Federal Judicial Center - "Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim After Iqbal Report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules" - (March 2011) (original) (raw)
Executive Summary This report presents the findings of a Federal Judicial Center study on the filing and resolution of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The study was requested by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The study compared motion activity in 23 federal district courts in 2006 and 2010 and included an assessment of the outcome of motions in orders that do not appear in the computerized legal reference systems such as Westlaw. Statistical models were used to control for such factors as differences in levels of motion activity in individual federal district courts and types of cases. After excluding cases filed by prisoners and pro se parties, and after controlling for differences in motion activity across federal district courts and across types of cases and for the presence of an amended complaint, we found the following: • There was a general increase from 2006 to 2010 in the rate of filing of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim (see infra section III.A). • In general, there was no increase in the rate of grants of motions to dismiss without leave to amend. There was, in particular, no increase in the rate of grants of motions to dismiss without leave to amend in civil rights cases and employment discrimination cases (see infra section III.B.1). • Only in cases challenging mortgage loans on both federal and state law grounds did we find an increase in the rate of grants of motions to dismiss without leave to amend. Many of these cases were removed from state to federal court. This category of cases tripled in number during the relevant period in response to events in the housing market (see infra section III.B.1). There is no reason to believe that the rate of dismissals without leave to amend would have been lower in 2006 had such cases existed then. • There was no increase from 2006 to 2010 in the rate at which a grant of a motion to dismiss terminated the case (see infra section III.B.1).
Sign up to get access to over 50M papers
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
Related papers
Dismissals and the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration System
Federal Law Review, 1988
154 Federal Law Review [VOLUME 18 the statutory definition. This conclusion was based on the decision in the Hamilton Knight2 case which related to a demand for pensions. There was also the suggestion in the judgment of Gibbs J in the Portus case that a demand for ...
Case Notes: Jurisdictional Quandaries Triggered by a New Variant for Dismissal
South African Mercantile Law Journal
While the imperative tone of the Constitutional Court (CC) in Steenkamp v Edcon Ltd (2016) 37 ILJ 564 (CC) (Steenkamp I) leaves no doubt that the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) does not contemplate invalid dismissals or an order declaring a dismissal invalid, or of no force or effect, the extent of the Labour Court’s (LC) jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief declaring dismissals unlawful and invalid because they constitute encroachment of the applicants’ fundamental rights is a vexed question. In Steenkamp I it was decided that when an applicant alleges that a dismissal is unlawful (as opposed to unfair), there is no remedy under the LRA. What this means is that the LC lacks jurisdiction to make any determination of unlawfulness. A multi-layered and complex jurisdictional problem arose in Chubisi v SABC (SOC) Ltd (2021) 42 ILJ 395 (LC) (Chubisi) where the question was whether Ms Chubisi could obtain a declaratory order that the termination of her contract of employment wa...
Trends in Summary Judgment Practice: 1975-2000
judgment in federal courts has been widely regarded as an initially underused procedural device that was revitalized by the 1986 Supreme Court trilogy of Celotex, Anderson, and Matsushita. Some commentators believe summary judgment activity has recently expanded to the point that it threatens the right to trial. We examined summary judgment practice in six federal district courts during six time periods over twenty-five years (1975-2000), extracting information on summary judgment practice from 15,000 docket sheets in random samples of terminated cases. We found that the likelihood of a case containing one or more motions for summary judgment increased before the Supreme Court trilogy, from approximately 12% in 1975 to 17% in 1986, and has remained fairly steady at approximately 19% since that time. Although the number of summary judgment motions has increased over this twenty-five year period, this increase reflects, at least in part, an increase in filings of civil rights cases that have always experienced a high rate of summary judgment motions. Surprisingly, no statistically significant changes over time were found in the outcome of defendants' or plaintiffs' summary judgment motions, after controlling for differences across courts and types of cases. These findings call into question the interpretation that the trilogy led to expansive increases in summary judgment. Our analysis suggests, instead, that changes in federal civil rules and case management practices before the trilogy may have been more important in bringing about changes in summary judgment practice.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.