Document Type

Working Paper

Publication Date

9-14-2010

SSRN Discipline

Legal Scholarship Network; PSN Subject Matter eJournals; Social Insurance Research Network; Litigation, Procedure & Dispute Resolution eJournals; Law & Society eJournals; Law & Society: Public Law eJournals; LSN Subject Matter eJournals; Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy eJournals; Political Institutions eJournals; Political Science Network

Abstract

The intersection of federalism and classaction litigation has been an area of significant controversy in recent years With the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act placing more highstakes class actions into federal court an especially crucial question is the extent to which the Erie doctrine and the Rules Enabling Act REA require federal courts to follow state classaction law The Supreme Court's decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v Allstate Insurance Co begins to confront this issue but many unanswered questions remain Under several lines of argument that were neither made nor considered in Shady Grove the Erie doctrine and the REA would require federal courts to apply state classaction law whether state law is more tolerant or less tolerant of class actions than the prevailing federal approach In particular Shady Grove leaves open the possibility that state classaction law may influence a federal court's application of Rule 23's certification requirements as well as other matters available remedies statutes of limitations and the preclusive effect of the ultimate judgment that can arise during the course of a putative class action This article identifies these important unresolved issues and then suggests a more precise doctrinal framework for addressing them and ErieREA issues more generally

Download

Share

COinS