Indeed, in Castro, even filling in the blanks proved a serious challenge:Īfter identifying the parties, the verified complaint became somewhat confusing, possibly due to language borrowed from complaints filed in other cases. A lot of pattern litigation (not all, of course), particularly in asbestos, is commenced by lawyers who don’t expect to do much more than fill in the blanks on some complaint form in their word processor and then seek settlements. (citation omitted).Īssuming, of course, that diversity of citizenship exists (snap removal cannot create diversity where it does not exist), Castro demonstrates why snap removal is particularly suited to pattern litigation mass torts. But, “updating statutes and regulations in the face of categorically new technological advances is for Congress and not for the judiciary.” Id. ![]() Whatever Congress intended with Section 1441(b)(2), modern technology appears to have created a gap between what was intended and what is now technically possible under the literal language of the statute. In the era of 24-hour electronic filing, the Court is vaguely aware of third-party services that exist to monitor docket activity nationwide on a daily basis for new cases involving specified defendants. Plaintiffs’ “policy argument” thus went by the boards. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |