Skip to main content

Noted academics discuss issues of class action lawsuits at Law Review symposium

November 14, 2016

The symposium, held by The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Rule 23 amendment.
The symposium, held by The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Rule 23 amendment.
Penn Law convened a panel with John C. Coffee, Jr., a professor at Columbia Law School, and Penn Law professors Jonah Gelbach and Tobias Wolff to present work on the topic of cross-cutting issues that span across class action lawsuits and their alternatives.

By Emily Offit C’17

On November 12, as part of a two-day symposium on class actions and their alternatives, Penn Law convened a panel with John C. Coffee, Jr., a professor at Columbia Law School, and Jonah Gelbach and Tobias Wolff, both professors at Penn Law. Each panelist presented work on the topic of cross-cutting issues that span across class action lawsuits and their alternatives.

Stephen Burbank, the David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice at Penn Law moderated the panel. Commentators included Robert G. Bone, a professor at University of Texas School of Law, and Linda J. Silberman, a professor and the Co-Director of the Center for Transactional Litigation, Arbitration, and Commercial Law at New York University School of Law.

The symposium, held by The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Rule 23 amendment. This amendment provided the ability to address harms that affect large groups of people. However, it is still unclear how best to use this litigation to protect injured parties while preserving fairness to defendants.

Coffee kicked off the panel discussing his work on the globalization of entrepreneurial litigation. He delved into the European system of class action lawsuits. While Europe’s system does allow for group proceedings, their system is slightly different than that of the United States. Coffee also discussed the impact and relevance of several European cases, including the Fortis and the more recent Volkswagen litigation.

Gelbach spoke of his work on the recent class action Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. He highlighted three key actors that played a role in the case, including substantive law, Rule 23, and federal rules of evidence, with evidence itself as functionally connected to all three of these sources.

“With the possibility that Tyson heralds a more pragmatic approach in Supreme Court assessments of class certification, Tyson opens up space for trial courts to do what they are supposed to do in class actions” Gelbach concluded.

Finally, Wolff discussed his paper on choice-of-law in federal courts, looking specifically at the important case of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, in which the Supreme Court held that federal courts did not have the power to make federal common law when hearing state law claims under diversity jurisdiction. He also discussed this ruling in terms of the Klaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company, which included a conflict between state laws.

“Federal courts remain bound by the statements of state statutes in court as to the scope question,” Wolf said. “But that insofar as federal courts are asked to referee among competing exercising of state authority, that is a question as to which they have the clear authority to develop a distinctive set of federal answers.”

Several other panel events were held throughout the two-day event, including alternatives to class actions, contemporary class action practice, and the future of class actions and their alternatives.

Tweets from this event: