CLC Annual Report

Center for Litigation and Courts at UC Law – SF

2022-2023

CLC ANNUAL REPORT

CLC Founding Director Professor Scott Dodson

MESSAGE FROM THE FACULTY DIRECTOR Scott Dodson

No other academic center in the world has the broad mandate of studying civil litigation and the courts. The Center for Litigation and Courts at UC Law has that mandate.

Founded in spring 2021, CLC has become a leader in bringing academic discussion, knowledge, and guidance to the varied topics of the field of civil litigation. By partnering with key organizations like NITA and the National Judicial College, CLC hosts educational and skill-building events for the bench and bar. CLC hosts and cosponsors an annual academic conference on the cutting-edge topic of complex litigation ethics. CLC researchers produce original scholarship on litigation and courts, testify before governmental bodies, and submit court briefs that further its mission. CLC publishes The Judges’ Book annually and holds moot courts for attorneys appearing before appellate courts around the country. For UC Law students, CLC houses the nationally ranked Trial Team and is the focal point for the Concentration in Civil Litigation and ADR. CLC is playing its part to expand the knowledge of civil litigation and courts and to disseminate that knowledge in ways that help develop and improve civil justice. I hope you will join me in supporting that effort.

CLC Mission Statement The nonpartisan Center for Litigation and Courts was established in 2021 with the following mission: to expand the knowledge of civil litigation, alternative dispute resolution, and the courts; to disseminate that knowledge to the bench, bar, legal academy, and public; and to supply resources and guidance to members of the UC Law community interested in civil litigation.

STAFF & AFFILIATES

Professor Scott Dodson Founding Director

Leah Spero Senior Appellate Practice Fellow

Joshua P. Davis The Hon. Vaughn Walker (ret.)

Research Professor Visiting Scholar of Law

ADVISORY BOARD

The Hon. Edward J. Davila U.S. District Judge

Richard S. Flier ADR Services, Inc.

Kelly Matayoshi Farella Braun + Martell LLP

Dena Sharp Girard Sharp LLP

Claude Stern Formerly of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

Elise Traynum ACLU of Northern California

FEATURED RESEARCH for 2022-2023

“Why Do In-State Plaintiffs Invoke Diversity Jurisdiction?”

Law & Social Inquiry (2023)

The traditional rationale of federal diversity jurisdiction is to protect out-of-state parties from state-court bias favoring an in-state adversary. Yet a strikingly high percentage—more than 50%—of original domestic-diversity cases are filed by instate plaintiffs. Why? Drawing on docket data and an original dataset based on responses to a survey sent to more than 12,000 attorneys who represented in-state plaintiffs in domestic-diversity cases, this study find that in-state plaintiffs who invoke federal diversity jurisdiction can be grouped into roughly three categories: (1) tort cases, filed by individual plaintiffs against corporate defendants, eligible for consolidation with an existing MDL; (2) in-state corporate plaintiffs represented by attorneys who tend to represent defendants in federal court who invoke diversity jurisdiction primarily based on perceptions of advantages of federal court; and (3) instate plaintiffs represented by attorneys who tend to represent plaintiffs in state court who invoke diversity jurisdiction to preempt the defendant’s likely removal of the case. These findings offer grounds for reforming the diversity-jurisdiction statute in more tailored and nuanced ways than have previously been proposed.

“The Making of the Supreme Court Rules” George Washington Law Review (2022)

The U.S. Supreme Court is under intense pressure to improve its transparency. One area in which transparency is sorely needed is in the Court’s rulemaking process for its own rules. The Supreme Court Rules are made and amended in a black box—the Court promulgates and amends them with neither oversight nor transparency. This article, relying on interviews with current and former government officials, opens that black box to reveal the history of the rulemaking process for the Supreme Court Rules from the 1980s to the present. That process, as contrasted with the open and participatory rulemaking process for the lower-court rules, is unique in its secretive and insular nature. The article analyzes the justifications of such an approach and finds none persuasive. The article then turns to modest proposals for reform that will benefit the rulemaking process at marginal cost to the Court.

PRODUCTS AND PROGRAMS

The Judges’ Book This annual compilation of UC Law faculty scholarship of particular interest to judges is published and mailed, free of charge, to all federal judges nationwide and all California state judges. The sixth edition was published in 2022.

California Appellate Advocacy Project CAAP offers oral-argument prep to appellate practitioners appearing before the California Supreme Court and other appellate courts across the nation. CAAP recently held its 13th moot.

“The moot court was absolutely invaluable in helping me prepare for argument. One of the questions from the justices duplicated, almost word-for-word, one of the questions posed during the moot. The moot court experience helped jumpstart my thought processes and helped me switch from preparation mode to argument mode.”

– Daniel Barer, Partner at Pollak, Vida & Barer in Los Angeles, CA

ANNUAL COMPLEX LITIGATION

ETHICS CONFERENCE This annual conference, hosted on the UC Law campus and cosponsored by Huntington National Bank, is the only recurring event addressing complex litigation ethics. It brings together luminaries in the field—judges, scholars, lawyers, and others—to discuss cutting-edge topics of critical importance to civil justice. The fall 2022 conference, which offered a total of 8 hours of CLE, included the following panels: Panel 1: Adapting Ethics to Complex Litigation Panel 2: Ethics in Funding Complex Litigation Panel 3: DEI in Complex Litigation Panel 4: Communications with Absent Class Members Panel 5: Third Party Filers: Helpful or Hurtful?

The conference organizers also presented the inaugural Ethics Awards to Judge William Fletcher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Elizabeth Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, and Fred Alvarez, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP. The conference is organized by CLC Research Professor Joshua P. Davis, with advice and support from the conference advisory board: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, N.D. Cal. Professor Myriam Gilles, Cardozo Law School Professor Brad Wendel, Cornell Law School Sarah Ray, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP Eric Cramer, Chairman, Berger Montague PC Nina Gliozzo, Associate, Girard Sharp LLP

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

UC Law Trial Team CLC houses UC Law’s nationally recognized Trial Team, which competes against other law schools around the country in various mock-trial competitions sponsored by law schools, bar associations, and legal organizations. In 2023, the trial team won its regional division and was one of only 30 teams invited to compete in the National Trial Competition. The team was composed of student advocates Chitra Kulkarni (class of 2024) and Andrew MacDonald (class of 2023) and was coached by Emily Stover (class of 2017) and Cliff Smoot (class of 2015).

Special thanks to longtime Trial Team director Professor Geoff Hansen.

“I am so proud of our students, whose performance at nationals represents the best of UC Law. Their extraordinary accomplishment suggests that, for our grads with an interest in litigation, the sky’s the limit.”

- Scott Dodson, CLC Director

Special Thanks To: Chancellor and Dean David Faigman Provost and Academic Dean Morris Ratner CLC Staff and Affiliates CLC Advisory Board Huntington National Bank

Donate to CLC

Connect with CLC! Website: sites.uclawsf.edu/clc Email: clc@uchastings.edu Twitter: @LitCenter