accordance with a forum-selection clause, the transferee court in Iowa applies Iowa’s choice-of-law rules. Although Atlantic Marine involved a non-aggregate proceeding, courts have begun to consider whether this principle should control choice of law in complex litigation governed by a forum-selection clause. This Note argues that it should not. To begin, extending Atlantic Marine to the MDL context might allow the fact of consolidation to change the outcome in a case. Doing so would also expand due process concerns already inherent in aggregate proceedings, and MDL is not an appropriate forum in which to allow parties discretion to craft their own rules of dispute resolution. Accordingly, to preserve the integrity of the MDL process, MDL courts should consistently apply the choice-of-law rules of the transferor court, even when an action is governed by a valid forumselection clause. 1658 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 106:1657 Abstract ................................................................................................. 1657 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1658 I. Prioritization of Vertical Uniformity ................................................. 1661 A. The Accident of Diversity Jurisdiction .............................. 1662 B. Transfer as a “Housekeeping” Measure ............................. 1664................................................................................................ 1657 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1658 I. Prioritization of Vertical Uniformity ................................................. 1661 A. The Accident of Diversity Jurisdiction .............................. 1662 B. Transfer as a “Housekeeping” Measure ............................. 1664 C. The Shift in Atlantic Marine .............................................. 1666 II. The Impact of Aggregation .............................................................. 1669 A. Consolidation and Choice of Law ..................................... 1670 B. Not Whether, But Where ................................................... 1672 C. Forum-Selection Clauses and Multidistrict Litigation ....... 1675 III. Multidistrict Litigation Following Atlantic Marine ........................ 1677 A. The Reach of Atlantic Marine ........................................... 1678 B. Maintaining Choice of Law Particularity .......................... 1679 1. Creation of Different Outcomes .................................. 1680 2. Due Process and the Pressure of Aggregation ............. 1684 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 1687
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: This review essay considers the state of hybrid democracy in California through an examination of three worthy books: Daniel Weintraub, Party of One: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of the Independent Voter; Center for Governmental Studies, Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California"s Fourth Branch of Government (Second Edition), and Mark Baldassare and Cheryl Katz, The Coming of Age of Direct Democracy: California"s Recall and Beyond. The essay concludes that despite the hoopla about Governor Schwarzenegger as a "party of one" and a new age of "hybrid democracy" in California.
期刊最新文献
Democracy's Destiny Visible Policing: Technology, Transparency, and Democratic Control An Unstable Core: Self-Defense and the Second Amendment Paper Terrorists: Independence Movements and the Terrorism Bar Pump the Brakes: What Financial Regulators Should Consider in Trying to Prevent a Subprime Auto Loan Bubble
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1