Characteristic matrices for linear periodic delay differential equations

Szalai et al. (SIAM J. on Sci. Comp. 28(4), 2006) gave a general construction for characteristic matrices for systems of linear delay-differential equations with periodic coefficients. First, we show that matrices constructed in this way can have a discrete set of poles in the complex plane, which may possibly obstruct their use when determining the stability of the linear system. Then we modify and generalize the original construction such that the poles get pushed into a small neighborhood of the origin of the complex plane.Comment: 17 pages, 1 figur

Boba Fett, Bounty Hunters, and the Supreme Court’s \u3cem\u3eViking River\u3c/em\u3e Decision: A New Hope

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a fractured decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (June 15, 2022), a classic David v. Goliath clash between a worker and employer. Can arbitration agreements be used to eliminate group or representative actions brought against employers, where the plaintiff worker is serving as a bounty hunter for the State? Although the majority clearly holds that a worker’s individual claims must be sent to arbitration pursuant to a predispute arbitration agreement, the splintered opinions leave some uncertainty regarding what happens to the representative claims of the other workers. Using the Star Wars universe, this Article clarifies and critiques flaws in the Court’s ruling. The decision provides a new hope and blueprint for protecting the rights of workers and consumers around the country

Obituary for the Federal Arbitration Act: An Older Cousin to Modern Civil Procedure, An

In order to explore the different ways in which the FAA is related to the development of modern civil procedure, this article is divided into four main parts. first, this article discusses how the FAA is related to the Judiciary Act of 1925. Second, this article focuses on the FAA\u27s relationship to the enactment of the Rules Enabling Act and the related adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Third, this article discusses how the Supreme Court\u27s transformation of the doctrine of personal jurisdiction in International Shoe is related to the enactment of the FAA. Fourth, this article discusses how the FAA\u27s relationship to important procedural developments helps emphasize that there is an interconnectivity between arbitration and litigation, and through this examination, one also sees how the FAA can serve our legal system and modem society in different way

#MeToo’s Landmark, Yet Flawed, Impact on Dispute Resolution: The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021

On March 3, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the Amendment) into law. This Amendment is the most significant change in the last several decades to the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA), the main federal law governing arbitration since 1925. This landmark Amendment is also the most important federal legislation to arise thus far from the #MeToo movement. The Amendment invalidates predispute arbitration agreements in cases involving sexual harassment or sexual assault, thereby allowing survivors to proceed with their claims in public court with more robust procedural protections. With hundreds of millions of arbitration agreements in place covering consumers and workers, the Amendment can impact access to justice and shape how disputes are resolved. While the goals of the Amendment are laudable, the Amendment suffers from several problems, including poor drafting that leads to at least three different interpretations of its scope. These ambiguities particularly arise when a survivor asserts a sexual harassment claim in addition to other types of claims. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether the Amendment applies in a labor setting with a collective bargaining agreement. The Amendment may also be unconstitutional as applied in certain settings involving state courts and state tort claims. Additionally, the Amendment raises deeper questions about the regulation of arbitration and proper role of arbitration in society. This Article clarifies some of the confusion regarding the Amendment by proposing a particular interpretation of the Amendment’s scope: the Amendment should be construed to cover all claims that have a nexus with a sexual assault or sexual harassment claim. The justifications for the Amendment also suggest that future reforms of arbitration law should address discrimination and other forms of harassment