Volume 46, Issue 4 Summer 2013



Robert G. Bone
Walking the Class Action Maze: Toward a More Functional Rule 23 (PDF)

Catherine M. Sharkey
The Future of Class Wide Punitive Damages (PDF)

David Korn & David Rosenberg
Concepcion‘s Pro-Defendant Biasing of the Arbitration Process: The Class Counsel Solution (PDF)

Janet Cooper Alexander
To Skin a Cat: Qui Tam Actions  as a State Legislative Response to Concepcion (PDF)

Cindy A Schipani & Terry Morehead Dworkin
Class Action Litigation After Dukes: In Search of a Remedy for Gender Discrimination in Employment (PDF)

Patrick M. Hanlon
An Experiment in Law Reform: Amchem Products v. Windsor (PDF)

Dana M. Muir, Junhai Liu, and Haiyan Xu
The Future of Securities Class Actions Against Foreign Companies: China and Comity Concerns (PDF)


Max Hensley
Power to the People: Why we Need Full Federal Preemption of Electrical Transmission Regulation (PDF)

Why American Express v. Italian Colors Does Not Matter and Coordinated Pursuit of Aggregate Claims May Be a Viable Option After Concepcion

Gregory C. Cook*

2 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 104A

This Comment suggests that the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant1 will not change the class action landscape. While the plaintiff bar contends that certain public policy goals will be lost as a result of American Express and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,2 this Comment argues that, in the correct circumstances, coordinated individual arbitrations can address at least some of these public policy goals and plaintiff counsel should focus on such coordination efforts (including, for instance, ethically recruiting actually-injured plaintiffs, the use of common plaintiff counsel, the use of common experts, and shared discovery).

Continue reading

Audio Tapes: Class-Action Reform Symposium

Class-Actions and Damages Panel

Featuring: Patrick Hanlon (Stanford Law School), Catherine Sharkey (New York University Law School), John Beisner (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom), David Santacroce (University of Michigan Law School), and moderated by Richard Friedman (University of Michigan Law School).

Class-Actions and Arbitration Panel

Featuring: Brian Fitzpatrick (Vanderbilt Law School), Linda Mullenix (Texas Law School), David Rosenberg (Harvard Law School), Jeffrey Greenbaum (Sills Cummis & Gross),  Maria Glover (Georgetown University Law Center), Gregory Cook (Balch & Bingham), Janet Alexander (Stanford Law School), Hiro Aragaki (Loyola Law School), Brian Murray (Jones Day), and moderated by Margaret Jane Radin (University of Michigan Law School).

Securities Class Actions Panel

Featuring: Dana Muir (University of Michigan Ross School of Business), Catherine Barrad (Sidley Austin), James Cox (Duke Law School), Randall Thomas (Vanderbilt Law School), and moderated by Adam Pritchard (University of Michigan Law School).

Rule 23 Panel

Featuring: Robert Bone (Texas Law School), Linda Mullinex (Texas Law School), Steven Ellis (Goodwin Procter), Daniel Girard (Girard Gibbs), and moderated by Ed Cooper (University of Michigan Law School).

Lunch Keynote

Featuring: Cindy Schipani (University of Michigan Ross School of Business), Terry Dworkin (Indiana University).

Cruises, Class Actions, and the Court

David Korn and David Rosenberg*

2 U. Mich. J.L. Reform A96

As the Carnival Triumph debacle splashed across the national consciousness,1 lawyers shook their heads. Sensationalist news coverage exposed common knowledge in the legal community: cruise passengers have little recourse against carriers, and, as a result, they often bear the brunt of serious physical and financial injuries. Cruise lines, escaping legal accountability for their negligence, sail off undeterred from neglecting passenger safety on future voyages.2 While its previous decisions helped entrench this problem, a recently argued case presents the Supreme Court with another opportunity to address it.3

Continue reading

Judges! Stop Deferring to Class-Action Lawyers

Brian Wolfman*

2 U. Mich. J.L. Reform A80

I. The Problem

I represent a national non-profit consumer rights organization, as an amicus, in a federal appeal challenging a district court’s approval of a class-action settlement of claims under the federal Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA).1 My client maintains that the district court erred in finding that the settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” which is the standard for class-action settlement approval under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 In particular, we argue that the district court committed a reversible legal error when it deferred to the class-action lawyers’ recommendation to approve the settlement because, in those lawyers’ view, it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. We also argue that the district court erred when, in approving the settlement, it relied in part on its belief that the plaintiffs’ counsel, whose work the judge had observed for years, are really good lawyers.

Continue reading

Symposium: The Future of Class-Action Litigation

The University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform is inviting you to witness top legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers discuss the future of class-action litigation and class-action reform this Friday, March 15th, and Saturday, March 16th.

The Symposium will include panels focusing on the impact of arbitration clauses on class-action suits (providing real cases data, like Xarelto class action lawsuits, etc) and the role of damages in mass-tort litigation, a special panel on securities class actions, and a concluding panel that will propose reforms to the rules of civil procedure that govern class-action litigation in the federal courts. Additionally, attendees will hear keynote addresses that address class-action litigation from business and policy perspectives.

The event is co-sponsored by the University of Michigan Law School and the Ross School of business, and isFREE and open to the public.

Location: 1225 South Hall, 701 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Dates: Friday, March 15th, 6:30PM-8:30. Saturday, March 16th, 8:30AM-8:00PM