Aggregating Defendants

Greg Reilly

IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

April 26, 2014

41 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1011 (2014)

No procedural topic has garnered more attention in the past fifty years than the class action and aggregation of plaintiffs. Yet, almost nothing has been written about aggregating defendants. This topic is of increasing importance. Recent efforts by patent “trolls” and BitTorrent copyright plaintiffs to aggregate unrelated defendants for similar but independent acts of infringement have provoked strong opposition from defendants, courts, and even Congress. The visceral resistance to defendant aggregation is puzzling. The aggregation of similarly-situated plaintiffs is seen as creating benefits for both plaintiffs and the judicial system. The benefits that justify plaintiff aggregation also seem to exist for defendant aggregation — avoiding duplicative litigation, making feasible negative-value claims/defenses, and allowing the aggregated parties to mimic the non-aggregated party’s inherent ability to spread costs. If so, why is there such resistance to defendant aggregation?

Perhaps, contrary to theoretical predictions, defendant aggregation is against defendants’ self-interest. This may be true in certain types of cases, particularly where the plaintiff’s claims would not be viable individually, but does not apply to other types of cases, particularly where the defendants’ defenses would not be viable individually. These latter cases are explained, if at all, based on cognitive limitations. In any event, defendant self-interest does not justify systemic resistance to defendant aggregation. Likewise, systemic resistance is not warranted because of concerns of weak claims or unsympathetic plaintiffs, the self-interest of individual judges handling aggregated cases, or capture by defendant interests. This Article proposes that to obtain the systemic benefits of defendant aggregation and overcome the obstacles created by defendant and judicial self-interest, cognitive limitations, and capture, defendant aggregation procedures should use non-representative actions, provide centralized neutral control over aggregation, and limit aggregation to common issues. This Article concludes with a modified procedure to implement these principles: inter-district related case coordination.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 56

Keywords: civil procedure, aggregation, patent litigation, copyright litigation

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: August 14, 2013 ; Last revised: November 8, 2015

Suggested Citation

Reilly, Greg, Aggregating Defendants (April 26, 2014). 41 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1011 (2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2310068 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2310068

Contact Information

Greg Reilly (Contact Author)
IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law ( email )
565 W. Adams St.
Chicago, IL 60661-3691
United States

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 931
Downloads: 91
Download Rank: 225,958