|
LCJ is the preeminent corporate and defense expert on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Since its founding in 1987, LCJ has advocated for rule reforms aimed at helping the FRCP achieve Rule 1’s objective of securing “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” LCJ’s amicus program is integral to our mission because judicial interpretations can dramatically change a rule’s effectiveness. As amicus curiae, LCJ employs its deep experience and unique perspective to help ensure sensible interpretations of civil rules. The below cases are representative of LCJ’s amicus program.
If you would like for LCJ to consider a request for amicus support, please complete this form and email it to LCJ's Executive Director Andrea Looney. |
The following are LCJ’s recent amicus briefs:
James Stuart v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Issue: LCJ argued that Rule 23’s predominance and superiority provisions require a district court to do more than simply accept a plaintiff’s theory of liability as a common issue when that theory essentially misstates the actual issues in the case. Such requirements are important to protecting a class action defendant’s ability to raise defenses, such as the lack of standing, which is clearly present here in at least some of the plaintiff’s cases. If predominance and superiority are given such short shrift that plaintiffs need merely come up with a theory that has common elements, although the actual proofs will require case-by-case analysis, the rule’s careful articulation of criteria for predominance and superiority becomes meaningless. LCJ has a strong interest in a sensible interpretation of the rule – and one that gives effect to the criteria that must be satisfied to certify a class.
Outcome: To be decided next term.
Frank v. Gaos
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether Rule 23’s requirement that a settlement binding on class members be “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” cannot be satisfied by a cy pres award, especially when there is no direct relief to class members
Outcome: To be decided next term.
In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation
Court: Northern District of California
Issue: Capricious discovery sanctions order issued to non-party litigant (Apple)
Outcome: Discovery sanctions lifted by Judge Koh, who referred to the LCJ brief in her ruling. Read the order here and a Corporate Counsel article about the case here.
In re State Farm Lloyds, Inc.
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Issue: Costly and unnecessary requirement to produce ESI in particular format
Outcome: The Texas Supreme Court held that "Under our discovery rules, neither party may dictate the form of electronic discovery. The requesting party must specify the desired form of production, but all discovery is subject to the proportionality overlay embedded in our discovery rules . . ." Unless ordered otherwise, however, “the responding party need only produce the data reasonably available in the ordinary course of business in reasonably usable form.” You may read the entire opinion here.
In re State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
LaBrier v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Court: 8th Circuit
Issue: The proper scope of discovery in a class action post-2015 amendments
Outcome: The appellate court reversed the trial court's certification of the class and vacated the order upholding premature class wide discovery. You may read the entire opinion here.
Campbell-Ewald Company v. Jose Gomez
Court: U. S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether the question of allowing an offer of relief to the named plaintiff to moot a class action complaint is more appropriately addressed by the Court or by the rule making process.
Outcome: An unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case, so the district court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff’s complaint.
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Issue: LCJ argued that Rule 23’s predominance and superiority provisions require a district court to do more than simply accept a plaintiff’s theory of liability as a common issue when that theory essentially misstates the actual issues in the case. Such requirements are important to protecting a class action defendant’s ability to raise defenses, such as the lack of standing, which is clearly present here in at least some of the plaintiff’s cases. If predominance and superiority are given such short shrift that plaintiffs need merely come up with a theory that has common elements, although the actual proofs will require case-by-case analysis, the rule’s careful articulation of criteria for predominance and superiority becomes meaningless. LCJ has a strong interest in a sensible interpretation of the rule – and one that gives effect to the criteria that must be satisfied to certify a class.
Outcome: To be decided next term.
Frank v. Gaos
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether Rule 23’s requirement that a settlement binding on class members be “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” cannot be satisfied by a cy pres award, especially when there is no direct relief to class members
Outcome: To be decided next term.
In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation
Court: Northern District of California
Issue: Capricious discovery sanctions order issued to non-party litigant (Apple)
Outcome: Discovery sanctions lifted by Judge Koh, who referred to the LCJ brief in her ruling. Read the order here and a Corporate Counsel article about the case here.
In re State Farm Lloyds, Inc.
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Issue: Costly and unnecessary requirement to produce ESI in particular format
Outcome: The Texas Supreme Court held that "Under our discovery rules, neither party may dictate the form of electronic discovery. The requesting party must specify the desired form of production, but all discovery is subject to the proportionality overlay embedded in our discovery rules . . ." Unless ordered otherwise, however, “the responding party need only produce the data reasonably available in the ordinary course of business in reasonably usable form.” You may read the entire opinion here.
In re State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
LaBrier v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Court: 8th Circuit
Issue: The proper scope of discovery in a class action post-2015 amendments
Outcome: The appellate court reversed the trial court's certification of the class and vacated the order upholding premature class wide discovery. You may read the entire opinion here.
Campbell-Ewald Company v. Jose Gomez
Court: U. S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether the question of allowing an offer of relief to the named plaintiff to moot a class action complaint is more appropriately addressed by the Court or by the rule making process.
Outcome: An unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case, so the district court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff’s complaint.
