Toward a Principled Statutory Approach to Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity of Citizenship Cases

Symposium: A Reappraisal of the Supplemental-Jurisdiction Statute: Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367

Toward a Principled Statutory Approach to Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity of Citizenship Cases

Symposium: A Reappraisal of the Supplemental-Jurisdiction Statute: Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367

Front-Loading, Avoidance, and Other Features of the Recent Supreme Court Class Action Jurisprudence

This Article discusses each of the thirteen Supreme Court decisions with the goal of drawing at least tentative conclusions for their impact on federal class practice. The thirteen decisions may be placed into five groups. Only three of the cases directly involve the general interpretation and application of Rule 23, while the other ten fall into four particular substantive areas. Reflecting these divisions, this Article proceeds in five parts. Part I discusses the three cases directly interpreting Rule 23. Part II addresses the three decisions involving securities classes brought under Rule 10b-5. Part III discusses the three decisions involving the Federal Arbitration Act. Part IV engages the two decisions addressing the non-party status of class members. And Part V concerns those decisions interpreting specialized grants of federal jurisdiction

The Irrepressible Influence of Byrd

We set forth four interrelated theses in this article. First, Byrd is the only Supreme Court case since Erie itself to discuss all three of the core interests balanced, expressly or not, in every vertical choice of law case. Second, because Hanna\u27s twin aims test ignores two of these three core interests, it cannot adequately serve as the standard for cases under the Rules of Decision Act ( RDA ). This fact is evidenced by the Court\u27s eschewing the twin aims test in cases, like Gasperini, where state and federal interests must be accommodated. Third, as all three opinions in Shady Grove demonstrate, the three interests identified in Byrd are also present in cases governed by the Rules Enabling Act ( REA ). Our final thesis is that the Supreme Court should expressly recognize the applicability of the core interests embraced by Byrd to all Erie doctrine cases and incorporate them into the legal tests for resolving them