Aggregationists at the Barricades: Assessing the Impact of The Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation

Forthcoming, American Law Institute -- A Centennial History (Eds. Andrew S. Gold and Robert W. Gordon)(Oxford University Press 2023).

U of Texas Law, Legal Studies Research Paper

46 Pages Posted: 7 Sep 2022

Date Written: September 1, 2022

Abstract

In 2004 the American Law Institute began work on THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF AGGREGATE LITIGATION, finally published in 2010. The Principles was addressed to legislatures, administrative agencies, attorneys, private actors, and courts concerning multiparty, multiforum litigation. A purpose of the Principles was to suggest best practices for these institutions and actors.

This essay describes the Principles in the historical context when complex litigation began to dominate federal dockets in the 1980s. It discusses the emergence of a cohort of aggregationists dedicated to liberalizing federal procedure to support, enhance, and encourage the speedy and efficient resolution of complex litigation. The Principles built upon a longstanding ALI concern with the burgeoning and rapidly changing judicial crisis relating to the resolution of complex litigation. The Principles suggested substantial changes in existing class action jurisprudence and judicial case management, recommending more robust embrace of liberalized aggregative procedures. Initially, the Reporters advocated for a root-and-branch revision but, as the essay documents, the final Principles reflected more modest compromises. The essay thoroughly canvasses the proposed recommendations and the subsequent embrace of the proposals.

This essay concludes that while the Principles project has left its mark, courts and legislative bodies still have not addressed or resolved many issues the Principles identified. Since publication most judges seem comfortable with prevailing jurisprudence and not especially interested in rewriting procedural doctrine governing complex litigation. The Principles has not resulted in a root-and-branch revision of aggregate procedure. Rather, reception of the Principles suggests that a more incremental approach to legal reform has prevailed, and the efforts of the avid aggregationists must await another day.

Apart from questions whether the Principles fulfilled its stated purpose, this essay explores fundamental questions about the Institute’s role in moving the law in certain directions based on the goals of committed actors. On one interpretation, the Principles represented a well-intended effort to provide judges with guidance “where there was little established law.” On another, perhaps more problematic view, the Principles represented the desires of actors who, frustrated by judicial resistance to aggregate litigation, used ALI auspices to change the law in a desired direction. These questions go to the heart of the ALI’s role in guiding attorneys, judges, and rulemaking bodies in furtherance of civil justice. Whether the liberalization of aggregate procedure is a desirable goal is a normative question that the ALI Principles project assumed but did not address.

Keywords: Aggregate litigation, class action litigation, Rule 23, MDL litigation, multidistrict litigation, predominance, superiority, cy pres, limited issue class, Amchem, Ortiz, Stephenson, mass tort litigation

Suggested Citation

Mullenix, Linda S., Aggregationists at the Barricades: Assessing the Impact of The Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation (September 1, 2022). Forthcoming, American Law Institute -- A Centennial History (Eds. Andrew S. Gold and Robert W. Gordon)(Oxford University Press 2023)., U of Texas Law, Legal Studies Research Paper , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4206520 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4206520

Linda S. Mullenix (Contact Author)

University of Texas School of Law ( email )

727 East Dean Keeton Street
Austin, TX 78705
United States
512-232-1375 (Phone)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
101
Abstract Views
827
Rank
524,075
PlumX Metrics