You are here
Science tutorials have developed as a tool to assist judges in managing cases that involve complex science and technology. Such tutorials provide an early opportunity for the court to learn and ask questions about relevant science and technology outside the context of motion practice. Courts should consider holding science tutorials in cases that involve recent scientific findings or newer technologies, where scientific assertions are central to claims or defenses, or when scientific or technological information is likely to play a large role in later dispositive motions. This guide provides an overview of practical considerations to help judges plan and conduct science tutorials effectively.
This pocket guide is designed to offer judges an introduction to the law and practice of securities litigation. It provides an overview of the types of legal and practical issues judges may confront in litigation arising under the securities laws, and, where possible, offers suggestions. This guide also identifies the areas of securities law most prone to circuit splits or frequent change, so that judges know where to be particularly vigilant about looking at up-to-date case law and legislation.
In our March 2011 report, we indicated that following the Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim were granted more frequently with leave to amend the complaint. We also noted that the opportunity to amend the complaint may cure the defect and change the findings of the study. The Advisory Committee asked that we follow the events in the study cases, determine the extent to which the respondents submitted amended complaints, and report the outcome of any subsequent motions to dismiss.
This report presents the findings of a Federal Judicial Center study on the filing and resolution of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The study was requested by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. This request was prompted by two recent Supreme Court decisions — Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) — that interpreted Rule 8(a) by stating that a plaintiff must present a "plausible" claim for relief.
This article presents attorney responses to a national random survey of 728 attorneys who represented plaintiffs and defendants in 621 recently closed class action cases. Those cases had been filed in or removed to federal courts, and the article focuses on attorneys' reasons for choosing a state or federal forum. The article also tracks the differences in rulings in state and federal courts on class certification, motions to dismiss, settlement review, and attorney fee awards in a subset of the 621 cases.
Note that this article draws on the same data examined in Attorney Reports on the Impact of Amchem and Ortiz on Choice of a Federal or State Forum in Class Action Litigation (2004).
A post-Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) article on the same data Attorney Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation: What Difference Does it Make? (2006) is also available.